Billyclubs and pepperspray can be helpful, too.  But this is the precious part:

“Homelessness, and quality of life issues, are dividing the liberals and the progressives in this city,” says David Binder, a statistical analyst and founder of David Binder Research. “The liberals will say we’ve got to get tough on the homeless and the progressives are more old-line liberal.”

They’re turning on each other. Well, as ye sow, so shall ye reap. Kiely:

“We go out to drive the kids to school,” he says, “and there’s human poop between the cars.”

There must be many who are as fed up as Kiely, because politicians like Newsom are taking a tough stand. In an election year, you can bet he wouldn’t go out on an unpopular limb. Now it will be interesting to see how the Board of Supervisors, traditionally progressive and more pro-homeless people, will react.

One proposal that could come from the Newsom administration is some form of a “sit-lie” law. Rhorer says the idea is “that you can’t be in the same place on the sidewalk for longer than a certain time.” (Even Berkeley has a version of that for Telegraph Avenue.) That would create howls of protests from the advocates for homeless people (and it should be said that such laws have had mixed success), but usual arguments against strong action against vagrants might not be as effective with the new mind-set of city residents.

“This isn’t the war in the Iraq,” says Latterman. “We’ve been fed that line for a long time. If you support this, you’re a Bush supporter. You’re a fascist. Maybe people are fed up with that.”

http://www.julescrittenden.com/2007/10/10/dawn-over-sf/#more-2060

Whoa liberals are going to take away peoples rights to deficate in public? No wonder the advocates are alarmed, maybe they should fight to stop illegal immigration while they are at it until the homeless drug users have jobs those fascists.

:)