Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:32, 10 February 2014

The San Francisco Street Artists Program, which started in June 1972, is a program that enables local independent artists to purchase a municipal license that allows them to sell arts and crafts of their own creation in designated selling spaces throughout San Francisco. The program did not come easily, but was the result of a hard fought political battle by street-art advocates who were not only resourceful enough to strategically organize, but were so committed that they would be arrested many times in drawing the essential media attention necessary for their vision to be realized into law.

The licensed artists of the program are only allowed to sell items that they have predominately created, and not commercially-manufactured goods – thus striking an important compromise with local retail establishments. Some four decades later and with the participation of hundreds of artists, the San Francisco Street Artists Program continues to create inexpensive marketing opportunities for independent artists and craftspeople. The program is entirely funded by the artists' license fees, and generates $4 million annually to the city's economic life.

However time would reveal the Street Artists Program to be more than a municipal arts program – it would also serve a training ground for grassroots political activism, and also open a ongoing political dialogue about what activities should, and should not be, allowed in public areas. The arts program would also as serve as a template for other cities wanting to create their own street artists programs, and whose officials would contact the Street Artists Program's office in requesting advice and documentation about the procedures which govern the San Francisco Street Artists Program.

History

The actual roots of the San Francisco Street Artists Program begin well before the defining legislation of 1972. During the 1960s, California was experiencing many outdoor art fairs which grew a culture of independent artists and craftspersons who would support themselves with the sale of their artwork. And at the same time in the liberal Haight Ashbury neighborhood, there was an effort to sell crafts on Haight Street's sidewalks. Later in 1971 two gay artists, Warren Garrick Nettles and Frank Whyte along with one heterosexual artist, William (Bill) J. Clark, would be instrumental in petitioning San Francisco's government for an arts program that enabled artists to legally sell on the city's sidewalks. Prior to the legislation of 1972, artists and street performers would illegally set up in public areas but were frequently harassed and arrested by the police. The 700 block of Beach Street next to Victoria Park near Fishermans Wharf was just such an area where twenty or so artists would sell with the help of look-outs – people who would watch for the police and then warn the artists, so they could temporarily move and avoid arrest. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the United States was engulfed in the controversial Vietnam War which resulted in widespread political activism and protests at cities and universities across the county. That era's intense political activism, nearby as the University of California, Berkeley, is seen as a cultural catalyst for the grassroots political energy of the San Francisco street-art advocates who would create the first street artists programs in America.

1971

After the arrest of Bill Clark on February 5, 1971 on the 700 block of Beach Street, the San Francisco Street Artist Guild was formed by Bill Clark, Warren Garrick Nettle and Frank Whyte. Warren Garrick Nettles and Bill Clark would emerge as politically articulate spokespeople for the SF Street Artist Guild and their vision would eventually be realized as the San Francisco Street Artists Program. Frank Whyte was already very ill by this time and he took over the job of writing hundreds of letters to as many San Francisco and California politicians as he could to inform them about the arrests that were happening and he asked them to send letters of support for the creation of a Street Artist Program to the Board of Supervisors. He succeeded in getting many politicians to do so including then Senator George Moscone and Assemblyman Willie Brown. After being arrested, Bill Clark was represented by Public Defender, Peter Keane, whose Law Firm, Keane and Kantor, was hired by the SF Street Artist Guild. Peter Keane and Bob Kantor began to develop a strategy to challenge the Constitutionality of the City's Peddler laws so that art and crafts could be legally sold on the city's sidewalks.

When artists and craftspeople were arrested for illegally selling their work on San Francisco's sidewalks, they were charged with peddling without a permit (Municipal Police Code Section 869). In order for anyone to peddle anything legally on the public sidewalk the SF municipal law required them to first obtain a Police Peddler Permit from the SF Police Department and then a General Peddler License from the SF Tax Collector. However, at that time the SF Police Department refused even to issue applications for a Police Peddler Permit and told people not to bother applying because the SF Police Department would deny them based on letters of objection from merchant associations which were on file with the SF Police Department. Apparently only two people had been granted peddlers permits since 1969. Keane, Kantor, and the SF Street Artist Guild realized that the City had placed itself in a difficult position by arbitrarily denying a Police Peddler Permit to any artist and craftsperson who applied for one and were prepared to challenge the constitutionality of MPC Section 869.

