Misplaced Pages

Street Artists Program of San Francisco

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iam4art (talk | contribs) at 05:09, 28 April 2018 (edited grammar and readability). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:09, 28 April 2018 by Iam4art (talk | contribs) (edited grammar and readability)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The Street Artists Licensing Program of San Francisco is a municipal arts program run by the San Francisco Arts Commission, but legislated through the San Francisco Police Code. The program licenses art vendors, also known as street artists to sell their art and craft items in designated public spaces on the streets of San Francisco, California. This program does not license street performers, buskers, muralists or graffiti artists.

Artists licensed by this program must make their own work. The Arts Commission currently licenses less than 250 street artists. While the intension of the legislation is to have license fees cover the cost of the program, the program has run a deficit since 2012. In 2011, The program generated an estimated $4 million annually for the city's economy.

The impetus for the legislation sprung from a public space class war. Brick and mortar merchants in the 1970s resented the American Craft Movement street culture of alternative lifestyle artists making a living on the streets of San Francisco. Merchants encouraged the police to refuse to license artists through the Peddlers Permit process. Subsequently, artists were harassed and arrested by police for selling their work on the city's sidewalks. In response, the artists strategically organized by forming their own guild, hiring a lawyer, and drafting two ballot initiatives in order to create laws that enabled them to sell their work in public places. Artists also staged strategic public demonstrations and protests in order to bring attention to this issue.

After the passing of the legislation and subsequent ordnance amendments, the program was administered by Howard Lazar of the Arts Commission. For 46 years, the program has licensed artists to sell their work in San Francisco.

History

During the 1960s, California was the site of many outdoor art fairs, which nurtured a culture of independent artists and craftspersons. At this time there was an effort to sell crafts on the sidewalks of the liberal Haight-Ashbury neighborhood of San Francisco. Artists and street performers who illegally set up in public areas were frequently harassed and arrested by the police. In the 700 block of Beach Street adjacent to Victoria Park and near Fisherman's Wharf, between 15 and 25 artists would set up their displays and use lookouts to alert them to the arrival of the police.

1971

Following the February 6, 1971 arrest of several artists in the 700 block of Beach Street in Fisherman's Wharf, a first attempt was made to organize the artists. Under the direction of Warren Garrick (Nettles), a sculptor-painter who would become the group's "chief spokesman", the San Francisco Street Artists Guild was formed. The Guild hired a lawyer, Peter Keane, and began to develop a "political strategy" to manage interactions with the police and with local retail merchants.

Keane and other art activists noted that artists who were arrested were being charged with peddling without a license – although the city's laws contained a provision to issue peddlers' permits. The police department, which oversaw the granting of peddlers’ permits, was unwilling to issue any new permits. It was revealed that only two sellers had been granted peddlers’ permits since 1969. Keane and the activists realized that the city had placed itself in a difficult position by arbitrarily denying access to a provision within the city charter, and prepared to legally exploit that vulnerability.

In April the street artists staged protests at city hall and at Mayor Joseph Alioto's office while carrying a coffin, symbolizing the death of their incomes as a result of frequent police arrests. The protests garnered news coverage, prompting Mayor Alioto to intervene. During dialogues with Mayor Alioto, Garrick suggested that the city should consider a separate licensing system for artists selling their own work, and provide designated selling areas for these artists. Mayor Alioto was not resistant to the proposal, Garrick left the meetings feeling that there would be a moratorium on the arrests.

However, later in May when the talks began to stall, Garrick realized that no real progress was being made on the proposed license. Affiliated artists acquired a temporary state park permit allowing them to sell in Victorian Park adjacent to Beach Street. This was a lucrative selling location due to foot traffic of visitors toGhirardelli Square. At the end of the afternoon, when the permit expired, artists moved their wares from the park to the nearby sidewalks of Beach Street, the police made arrests, and the moratorium was officially over. When the arrested artists were arraigned before Judge Axelrod, he commented that he "thought that the code section was unconstitutional" because the law sets no clear standards for licensing and makes no provision for fair hearings on permit applications. Recognizing the city's legal jeopardy, the Guild's organizers recruited the ACLU and lawyer Robert Kantor to file suit against the city over the arrests, 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 Guild further contended that their art work – when sold on public sidewalks – are expressions of art protected under the First Amendment.

