By Erin Sherbert
By Erin Sherbert
By Leif Haven
By Erin Sherbert
By Chris Roberts
By Kate Conger
By Brian Rinker
By Rachel Swan
Forty years after outfitting its trains with cushioned seats and carpeting, BART has announced it will finally begin taking steps against those who habitually befoul them. The transit agency will this month start rolling out a new policy in which riders repeatedly cited for behaviors such as soiling trains can be banished from the system for periods ranging from one month to one year.
Most transit agencies had the good sense not to install interior decor befitting a 1970s rumpus room; BART was the outlier there. But, it turns out, BART is also an outlier in formally blackballing those who have been arrested or cited for crimes — but not yet found guilty. "I can see why a transit agency would like to do this," says Tom Rubin, a former Alameda-Contra Costa Transit CFO. "I can see why this is a desirable thing." It turns out, however, that it's also a hard thing to put in motion; Rubin has consulted for "hundreds" of transit agencies, but couldn't think of another with a similar policy. BART required state-level legislation to take this step — and has spent more than a year slowly enacting the policy.
There is one transit agency, however, that likely wouldn't face the legal and logistical headaches of other agencies. An agency that, distinctively, is a semi-autonomous department of a city. An agency that rarely ventures out of one county. An agency with a richly deserved reputation for slowly transporting people and their effluvia around town. That agency, of course, is Muni.
San Francisco's transit agency does not have a policy of barring passengers cited or arrested, repeatedly, for victimizing others or damaging city property. And not only does it not know what steps it would need to take to enact such a policy, it doesn't want to know. "At this time we are not considering a policy to ban people from the system," says Muni spokesman Paul Rose. And if it were? "The first course of action would be to see what our next steps could be. Because this is a policy we haven't pursued, that hasn't been done yet."
To paraphrase John Lennon, imagine someone urinating on intercity rail — it's easy if you try. What's not easy, however, is the convoluted legal process that would follow in attempting to keep this person off future trains. As a state transit district, BART and other such systems only have the authorities granted them within their founding legislation — and banning passengers is not one of them. What's more, the penalties for public urination (or other offenses) may differ in the many cities and counties trains whiz through. Authorities would be required to determine exactly where the train was located when the incident took place.
Assembly Bill 716 cleaned up that mess. Originally passed in 2011, it allowed BART to enjoy a privilege earlier legislation granted to Sacramento- and Fresno-area transit agencies: assembling a no-ride list. Following multiple citations — or perhaps just one for serious crimes — and a hearing, offending riders are informed they are subject to charges of misdemeanor trespassing if discovered on agency property for the duration of their banishment. In BART's case, anyone cited three times in a 90-day period for urinating or defecating on the trains or in the stations would be subject to excommunication.
BART's weekday ridership hovers at around 367,000, so it's likely that a serial train-defacer could slip aboard even after being banished. If caught misbehaving, however, he or she would face additional charges. "We now have a tool to ratchet up the penalties," says Mark Lonergan, the COO of the Sacramento Regional Transit District. "Our goal isn't to arrest you, it's to keep you from misbehaving. If this stops you from acting out, that accomplishes our goal."
That's an end no one could argue with. But it's an approach Muni — and AC Transit and Caltrain — won't take.
Prior to 2002, it was illegal for a San Franciscan to leave his dog's excrement on the street but legal for him to leave his own. The bizarre legislative triumvirate of Supervisors Tony Hall, Chris Daly, and Gavin Newsom solved this pressing iniquity. Per Ordinance No. 160-02, "It shall be unlawful for any person to deposit or cause to be deposited any human urine or feces upon any public or private highway or road ... or upon any public property other than property designated or set aside for that purpose."
Unlike BART, Muni is not narrowly bound by its founding legislation; it does not venture between multiple jurisdictions, and it all but certainly does not require state legislation to begin barring accused train-defoulers — or accused iPhone thieves or vandals — from the system. The City Attorney's office declined to speak with SF Weekly on this matter, citing attorney-client privilege. Yet it would seem Muni is in a uniquely unhindered position to enact a ban on those who habitually deposit or cause to be deposited improper materials on public property such as buses or trains. "As long as [the accused] gets a proper hearing and can present evidence and examine evidence, I don't see a problem," says Golden Gate University law professor Myron Moskovitz, a constitutional scholar. He adds that he's "surprised" BART beat Muni to the punch of barring those who habitually foul the vehicles. "That problem is worse on Muni than on BART."
I just love how people love to complain about 'public urination and defecation" when there are no public restrooms, and it's not just "the homeless" who have no options but to let it fly. You can thank DiFi for beginning the shutdowns of all public restrooms and public showers, and producing "bumproof" bus shelters. She couldn't get rid of all the poor and all the blue collar jobs fast enough, and her policies have been amplified by later mayors. Ya know, if you don't like people pissing where they shouldn't, open up some restrooms. Tired of seeing people on the streets? Well, give 'em someplace to go, and something to do. What services exist are totally inadequate for what is needed. Causality, people, it does tend to rip you a new one if you ignore it.
@elizabethfrantes Nice point, but three times in 90 days is pushing it.