In April 1971, several members of the SF Street Artist Guild held a protest at city hall while carrying a coffin which symbolized the death of their incomes as a result of frequent police arrests and they also held a protest at Mayor Joseph Alioto's office. The protests gained news coverage and Alioto responded by saying that he would talk to the police chief about a solution for the permits, and would then schedule talks with the artists' organizers. During those later dialogs with Mayor Alioto, Bill Clark and Warren Garrick Nettles suggested that they should consider a separate licensing system just for artists and craftspeople who sell their own creations, and that the City needs to provide designated selling areas on the public sidewalks for those licensed artists. Mayor Alioto was not resistant to the proposal, the talks went well, and Clark and Nettles left the meetings feeling that there would be a moratorium on the arrests.

Later in May when the talks began to stall, Clark and Nettles realized that no real progress was being made by the mayor with the police chief. The SF Street Artist Guild then acquired a temporary state park permit which allowed them to sell in Victoria Park near Fisherman's Wharf. The Guild was able to get a permit from the State Park that allowed artists and craftspeople to sell their original handmade art or crafts in Victoria Park for several consecutive weekends. However, after only two weekends the State Park revoked the Guild's permit because of objections from merchants in Ghirardelli Square and the Fisherman's Wharf Merchants Association.

After the Guild's permit was revoked, the artists and craftspeople who were selling in Victoria Park started selling again on the 700 block of Beach Street. The police began making arrests again. The Guild asked Mayor Alioto for a moratorium on arrests. The Mayor agreed to allow artists and craftspeople to sell on the 700 block of Beach Street on Sundays. When the merchant associations found out what the Mayor did they threatened to file a lawsuit against Mayor Alioto for exceeding his legal authority so the Mayor withdrew his moratorium on arrests. When the police began arresting artists and craftspeople again, the Guild filed a lawsuit against the City asserting that MPC Section 869 was unconstitutional. The case was heard in Superior Court by Judge Axelrod who declared MPC Section 869 unconstitutional. He ruled that MPC Section 869 was unconstitutional because the law sets no clear standards for licensing and makes no provision for fair hearings on permit applications. and because the city had given "absolute and unguided discretion to the license granting authority which consistently and systematically denies permits to artists and musicians." The Street Artists Guild also contended that such works – when sold on public sidewalks – are expressions of art protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In spite of Judge Axelrod's ruling, the police continued to arrest artists and craftspeople who peddled their wares on the public sidewalk. The Guild then hired the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and attorney Robert Kantor to file for a temporary restraining order preventing the police from making further arrests of artists and craftspeople. As a result of Judge Axlerod's ruling, the Guild was able to get a Temporary Restraining Order from Judge Ira Brown preventing the police from enforcing MPC Section 869. When the Guild filed for a permanent injunction Judge Perry ruled that MPC Section 869 was constitutional and he dissolved the TRO. After Judge Perry declared MPC Section 869 constitutional the Guild filed an appeal of his decision with the State Court of Appeals.U.S. Constitution. Before the TRO was dissolved by Judge Perry, word quickly spread of the new legal privilege – that artists and craftspeople could sell anywhere without being arrested – and suddenly hundreds of new artists and opportunists came to the sidewalks of crowded Union Square to sell their products during the busy Christmas season.