In September, as a result of the ACLU lawsuit, a Superior Court judge issued a restraining order that prohibited the police from arresting artists who sold their work on the sidewalks. However, the police did not halt the ongoing arrests, and in October, Judge Ira Brown issued an injunction and scolded the police for ignoring the restraining order. That injunction meant that any police officer who arrested an artist for selling their wares on the street could be fined or jailed by Judge Brown. Word quickly spread of the new legal privilege and hundreds of new artists, as well as other entrepreneurs and opportunists, came to the sidewalks of crowded Union Square to sell their wares during the busy Christmas season. The flood of new artists and other sellers who could now operate with no regulations or enforcement created an environment of chaos, and fights occasionally broke out over the selection of selling spaces. An Ad Hoc Committee Against Street Vendors, formed by San Francisco businessman Cyril Magnin, branded the sidewalk selling scene as a public safety hazard. The disorder and violence that prevailed in December foreshadowed a continuing and grave liability for this and any other 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.

On December 15 another Superior Court judge overruled the injunction, declaring that the peddlers ordinance was not unconstitutional, and that the police could continue with the arrests. With less than ten days before the end of the Christmas retail season, Mayor Alioto instructed police to stop the arrests and only issue warnings.

The arrests and legal efforts of 1971 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 to license and regulate street artists and street musicians. In December, 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 January 1972 Alioto proposed that artists should be licensed and regulated by some city agency, and he granted the three requested areas where street artists could sell: inside Union Square on weekends, on the 700 block of Beach Street on Sundays, and at Embarcadero Plaza full-time. City Supervisor Quentin Kopp, responding to pressure from downtown merchants, questioned the mayor's authority to initiate such a program. Two other Supervisors, Terry Francois and Robert Mendelson, introduced a resolution that would allow artists to acquire permits, allow the Supervisors to select selling locations, and have the artists' peers judge whether or not their products were of their own creation. It was essential to Alioto and the Supervisors that artists would only be "selling their own work, not commercial products purchased from wholesalers". Alioto and the Supervisors felt that allowing the sale of commercially manufactured items would put the street artists in unfair competition with storeowners, who must also include their rental costs and employee salaries within their prices.

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 the Board of Supervisors would determine who should receive a license and where the artists would be allowed to sell. Kopp also suggested that the price of a license should be minimal, being between $48 and $100 a year.

In March the Board of Supervisors approved a proposal to have street artists receive their licenses through the San Francisco Arts Commission, which would have a committee evaluate if the work was of the artist's own creation and not a commercially manufactured product. Street artist representatives Warren "Nettles" Garrick and William "Bill" Clark were named as chairman and secretary, respectively, of the screening committee. The Board of Supervisors reserved the right to choose selling locations for the artists. Not all members of the Arts Commission were receptive to the proposal. Commissioner Alec Yuill complained that the new responsibilities would be a "demeaning imposition. A matter of public nuisance, not of artistic judgment". Commissioners Taliaferro and Ruth Asawa supported the artists and the creation of a street artists' program.

From the street artists' point of view, the sole area which the Board of Supervisors approved for selling – Embarcadero Plaza – was the least desirable of the three originally proposed selling areas, since there was little foot traffic in the area due to the Embarcadero Freeway. The artists' organizers continued to schedule meetings before the Board of Supervisors in an attempt to include the 700 block of Beach Street and downtown selling locations as well. They met stiff resistance from Supervisors Dianne Feinstein, Pete Tamaras, and Terry Francois, who were reluctant to approve any selling areas without the approval of the downtown merchants association. By this time the merchants and retail stores had become very organized and inflexible concerning the issue of additional selling areas. At an August Board of Supervisors meeting, Garrick and Clark protested the inflexibility of the Supervisors by refusing to leave the podium, and were arrested for disturbing the peace. Frustrated with the impasse over additional selling areas, the two resigned from the screening committee in December and many newly licensed artists risked arrest and went back to selling illegally on the 700 block of Beach Street and on the downtown sidewalks.

1973

In 1972 and 1973 the Street Artists Guild made nine appeals to the Board of Supervisors for viable selling spaces before deciding to submit a ballot initiative directly to the voters. The City and County of San Francisco code allows for laws to be enacted directly by citizens via a ballot initiative process and the approval of a majority of voters during an election. Clark authored a ballot initiative called Proposition J, which would require about 12,500 signatures of registered voters in order to qualify for placement on the ballot in an upcoming election.

