Why I’m Challenging Scott Wiener’s False Ballot Argument
Prop R will not increase bike patrols — it doesn’t even mention them!
*sigh* What would you do if you found a false statement in the Voter Information Pamphlet? While we all know that proponents and opponents of ballot arguments can play fast and loose with the facts, they shouldn’t be allowed to completely make stuff up that isn’t in the language of the proposition, right?
Well, I found a clearly false statement in the “Rebuttal to the Opponent” ballot argument for Proposition R, the Neighborhood Crime Unit proposition. The argument says Prop R would “significantly increase the number of beat cops and bike patrols assigned to our neighborhoods.” But here’s the thing: the legal text of Prop R makes no reference to bike patrols or bicycle patrols! It does say that bike theft is one of the crimes this unit should focus on, but I think we can all agree that bike theft is not the same thing as bike patrols. Right?
It turns out the only way to challenge this false and misleading statement is to go to the Superior Court and file a petition for a writ of mandate. So last week I hurriedly figured out how to do that and filed this petition to make my case:
The lead author of the argument is Scott Wiener (co-signed by the Mayor, Malia Cohen, Mark Farrell, and Katy Tang). So I emailed him a copy of the petition and asked if he was open to discussing a resolution to this issue. He hasn’t responded yet, but today the Examiner quotes Wiener as saying the argument is “completely accurate.” He also says that this challenge to the accuracy of the ballot argument “is exhibit A for why we had to go to the ballot with Prop R.”
While I do oppose Proposition R (because it micromanages the SFPD without actually ensuring an increase in foot patrols), my challenge is not about the merits of Prop R. It’s about the proponents making a clearly false statement. The only reason I can imagine why they’re doing this is in an attempt to appeal to the “bike vote.”
If you’re so inclined, you can check my work in the link to the petition above. (Please excuse the few typos I didn’t catch in my rush to submit it by the deadline. Blargh!) The petition includes the legal text of Prop R and the text of the rebuttal argument. It’s a searchable PDF, so you can try searching the legal text for “bike” or “bicycle,” and see if I missed anything.
I’m all for police bike patrols. As a regular bike rider, bike advocate, and member of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, I think it’s great for police to share our experience of biking in the City. Bike patrols also seem like an effective middle ground between foot patrols and driving around in a squad car. I would probably support a proposition that would require the SFPD to staff more bike patrols.
But because Prop R doesn’t even mention bike patrols, I don’t think the proponents should be allowed to claim it does in the Voter Information Pamphlet. Hopefully the Superior Court will agree with me. Any lawyers out there interested in helping me navigate this process? :)
On the Merits of Proposition R
But setting aside the “bike patrol” issue, I oppose Proposition R because it’s poorly conceived policy. I fully support SFPD increasing its focus on foot patrols and community policing. But Proposition R is not the way to go about it. Prop R will assign 60 officers to what is called a “Neighborhood Crime Unit,” but this unit won’t be assigned to the neighborhood police stations — they would be a centralized unit based out of SFPD’s Mission Bay Headquarters.
Proposition R would saddle these officers with so many responsibilities that I doubt they’ll have much time to walk foot patrols.
These officers would be required to coordinate with an alphabet soup of City agencies: the 311 program, Department of Emergency Management, Department of Public Health, Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, Human Services Agency, and other departments, as well as conduct recurring meetings with police captains, community members, and organizations. They would also be assigned to respond to non-emergency 311 calls.
While I think it’s a great idea for the SFPD to coordinate with those other important departments, it’s totally unrealistic to expect 60 cops (out of a department with nearly 2000 officers) to do all that coordination AND walk foot patrols in every neighborhood!
Assuming those 60 cops will be divided into two shifts and that they’ll walk foot patrols in pairs, that’s 15 foot patrol shifts to cover the entire city — when they’re not busy meeting with all those departments, community groups, district captains, or responding to 311 calls!
I would enthusiastically support a proposition to increase police foot patrols and protect them against being reassigned to other activities, but Proposition R doesn’t do that.
To see what real foot patrol legislation looks like, check out this 2007 ordinance passed by the progressives on the Board of Supervisors. It called for the designation of specific foot beats as well as biannual reports on the number of foot beats actually staffed and the number of times beat officers were reassigned to other duties.
Proposition R doesn’t do any of that. It seems more like a “vanity proposition” meant to bolster Scott Wiener’s campaign for State Senate.
But whether you support or oppose Proposition R, I hope you will agree with me that the proponents shouldn’t be allowed to falsely claim that it will increase “bike patrols.”