This flood of new artists along with questionable opportunists (even salespeople from Macy's pretended to be street artists) – who would sell with no regulations or enforcement – created an environment of chaos which would occasionally result in violence among the sellers as they argued about the selection of selling spaces. The disorder and violence of that December would foreshadow a continuing and grave liability for this and any street artists program:without regulation and an enforcement strategy. Any street artists program could easily be infiltrated by opportunists who would make money their sole priority, drastically lower the quality of products, sell commercially-manufactured items, and occasionally resort to intimidation or violence during selling space selection.

Since there were less than ten days until the end of the Christmas season, Mayor Alioto decided not to allow any more arrests and to have the police only issue warnings. Despite the lack of a proposed arts program, the arrests and legal changes of 1971 had attracted enough media attention that a member of the San Francisco Arts Commission, Ray Taliaferro, expressed his desire that the Arts Commission should support legislation that licenses and regulates artists and musicians. In December 1971 Taliaferro declared to the media, "I hate to see the street artists and musicians run out of the city. This is a significant artistic revolution we see going on. The city should do what it can to encourage these people."

1972

In 1972 during discussions with the Police Department, the Guild was told that the Police Department would continue to refuse to issue Police Peddler Permits to any artist or craftsperson because the police could not tell whether stolen goods would be sold. The Guild then asked the Police Department if the Guild came up with a program to certify that the artist or craftsperson was selling only their own art or craft items then would the Police Department issue those people a Police Peddler Permit? The Police Department said if the Guild could do that then they would issue those people a Police Peddler Permit. As a result, the Guild came up with the original version of the street artist certification process and then the Guild's attorney, Robert Kantor drafted the original legislation creating the certification process which was introduced as an ordinance to the Board of Supervisors by two city supervisors, Terry Francois and Robert Mendelson. The ordinance would create a process for artists and craftspeople to acquire certificates which would allow them to sell in locations designated by the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Kopp followed by submitting his own resolution to the Board of Supervisors. Under Kopp's plan, the program would be run by a chief administrator, and it would be the supervisors who would determine who should receive a license and where the artists would be allowed to sell. Supervisor Kopp also suggested that the price of a license should be minimal, being between $48 and $100 a year.

The Board of Supervisors dumped Supervisor Kopp's proposal and finally in March 1972, they approved an ordinance which would designate the San Francisco Arts Commission as the city department that would issue street artist certificates to artists and crafts people to sell their own art or craft items in locations approved by the Board of Supervisors. However, the Board of Supervisors only designated the Embarcadero Plaza, where there was little foot traffic to attract customers. The ordinance also created a 5 member Board of Artist and Craftsman Examiners who would determine whether the person applying for a street artist certificate made the art or craft items they proposed to sell. Mayor Alioto appointed Warren Garrick Nettles and Bill Clark to the Board. They served as Chairman and Secretary and spent hundreds of hours without pay certifying as many street artists as fast as they could until they both resigned after the Board of Supervisors refused to re-designate the Embarcadero Plaza or designate any other sidewalk selling locations Unfortunately for the artists, Not all members of the Arts Commission were receptive to the supervisors designating the Arts Commission to oversee the new Street Artist Program. Commissioner Alec Yuill complained that the new responsibilities would be a "demeaning imposition. A matter of public nuisance, not of artistic judgement." However, some commissioners like Ray Taliaferro and Ruth Asawa, supported the artists and craftspeople and the creation of the Street Artist Program. This would not be the last time that some members of the Arts Commission would attempt to dodge the responsibilities of the Street Artists Program.

The new law was a mixed blessing for the street artists. Though they were pleased that an artist and craftspeople certification program had finally become law, they were frustrated that they would be confined to the Embarcadero Plaza and not be able to continue in their previous selling areas on the 700 block of Beach Street and by Union Square. The Guild continued to schedule meetings before the Board of Supervisors in an attempt to also include the 700 block of Beach Street and downtown selling locations as well. However, every time the artists met stiff resistance from city supervisors Dianne Feinstein, Pete Tamaras, and Terry Francois. Those supervisors refused to approve any selling areas without the merchant associations' approval. By this time the merchants and retail stores had become very organized and inflexible concerning the issue of additional selling areas. Frustrated with the impasse over additional selling areas, many of the newly certified artists and craftspeople risked arrest and went back to selling illegally on the 700 block of Beach Street and on the downtown sidewalks.

