While the law will effect the entire city, its impact may be felt pretty acutely in the Haight. Supervisor Breed spoke out in an op-ed for the SF Bay Guardian. Mary Howe of HYA spoke out to us. Here's what they had to say.

Supporters of the measure say that it's not intended to criminalize the homeless. Weiner says that it's a tool the cops can use against anyone in the parks after midnight looking nefarious. However, homeless advocates feel differently. Here's an excerpt from London Breed's op-ed at SFBG (by the way, she voted NO on the measure):

This is exactly the problem, and my fifth concern — that this law will be selectively enforced. If it's not intended to target the homeless, the firefighter, or the well-groomed neighbor, who is the law designed to target? Suspicious looking people? Teenagers? Young men in hooded sweatshirts?

She goes on to say:

Acts can be criminal. Vandalism, dumping, drug use — those are acts. I am not comfortable preemptively criminalizing a person's presence, or everyone's presence, in order to deter the few who commit those acts. I am not comfortable limiting everyone's freedom in order to deter those who abuse that freedom. But frankly, I am also not comfortable with how politically charged the issue of homelessness has become in San Francisco. Whether this particular law passes or fails, 7,350 people will wake up tomorrow morning not knowing where they will sleep tomorrow night. We must be creative, unconventional. For example, we could repurpose fallow city buildings as temporary shelters. Would this idea be received as an opportunity or an insult? I hope the former, but I suspect the latter.

We also reached out to Mary Howe of Homeless Youth Alliance to see how she think it will effect the kids in the Haight. First off, she agrees with Supervisor Breed that it's an enforcement issue, not a regulation issue:

Supporters of these anti-homeless laws that are masqueraded as safety ordinances love to say it is another “tool”. We saw this during the sit/lie debates as well. Supporters of these laws always want the police to have more “tools” and “discretion” to do their job; the truth is there are laws on the books already that deal with any of these issues. Vandalism is illegal, public dumping is illegal and sleeping in the parks is illegal. If the issue which Wiener claims is vandalism and illegal dumping then why can’t the SFPD just enforce the laws that already exist?

She goes on to reiterate the city's tendency to make new laws every time the homeless population moves into a new space:

Further criminalizing homeless people will do nothing to curb vandalism or illegal dumping and it certainly does not create housing unless you count our jails as “housing”. The truth is simple, homelessness is a huge problem in this city and it is getting worse everyday, we are in the midst of the hugest housing crisis SF has ever seen and nothing productive or preventative is being done about it... In my opinion the park closure ordinance will help this city about as much as the sit/lie law has. They are both a waste of time, money and resources that could make a huge difference if they we refocused elsewhere.

Recently, Haight Street merchants have been encouraged by Park Station to put No Trespassing signage in their doorways to keep homeless people from sleeping in them during the hours they're closed for business. Yet anyone who walks Haight Street after dark can see people sleeping directly beneath every single sign. It remains to be seen whether the new park measure will be a similar scenario.