How can a city regarded as one of the most liberal cities in America vote in favor of two conservative, and likely consequential, propositions? This question encompassed the minds of overwhelmingly liberal San Franciscans in the weeks following March’s primary election. Both San Francisco Proposition E and F dealt with how San Francisco handles two of the city’s greatest issues; safety and homelessness. Proposition increases the autonomy of SFPD, meaning they have more freedom to alter certain actions, such as surveillance, without the same level of oversight from a regulatory body. They also have fewer restrictions regarding police chases and use-of-force incidents. Proposition F prevents illegal substance users from receiving basic benefits from San Francisco County. Everybody who lives in San Francisco knows not to leave anything of value in their car due to the likelihood of their window getting smashed, with little to no repercussions for those inflicting such damage. One needs only to walk through the infamous Tenderloin neighborhood to understand why issues of homelessness and drug problems lead residents to crave a solution.
Before Proposition E, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) operated under far more restrictions. For officers, there were body cameras and written report requirements after firearm usage or inflicting bodily harm. Officers were only allowed to engage in vehicle pursuits if the suspect had committed a violent felony or was an immediate risk to public safety. Police commission approval was needed for the installation of police cameras surveilling the public, and the Board of Supervisors had to approve these cameras prior to their installation. Face recognition technology was not allowed to be used in any surveillance methods. SFPD policy changes were left up to the police commission and, in some cases, the Board of Supervisors. However, reservations about these two conservative ballot measures are far from misplaced, and the negative repercussions San Francisco may incur could prove that the costs outweigh the intended benefits, such as streamlining bureaucratic processes..
Proposition E made significant changes to the functioning of SFPD, changes promoting a far more unilaterally functioning police force with fewer regulatory bodies ensuring they’re engaging in activity to protect all San Francisco residents. Written reports after use-of-force incidents are now required only if the force causes injury or pain to the subject, or if a firearm is used or pointed at an individual. Vehicle pursuit is now being allowed if the officer has reasonable suspicion the suspect has committed any felony or a violent act. SFPD has been given the freedom to install public surveillance cameras void of commission approval and has allowed the usage of drones for criminal investigations. These different surveillance mechanisms are now allowed to utilize facial recognition technology. Overall, this proposition has led to a decrease in commission and SFPD reporting and restrictions.
Proposition F was just as conservative a measure as Proposition E, however, it concerned the drug problem prevalent among San Francisco’s homeless population. Before Proposition F, the city and county of San Francisco were required to provide assistance programs to the poor and single adults ages 65 and younger through County Adult Assistance Programs (CAAP). CAAP beneficiaries received necessities such as food and shelter, and even assistance in areas such as the search for employment. Prior to the passing of this proposition, recipients were able to receive this necessary aid regardless of their drug or substance abuse.
Now that Proposition F has been passed, San Francisco requires CAAP recipients to be screened for substance use disorders if the city suspects they may be using illegal drugs. If it is found that the CAAP recipient uses such substances, they get referred to rehabilitation services at no personal cost. However, the individual must complete rehabilitation in order to receive CAAP benefits from the city.
The passing of each of these propositions produces the possibility of negative impact, likely to have a disproportionate effect on members of San Francisco’s population who are already vulnerable. A main concern with Proposition E is the likelihood of it having a far greater impact on the city’s Black residents than other members of the population. In 2022, SFPD was 25 times more likely to use force on Black individuals than on white individuals. With Proposition E’s removal of the SFPD policy requiring officers to provide a written report for any incident resulting in use-of-force, we can expect to see fewer officers being held accountable for their actions, many of which have impacted Black residents at far higher rates than any other racial group in San Francisco.
Abandoning this policy will also mean less transparency in a police department with a history of police department scandals relating to race. In 2012, SFPD discovered racist text messages sent between police officers, yet failed to take action to discipline them until the messages were released publicly in 2015. SFPD was then faced with defending themselves in a case on the grounds of their obligation to discipline their officers within a year of discovering misconduct. In 2018-2019, the ACLU sued the SFPD due to an attempt by the SFPD to enforce drug laws in the Tenderloin in 2013 and 2014. In this attempt, 37 drug dealers were targeted for selling small amounts of drugs. All 37 of them were Black. More recently, a 2016 report by the United States Justice Department found SFPD continued to engage in race-based policing. Transparency in the proceedings of police departments nationwide is often thought to be a basic necessity due to the presence of historical and systematically ingrained racial discrimination. SFPD’s issues with their discriminatory treatment of Black people are likely to worsen with both the lack of transparency and accountability introduced by Proposition E.