Because the Guild was unsuccessful in getting the Board of Supervisors to designate any sidewalk selling locations, they went back to the Police Department and attempted to get Police Peddler Permits. They reminded the Police Department of their promise that if the Guild could create a certification process then they would issue a Police Peddler Permit to anyone who was certified as making the art or craft item they were going to sell since that was proof the applicant would not be selling stolen goods. The Police Department informed the Guild that even though the Guild successfully created the certification process the Police Department still would not issue Police Peddler Permits to anyone even if they obtained a Street Artist Certificate.

1973

During 1972 and 1973 the Street Artists Guild made nine unsuccessful attempts to get the Board of Supervisors to designate viable sidewalk selling spaces. After the ninth attempt failed which was made on behalf of the Guild by Supervisor John Barbagelata, and after the State Court of Appeals dismissed the Guild's appeal of Judge Perry's ruling that MPC Section 869 was constitutional, Bill Clark decided that the only way for it ever to become legal for artists and craftspeople to sell their art or craft items on the public sidewalk, it would be necessary to put it to a vote of the people and that the only way to do that would be to place an initiative ordinance on the SF Municipal Ballot. He convinced a few other Guild members to join him in gathering signatures on a petition to place an ordinance on the SF Municipal Ballot.

Bill Clark then composed a ballot initiative, and after a small group of street artists and concerned citizens spent 1 1/2 years gathering signatures in order for the that ballot initiative, called Proposition J, to qualify for placement in a SF Municipal Ballot of 1974.

1974

Proposition J approved by the voters in the June elections of 1974. Proposition J mandated the Police Department to issue a Police Peddler Permit and the Tax Collector to issue a General Tax Collector license to any certified street artist residing in San Francisco. The Police Peddler Permit required the certified street artist applying for it to list the time, day and locations where they intended to sell. Instead of issuing a Police Peddler Permit, the Police Department decided to issue a new type of Street Artist Police Permit which allowed anyone who claimed to be a street artist whether or not they were certified by the Arts Commission to sell anywhere on the public sidewalk in the entire city of San Francisco. At that time the Police Department also refused to enforce the existing ordinances regulating the use of the public sidewalk. The result of that caused the problems that occurred on the sidewalks from people selling with Proposition "J" licenses. That decision by the Police Department attracted hundreds of new artists to San Francisco’s sidewalks, and by December fifteen hundred artists would have licenses. That September, just a few months after the ballot initiative was passed, the Downtown Merchants Association began to complain that the sidewalks had become flooded with artists, and that their displays created "wall-to-wall street artists" who "seriously hamper pedestrian traffic." Near the start of December the police, in carrying out new Fire Department rules, began to clear many street artists out of the downtown area. Their explanation was that the artists and their displays were blocking fire hydrants and store exits. Though the artists quietly left after police warnings, the organizers of the Guild said they would challenge the new police crackdown in court. That very next day a judge from an appeals court issued a writ of mandate which would temporally block the enforcement of the new Fire Department rules until a hearing by Judge Ira Brown would be held in Superior Court. At the same time the Guild's lawyer set up a meeting with the artists to create a system of self-regulation, in an attempt to keep them out of the courts.