1974

Clark and other artists gathered 26,000 signatures for Proposition J, which was included on the ballot in the municipal election of June 1974. The initiative passed by a margin of 53.4% to 46.5%, with 80,991 votes in favor and 70,418 votes against. Under Proposition J, licensed artists were allowed to sell their wares virtually anywhere on the city's sidewalks. The new arts program attracted hundreds of new artists to San Francisco’s sidewalks, and by December 1974, 1,500 artists were licensed.

In September, a few months after the ballot initiative passed, the downtown merchants association began to complain that the sidewalks had become flooded with street sellers, and that their displays created "wall-to-wall street artists" who "seriously hamper pedestrian traffic". In the beginning of December, the police, 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 left quietly after police warnings, the Street Artists Guild said it would challenge the police crackdown in court. The next day, an appeals court judge issued a writ of mandate that temporarily blocked 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.

Without any regulation or enforcement, selling spaces were acquired on a first-come, first-served basis. So many artists decided to sell near the popular downtown areas that some had to show up as early as 3 am in order to get a good selling space for the day. Eventually some sellers began to guard their selling spaces overnight. Frustrated with the congestion caused by street artists, the Board of Supervisors passed a new ordinance, sponsored by Kopp, which sharply reduced the number of selling locations by specifying that an artist's display must be on a sidewalk that was wide enough to allow a 10 feet (3.0 m) wide pedestrian walkway. Since many sidewalks were not wide enough to satisfy the width requirement, the ordinance effectively eliminated 98% of selling spaces granted by Proposition J. The street artists' concerns over the restrictions of the Kopp Ordinance were eased by the fact that the ordinance was likely to be challenged in court by the Guild's lawyers, because it conflicted with the provisions of Proposition J.

1975

The Kopp Ordinance was approved by the Board of Supervisors in January 1975. For the first half of 1975, artists grudgingly sold within the Kopp Ordinance's restrictions, but by May many artists chose to protest the new ordinance by violating its provisions and selling in "undesignated areas", choosing to be arrested and jailed rather than simply signing a police citation and going home. In June the Board of Supervisors, sensing the vulnerability of the Kopp Ordinance within the courts, decided to write its own street artists ballot initiative called Proposition L, which would repeal Proposition J. (By law, a voter-approved ballot initiative cannot be overturned by the Board of Supervisors, only by another ballot initiative.) Proposition L would set up a stricter system of artist regulations, registration, and inspection. It would also give the Board of Supervisors power to regulate selling locations.

State Senator George Moscone, at the time a candidate for mayor, sided with the street artists in opposing Proposition L. He stated, "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. In 1976, when the street artists nearly lost all their downtown selling spaces after the Board of Supervisors voted to permanently remove them, Moscone's mayoral veto 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 November 1975 election, called Proposition M. Proposition M further limited the power of the Board of Supervisors over selling-space selection while setting forth provisions for fire and safety regulations that would ease sidewalk congestion. In an effort to appease the merchant community, Proposition M called for reducing the number of artists around Union Square by 75%, implementing a system to insure that artists make what they sell, and limiting the number of artists in a given region by using a lottery system to equally share designated selling spaces.

To the disappointment of the artists, Proposition M failed and Proposition L became law during the November election. To date, the ordinance defined by Proposition L is still the current law which sets forth the procedures and privileges of the Street Artists Program of San Francisco. After the passage of Proposition L, street art activists met with the Board of Supervisors to resolve which selling areas would be designated for them. The Board of Supervisors granted 21 selling regions 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 Department of Public Works would mark off and number selling spaces on the sidewalk so the spaces could be equally shared among the artists, with a daily lottery for selling-space selection. Concerning the dangerous problem of artists guarding their selling spaces overnight, street artist Joy McCoskey reiterated the importance that no selling space should be occupied between the hours of midnight and 6 am. The downtown merchants seemed content with the new regulations and selling spaces. In early December the new ordinance went into effect, and 800 street artists bought licenses for a fee of $80 per year. The full text of the code including subsequent amendments to the ordinance is Article 24 of the Police Code, part of San Francisco's municipal code.