Proposition E’s allowance of facial recognition surveillance technology is also likely to disproportionately affect Black residents, due to the significant racial biases present in this type of technology. Facial recognition technology was found to have the poorest results in Black women, ages 18-23. To specify this bias to law enforcement it’s important to consider that, due to higher incarceration rates, Black people are overrepresented in mugshot data, which is the database used by facial recognition technology. According to Harvard’s Alex Najibi, “The Black presence in such systems creates a feed-forward loop whereby racist policing strategies lead to disproportionate arrests of Black people, who are then subject to future surveillance.” Implementing this technology in San Francisco will be yet another reinforcement of SFPD’s clear racial issues regarding its Black residents.
Proposition E also brings up safety and privacy concerns that are likely to affect all city residents. Police pursuits in San Francisco are no stranger to chaos, with 38% of them resulting in a collision since 2018. The Justice Department suggests that pursuits should only occur when a violent crime has been committed or the suspect may be an immediate risk to the community, the guidelines followed by SFPD prior to the passing of Proposition E. This proposition’s expansion of surveillance technology SFPD can use poses serious threats to the constitutionally ensured privacy rights of San Francisco residents, especially given the police department’s discretionary power over which areas of San Francisco will be publicly surveilled.
The passage of Proposition F emanates its own set of probable issues that should concern San Francisco residents. From a moral standpoint, Proposition F targets a portion of San Francisco’s population that is already extremely vulnerable. Marlene Martin, Director of the Addiction Care Team at UCSF Hospital, states “I have seen addiction and overdose worsen when people lose support systems and that is what Proposition F threatens to do.” This proposition has stripped this large group of San Francisco’s population of basic services that can keep them both alive and off the streets, and it is the belief of left-leaning political organizations, public safety groups, healthcare and treatment advocates, and many more that the first priority in dealing with individuals suffering with addiction should be providing them stable housing, not denying them that necessary service.
After the passing of measure F, there is likely to be an increase in homelessness, the opposite of what residents and city leaders aim for. Drug users currently benefiting from CAAP will be assessed, therefore having their benefits denied from them. The result will be close to 4,000 more people being left unhoused. The proposition also ignores the recommendations of research done by healthcare professionals, showing punitive measures and mandated treatment are often ineffective. Proposals similar to measure F have shown evidence of an increase in relapsing and returning to substance abuse, as well as an increase in overdose and suicide deaths.
Proposition F is also likely to result in fewer connections to treatment and will require the use of resources the city doesn’t have. Prior to this measure, people receiving assistance were able to exchange requirements to work for treatment. Due to the consequences of substance abuse outlined by Proposition F, individuals will likely be far more reluctant to come forward about their substance abuse, meaning the proposition will decrease the number of people willingly entering treatment. Proposition F will also ensure financial problems for San Francisco, given its estimated cost of $1.4 million annually with no money included in the measure to create new treatment opportunities. The proposition promises treatment to individuals in exchange for their CAAP benefits, while the city currently doesn’t have enough treatment for everyone needing it.
It’s contradictory to compare the results of these two ballots on election day with the overall political leanings of San Francisco residents. When other races are taken into account, San Francisco looks exceedingly liberal. For the US House of Representatives seat, Democrat Nancy Pelosi received 73.3% of the votes, whereas her Republican competitor could only scrape together a mere 8.6%. In the State Senate race, Democrat Scott Wiener obtained 73% of the votes, while his Republican aligning competition received only 15.1% of the votes. These results, combined with the historical notion of San Francisco as an extremely progressive location, established a strong liberal and democratic pattern within the city. So why did Propositions E and F pass?
A probable theory is the exceptionally low voter turnout in many California Primary Elections. Laura Guzman, director of the National Harm Reduction Coalition, claimed it is unlikely these results were representative of San Francisco residents, given evidence that low voter turnout tends to skew conservative.
Another possibility is that both of their propositions are connected to prominent issues in the everyday lives of San Franciscans, issues that have plagued the city for many years-safety and homelessness. Due to the number of ballot proposals and individual candidates, voters must make decisions on, it is almost impossible for voters to research and be completely informed about every issue. It is likely that those who voted in San Francisco’s March primaries lacked complete information and understanding about the possible consequences of the ballots they were voting yes on.
Concerns over safety and homelessness occupy the concerns of many San Franciscan voters. Propositions E and F are likely to prove more consequential than beneficial for these prioritized issues, showing how lacking information about such consequences may have led voters to make decisions that are unlikely to properly represent their interests.
Featured Image: KQED
Comments are closed.