Being without any regulation or enforcement, selling spaces were acquired on a first come, first serve basis. So many artists had decided to sell near the popular downtown areas that some of them had to show up as early as 3am in order to get a good selling space for that day. Eventually some opportunistic sellers began to actually guard their selling spaces overnight, so they could be assured they would have their same favorite selling space on the next day, and the day after that. Frustrated with the congestion of street artists, the Board of Supervisors then approved a new ordinance sponsored by Quentin Kopp, which would sharply reduce the number of selling locations by specifying that an artist's display must be on a sidewalk which was wide enough to allow a ten foot wide pedestrian walk way.Many of the sidewalks were not wide enough to satisfy that width requirement. The new regulations of the Kopp Ordinance were much more demanding than the new Fire Department rules, and the artists were very concerned that there might not be many locations which would satisfy those requirements. However the Kopp Ordinance was likely to be challenged in court by the Guild's lawyers because it conflicted with the provisions of Proposition J. Within San Francisco's government, a voter-approved ballot initiative can not be overturned by the Board of Supervisors, only by another ballot initiative.

1975

In January 1975 the proposed Kopp Ordinance was approved by the Board of Supervisors. For the first half of 1975 the artists grudgingly sold within the Kopp Ordinance's restrictions, but by May many artists chose to protest the new ordinance in violating its provisions by selling in undesignated areas, and choose to be arrested and jailed rather than simply signing a police citation and going home. Later, in June 1975, the supervisors, sensing the vulnerability of the Kopp Ordinance within the courts, decided to write their own street artists ballot initiative called Proposition L, which would repeal Proposition J. Proposition L would set up a stricter system of artist regulations, registration, and inspection. It would also give the supervisors power to regulate selling locations.

George Moscone, at the time a state senator and a candidate for mayor, sided with the street artists in opposing Proposition L by stating, "The attempts to harass them off the streets of our city and to circumvent the will of the people as expressed through their approval of Proposition J are, to me, terribly wasteful." Moscone would later become mayor, and demonstrate a very supportive position for the Street Artists Program – more than any other mayor in San Francisco's history. Later in 1976, the street artists nearly lost all their downtown selling spaces when the Board of Supervisors voted to permanently remove them. However it was Moscone's mayoral veto which stopped the supervisors' proposal, and preserved those selling spaces for decades to come.

The street artists responded to the threat of Proposition L by drafting their own new ballot initiative for the same election, called Proposition M. Their proposal, with its four pages of rules, would further limit the power of the supervisors over selling space selection, but would still contain provisions for fire and safety regulations which would ease sidewalk congestion. In an effort to appease the merchant community, the specifications of Proposition M would reduce the number of artists around Union Square by 75%, have a system to insure that artists make what they sell, and would also limit the number of artists in a given region by using a lottery system to equally share designated selling spaces.

Unfortunately for the street artists, Proposition M would fail at the polls and Proposition L, with its very limited number of selling spaces, would become law. To date, the ordinance defined by Proposition L is still the current law which describes the procedures and privileges of the San Francisco Street Artists Program. After the passage of Proposition L in late November, the artists met with the supervisors to resolve what selling areas would be designated as a result of the new law. That meeting held a positive tone for both sides and granted selling spaces in the Union Square area, on Market Street, at Fisherman’s Wharf, and on Beach Street near Ghirardelli Square. It was also decided that the Public Works Department would mark off and number selling spaces upon the sidewalk, so they could be equally shared among the artists with a daily lottery for selling space selection. And to halt the problem of people guarding selling spaces overnight, street artist Joy McCoskey suggested that no selling space should be occupied between the hours of midnight and 6am in order to "eliminate the occupation of desirable locations by force, by permanently camping-out on them." The downtown merchants seemed content with the new regulations and selling spaces, and felt that they would prevent a repeat of earlier Christmas seasons' sidewalk congestion. In early December 1975 the new ordinance finally went into effect, and 800 street artists bought licenses for a fee of $80 a year.

Criteria for acceptable arts and crafts

The centerpiece of the San Francisco Street Artists Program is the principal that only items which an artist has "predominately created" should be allowed for sale. The program strictly forbids the sale of commercially-manufactured products. The stipulation that commercially-manufactured products should be forbidden was very necessary to reassure the merchant community of retail stores that street artists would not be selling items like cameras in front of their shops.

