San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom last week introduced an ordinance that would restrict people from sitting or lying on the city's public sidewalks between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m.

Progressives are criticizing the proposal, co-sponsored and introduced by Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, and say it's unnecessary. Others, including residents and merchants in the Haight who first suggested the idea, say it's needed to keep squatters from blocking doorways and intimidating people.

The proposed ordinance was introduced Tuesday, March 2.

Much of the concern around the issue has focused on the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood, where people appearing to be homeless can usually be found on the sidewalks.

The proposal ties people sitting or lying on sidewalks to "a cycle of decline as residents and tourists go elsewhere to meet, shop, and dine, and residents become intimidated from using the public sidewalks in their own neighborhoods."

But Joey Cain, board president of the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council, said at a March 1 press conference on the steps of City Hall that the ordinance is being used "to manufacture a climate of fear."

"Our neighborhoods are being used cynically ... to manufacture a climate of fear. There are some problems, but the laws already exist to deal with lawbreakers," said Cain, who's also a longtime gay activist and former SF LGBT Pride Committee board president.

The Reverend Lea Brown, senior pastor of Metropolitan Community Church-San Francisco, said in a call to the Bay Area Reporter that she opposes the proposed law.

"It's supposedly about, 'We don't want people to sit or lie on the sidewalk,' but to me what it's really about is 'We don't want certain people to sit or lie on the sidewalk,'" said Brown.

"I think it's a law targeting a certain group of people, and any time a law targets a certain group, it's never a good thing. As queer people, we have experience with laws that have been passed that are then used to target us," she said.

Tommi Avicolli Mecca, a queer activist who works for the Housing Rights Committee, predicted the proposed law would be used to harass homeless LGBT youth and others, and said the priority should be providing services and housing.

"Sit/lie laws have a long history of homophobia," Avicolli Mecca said at the press conference.

Rafael Mandelman, a local attorney running for supervisor in District 8, is opposed to the sit/lie law. He said he doesn't think it will work anymore than an aggressive panhandling measure passed by voters has stopped such behavior from happening.

"The voters have a right to be angry but they deserve real solutions, such as more housing for the homeless," said Mandelman.

According to a position paper from the Coalition on Homelessness, in the 1970s, San Francisco police began using sit/lie rules of the time "as a regular tool for the targeting of LGBT people" in the neighborhood now known as the Castro.

Opponents have started a Facebook group called San Francisco Stands Against Sit/Lie.

Not everyone dislikes the proposal, though. During a District 8 candidate forum last month, Deputy City Attorney Scott Wiener said he supported the sit/lie measure.

Arthur Evans, a gay man who said he's lived at the corner of Haight and Ashbury streets for 35 years, said in a phone interview that he supports the ordinance.

Evans indicated that he's often been called "faggot" by people sitting on the sidewalk and said he has seen increased hostility.

He said the problem doesn't apply to everyone, but "these are not the flower children. Although they have long hair, their behavior is very violent and their values are very repressive."

Specifically, the proposal states current laws barring "the intentional, willful or malicious obstruction of pedestrians" don't adequately address the "safety hazards, disruption and deterrence" to pedestrians caused by sidewalk sitters.

The proposed ordinance would only apply to sidewalks, not plazas, or public parks or benches. Exceptions would include people in wheelchairs and festivalgoers.

The proposal calls for police to first issue a warning to any violator. After that, among other punishments, a first offense could result in a fine of $50 to $100. Subsequent offenses could result in penalties including fines of $300 to $500, or jail time.

Matthew S. Bajko contributed to this report.