Current Program

The Street Artists Program celebrated it's 25th Anniversary in 1997. In 2012, the program celebrated it's 40th Anniversary. The program was overseen by Director Howard Lazar until his retirement in 2017.

Director Lazar was responsible for gaining additional spaces for the artists to sell. He also instituted the concept of temporary holiday spaces, which increased the number of selling locations during the holiday shopping season in San Francisco. This was especially important for the artists in the Union Square area.

Commercial Item Controversy

Artists who are licensed by the San Francisco Arts Commission are only allowed to sell items that have been "predominately created or significantly altered in form" by the artist. The program strictly forbids the sale of commercially manufactured products. Licenses are not granted for street artists who produce or sell "food items, incense, perfumes, body oils, soaps, or other cosmetic products". Street musicians and performers are not included in the ordinance.

Before a street artist license is granted, an artist must demonstrate to a screening committee that they made the art and craft items that they intend to sell. During the screening of an artist's work, the artist must bring finished and unfinished items, raw source materials, tools, and receipts for items used in the creation of their work. The members of the screening committee can also ask that an artist create or finish a piece in their presence. If committee members are still not satisfied that the work is of the artist's own creation, they can conduct an onsite visit to the artist’s workshop to verify the creation process.

Entrepreneurs, and opportunities who have infiltrated the program over time due to the difficulty and inconsistency of applying the criteria for the program, as well as artists who do make the majority of what they sell, may at time sell commercial items to supplement their income. This has become increasingly common with the increase in technology that allows for traditionally hand made crafts to be created by machine, such as knitting or crocheting, photography, and other print items. It may also be the case that items are handmade by other individuals and not by the artist themselves.

This has led the Arts Commission to, at various times, hire Art Inspectors or pay for police officers to patrol the selling locations looking for artists whose items violate criteria, or who are in violation of other regulations. Individuals not licensed by the Arts Commission may be fined. Artists who are found in violation of the program may have their license, suspended or revoked after a disciplinary procedure.