Before a street artist license is granted, the artist must demonstrate to a screening committee that they did indeed create the product that they will sell. For each craft category there is a set of guidelines which specifies what is, and what is not, permitted for a product to be designated as "predominately created by the artist". During the screening of an artist's work, the artist must not only bring finished items which they have created, but must also bring raw source materials, show partially completed items, and show receipts for the raw materials of their product. The members of the screening committee can also ask that an artist create a piece while before them. And if the screening committee is still not satisfied that the work is of the artist's own creation they can schedule a shop visit, which will cause members of the screening committee to visit the artist’s workshop in verifying the creation process.

Since it is not unusual for financial opportunists who do not created their products – whether they be commercially-manufactured or manufactured by another craftsperson – to attempt to acquire a license from the program, the diligence of the screening committee becomes essential for the program's survival. Having licensed street artists sell items that they did not create can generate many negative effects for a street art program and its reputable artists. If a street artists program develops a reputation that they are allowing commercially-manufactured items, the very organized merchant community of retail stores will urge city government to limit or disable that program. And if scammed or not-created-by-artist products are allowed, they will displace sales from valid artists and have a demoralizing effect on sincere artists who put their heart and sweat into their work.

The following are some of the various craft categories which are permitted: Bead Making, Bead Stringing, Button Craft Jewelry, Candles, Castings, Ceramics, Sculpture, Coin Cutting, Computer-Generated & New Technology Art, Decoupage, Doughcrafting, DVD’s/Cassette Tapes/CD’s, Enameling, Engraving, Fabricated and/or Cast Jewelry, Feather Art, Fiber Art, Found Objects, Glass Art (Blown Glass and Stained Glass), Kite Making, Lapidary, Leathercraft (Including Belts and Soft Clothing), Millinery, Miscellaneous Items, Musical Instruments, Painting and Drawing, Paper and Papier Maché Jewelry, Photography, Pipes, Plants and Dried Flowers, Plastic and Metal Arts, Printmaking, Puppets and Dolls, Sewn Items (Including some Puppets and Dolls), Shell Jewelry, String Sculpture, Terrarium Making, Textile Arts, Toy Making, and Woodcraft.

Designated selling locations

Street artists are allowed to sell only in designated areas which are described within the original ordinance, and are occasionally appended through time by the Board of Supervisors. The designated selling spaces are clustered in a handful of regions about San Francisco: Fisherman's Wharf, the downtown financial district, the Cliff House, and Justin Herman Plaza. Unlike some public arts programs like Seattle’s Pike's Place Market, San Francisco does not assign selling spaces by seniority. In order to fairly share the better selling spots among all licensed artists, daily lotteries and a selling space signup procedure are held every morning to determine an orderly and fair assignment of selling spaces for that day. An orderly and fair space selection procedure is considered essential for such a program, because disorderly or unfair selling space assignments can cause confusion and hostility among the artists.

See also

• Pike's Place Public Market
• Street Artist
• San Francisco Arts Commission
• Handicraft
• Craft
• First Amendment to the United States Constitution

References

1. "San Francisco Street Artists Web Site". San Francisco Arts Commission.
2. ^ "Judge's Boost for S.F. Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (18 May 1971), p. 3
3. ^ "More Peddler Busts", San Francisco Chronicle (20 September 1971), p. 2
4. ^ "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations" (PDF). San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. p. 15.
5. San Francisco Arts Commission Brochure – World Class Art for A World Class City, 2011, p. 6
6. ^ "New Artists' Court Plea", San Francisco Chronicle (12 April 1974), p. 4
7. , "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations, and Ordinance". San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
8. ^ Dooley, Dennis; Usher, Tom. "Concrete Roots – San Francisco Street Artists Memories & Lore". City Miner Magazine.
9. ^ "Street Artists vs. Law – It's Not a Pretty Picture", San Francisco Chronicle (2 April 1971), p. 3
10. ^ "Street Artists Attorney Testifies", San Francisco Chronicle (3 December 1971), p. 9
11. "City Hall Protest By Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (15 April 1971), p. 2
12. "Alioto, Friend Of the Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (16 April 1971), p. 26
13. ^ "Street Artists Meet the Mayor", San Francisco Chronicle (24 April 1971), p. 33
14. "Street Artists To Dramatize Police Beefs", San Francisco Chronicle (8 May 1971), p. 28
15. ^ "S.F. Street Artists Are Arrested", San Francisco Chronicle (17 May 1971), p. 2
16. "ACLU Move For Street Artists"San Francisco Chronicle (29 June 1971), p. 5
17. "License Suit Lost By Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (15 December 1971), p. 7
18. "Fair Weather Peddlers", San Francisco Chronicle (25 October 1971), p. 4
19. "Peddlers' Ordinance Hearing Ends", San Francisco Chronicle (7 December 1971), p. 4
20. "Alioto Offers Space For Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (1 January 1972), p. 3
21. "Street Artist Crackdown Is Canceled", San Francisco Chronicle (23 December 1971), p. 1, 18
22. ^ "Peddlers Face Arrest", San Francisco Chronicle (22 December 1971), p. 3
23. "New Street Artists Law Introduced", San Francisco Chronicle (25 January 1972), p. 3
24. "Kopp Plan For Vendor Licenses", San Francisco Chronicle (1 February 1972), p. 2
25. "New Rules for Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (24 March 1972), p. 4
26. "Agency Discusses The Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (4 April 1972), p. 15
27. "Curb Voted on Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (28 March 1972), p. 6
28. "The Street Artist Dispute Exhumed", San Francisco Chronicle (17 March 1972), p. 3
29. "Tally of S.F. Vote", San Francisco Chronicle (6 June 1974), p. 4
30. ^ "New S.F. Limits On Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (24 December 1974), p. 1
31. "The S.F. Street Artist Mess", San Francisco Chronicle (20 September 1974), p. 4
32. ^ "Crackdown On Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (6 December 1974), p. 1
33. ^ "Street Artists Gain Time", San Francisco Chronicle (7 December 1974), p. 1
34. ^ "Artists Meet Supervisors – It's Friendly", San Francisco Chronicle (22 November 1975), p. 2
35. "Ordinance on Street Artist Rules Stalled", San Francisco Chronicle (31 December 1974), p. 4
36. ^ "Artists Busted as Trumpet Blasts", San Francisco Chronicle (29 May 1975), p. 1
37. "Board Approves The Vendor Law", San Francisco Chronicle (7 January 1975), p. 5
38. "Tougher Law on Vendors Sought", San Francisco Chronicle (10 December 1974), p. 5
39. ^ "News Furor Grows On Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (6 June 1975), p. 2
40. ^ "Moscone Vetoes Move To Limit Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (17 July 1976), p. 4
41. "Artists Rebel at City Hall", San Francisco Chronicle (15 July 1975), p. 4
42. ^ "Artist' Street Sales Petition", San Francisco Chronicle (7 August 1975), p. 3
43. "Supervisors Allow 21 Artist Locations", San Francisco Chronicle (25 November 1975), p. 4
44. "Where Street Artists Can Sell Their Crafts", San Francisco Chronicle (8 December 1975), p. 2
45. "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations" (PDF). San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. p. 23.
46. "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations" (PDF). San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. p. 24.
47. "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations" (PDF). San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. pp. 23–24.
48. "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations" (PDF). San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. pp. 25–31.
49. "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations" (PDF). San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. p. 32.
50. "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations" (PDF). San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. p. 33.
51. "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations" (PDF). San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. p. 39.

External links

• San Francisco Street Artists Program official website
• Photographs of the San Francisco Street Artists Program by Lyn Magnuson and others

• Art in the San Francisco Bay Area
• Visitor attractions in San Francisco, California
• Culture of San Francisco, California
• Fisherman's Wharf, San Francisco
• Government of San Francisco, California
• Art fairs