References

  1. ^ "Apply for a License | San Francisco Arts Commission". www.sfartscommission.org. Retrieved 2018-04-28.
  2. ^ "American Legal Publishing - Online Library". library.amlegal.com. Retrieved 2018-04-28.
  3. ^ Faust, Kate (September 1, 2015). "Revitalizing an Urban Arts Market" (PDF). San Francisco Arts Commission (PDF). Retrieved April 27, 2018. {{cite web}}: Check |archive-url= value (help); Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. "World Class Art for A World Class City", San Francisco Arts Commission brochure, 2011, p. 6.
  5. "SFPD Permits | Police Department". sanfranciscopolice.org. Retrieved 2018-04-28.
  6. ^ Dooley, Dennis; Usher, Tom (1979). "Concrete Roots – San Francisco Street Artists Memories & Lore". City Miner Magazine.
  7. ^ "The Street Artist Hassle Worsens", San Francisco Chronicle (16 December 1972), p. 6.
  8. ^ "A Raucous Hearing on Artists' Bid", San Francisco Chronicle (11 August 1972), p. 1, 18.
  9. "Photographs of San Francisco Street Artist Guild's Stonestown Shopping Center Show", "Combined Sunday edition of the SF Chronicle and the SF Examiner" (3 October 1971) p. ?.
  10. ^ "Street Artists vs. Law – It's Not a Pretty Picture", San Francisco Chronicle (2 April 1971), p. 3.
  11. ^ "Street Artists Attorney Testifies", San Francisco Chronicle (3 December 1971), p. 9
  12. "City Hall Protest By Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (15 April 1971), p. 2.
  13. "San Francisco Street Artists Movement - San Francisco Bay Area Television Archive". diva.sfsu.edu. Retrieved 2018-04-28.
  14. "Alioto, Friend of the Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (16 April 1971), p. 26.
  15. ^ "Street Artists Meet the Mayor", San Francisco Chronicle (24 April 1971), p. 33.
  16. "Street Artists To Dramatize Police Beefs", San Francisco Chronicle (8 May 1971), p. 28.
  17. ^ "S.F. Street Artists Are Arrested", San Francisco Chronicle (17 May 1971), p. 2.
  18. "Judge's Boost for S.F. Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (18 May 1971), p. 3.
  19. "More Peddler Busts", San Francisco Chronicle (20 September 1971), p. 2.
  20. "ACLU Move For Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (29 June 1971), p. 5.
  21. ^ "License Suit Lost By Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (15 December 1971), p. 7
  22. "New Artists' Court Plea", San Francisco Chronicle (12 April 1974), p. 4.
  23. "Order Halts Arrests of Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (25 September 1971), p. 2.
  24. ^ "S.F. Artists Win Case – Again", San Francisco Chronicle (15 October 1971), p. 1, 24.
  25. "Fair Weather Peddlers", San Francisco Chronicle (25 October 1971), p. 4.
  26. "Peddlers' Ordinance Hearing Ends", San Francisco Chronicle (7 December 1971), p. 4.
  27. ^ "Alioto Offers Space For Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (1 January 1972), p. 3.
  28. "Street Artist Crackdown Is Canceled", San Francisco Chronicle (23 December 1971), p. 1, 18.
  29. ^ "Peddlers Face Arrest", San Francisco Chronicle (22 December 1971), p. 3.
  30. "Kopp Queries Decision on Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (11 January 1972), p. 3.
  31. "New Street Artists Law Introduced", San Francisco Chronicle (25 January 1972), p. 3.
  32. "Kopp Plan For Vendor Licenses", San Francisco Chronicle (1 February 1972), p. 2.
  33. "New Rules for Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (24 March 1972), p. 4.
  34. "A Tentative Accord on Sites for Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (8 March 1972), p. 5.
  35. "Agency Discusses The Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (4 April 1972), p. 15.
  36. "Curb Voted on Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (28 March 1972), p. 6.
  37. "The Street Artist Dispute Exhumed", San Francisco Chronicle (17 March 1972), p. 3.
  38. ^ "S.F. Street Artist' New Tactic", San Francisco Chronicle (19 April 1973), p. 7.
  39. "Measures | Department of Elections". sfgov.org. Retrieved 2018-04-28.
  40. "Street Artists Seeking a Legal Status", San Francisco Chronicle (8 July 1973), p. 2.
  41. "Tally of S.F. Vote", San Francisco Chronicle (6 June 1974), p. 4.
  42. ^ "New S.F. Limits On Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (24 December 1974), p. 1.
  43. "The S.F. Street Artist Mess", San Francisco Chronicle (20 September 1974), p. 4.
  44. ^ "Crackdown On Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (6 December 1974), p. 1.
  45. ^ "Street Artists Gain Time", San Francisco Chronicle (7 December 1974), p. 1.
  46. ^ "Artists Meet Supervisors – It's Friendly", San Francisco Chronicle (22 November 1975), p. 2.
  47. "Ordinance on Street Artist Rules Stalled", San Francisco Chronicle (31 December 1974), p. 4.
  48. ^ "Artists Busted as Trumpet Blasts", San Francisco Chronicle (29 May 1975), p. 1.
  49. "Board Approves The Vendor Law", San Francisco Chronicle (7 January 1975), p. 5
  50. "Tougher Law on Vendors Sought", San Francisco Chronicle (10 December 1974), p. 5.
  51. ^ "News Furor Grows On Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (6 June 1975), p. 2.
  52. "Moscone Vetoes Move To Limit Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (17 July 1976), p. 4.
  53. "Artists Rebel at City Hall", San Francisco Chronicle (15 July 1975), p. 4.
  54. ^ "Artist' Street Sales Petition", San Francisco Chronicle (7 August 1975), p. 3.
  55. "Supervisors Allow 21 Artist Locations", San Francisco Chronicle (25 November 1975), p. 4.
  56. "Where Street Artists Can Sell Their Crafts", San Francisco Chronicle (8 December 1975), p. 2.
  57. "Street Artists Committee - May 14, 2014 - Meeting Minutes | San Francisco Arts Commission". sfgov.org. Retrieved 2018-04-28.
  58. "SF Street Artists to Celebrate Going Legit". NBC Bay Area. Retrieved 2018-04-28.
  59. "Full Commission - July 10, 2017 - Minutes | San Francisco Arts Commission". sfgov.org. Retrieved 2018-04-28.
  60. "Maps | San Francisco Arts Commission". www.sfartscommission.org. Retrieved 2018-04-28.

External links

37°47′17″N 122°24′27″W / 37.78806°N 122.40750°W / 37.78806; -122.40750

Categories: