“Prohibiting 8th grade Algebra made it difficult for students interested in technology careers to advance enough in math to satisfy college requirements. Families left public schools over the issue. Kids who stayed had to double up on math courses or pay for private classes to ensure they reached calculus by senior year. Kids without extra resources lost out.”
No opposition statement for Measure G was submitted to election authorities.
“We failed our children. Parents were upset. The city as a whole was upset, and the decision to recall school board members was a result of that.” Those words held true, again, two years later over algebra.
Here’s what ought to happen next. On the Nov. 5 ballot statewide, education and parent groups should put on the ballot an initiative bringing back statewide the solid math requirements for K-12, colleges, and universities.
Crime Crackdown
High crime and disgusting streets also have become intolerable for San Franciscans. Measure E passed with 54 percent. The proponents’ summary read, “Proposition E: Safer San Francisco puts our police officers in the best position to serve our communities by giving them the tools and rules they need to enforce laws, while preventing the Police Commission from interfering in community safety efforts. ...“Prop E changes city policies to allow police officers to use publicly-owned cameras and public safety drones to prevent, investigate, and solve crimes. Right now, SFPD officers are prevented from using these tools in real-time to help prevent and solve crimes like retail theft, auto theft, and car break-ins.”
Opponent arguments read, “Proposition E weakens the police commission’s ability to provide independent oversight and accountability for SFPD. Police Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. Proposition E undermines the Police Commission.
“Proposition E is deceptive. It strips away existing safeguards designed to protect us from dangerous technology and police abuse. These safeguards are in place because SFPD has a long history of misconduct and discrimination against communities of color.”
I’m sympathetic to such arguments on privacy grounds. But when public safety collapses, something has to be done—and eventually will be done.
Drug Screening for Cash Assistance
Measure F passed with 58 percent and will require a drug test for single adults 65 and under with no dependent children before getting cash assistance from the taxpayers. Proponents argued, “Prop F, the Treatment + Accountability Measure, adds another tool to San Francisco’s efforts to address the deadly drug use that is creating serious public safety hazards and fueling an overdose crisis on our streets.“Two people a day are dying of overdoses from Fentanyl and other deadly drugs in San Francisco. These are sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters. Offers of treatment without accountability are not enough. We must do more to get people into treatment and save lives.
“But under current state law, San Francisco lacks tools to compel people into treatment. The City deploys street teams to offer voluntary services and connections to treatment. While some people do accept help, many do not, being unwilling or unable to do so.”
Opponents replied, “Prop F will increase the number of people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco by taking away the basic services and support systems that keep those in greatest need off the streets.
“Beyond more homelessness, Prop F will not solve problems with crime by making vulnerable people even more destitute.
“San Francisco’s government already cannot meet the current demands of the overdose crisis. Experts agree we simply do not have enough treatment capacity and supportive housing available for those who want care and need treatment.”
But what good is giving the homeless cash they just will use to buy drugs, almost all of it laced with deadly fentanyl? The destitute still can get non-cash food, shelter, and medical assistance from government and private charities.
Public Safety Budget Measure Rejected
One public-safety proposal was rejected by 72 percent of voters: Measure B. In the official language, it would “set minimum police officer staffing levels, require the City to budget enough money to pay the number of police officers employed in the previous year, allow the Police Department to introduce amendments to its budget, and set aside funds to pay for police recruitment, all for at least five years, but all if and only if the voters later adopt a new tax or amend an existing tax to fund these requirements.”This is what I and others long have called “ballot-box budgeting.” The job of elected bodies is to make decisions on how to divvy up public funds. Potentially, the police budget could have risen to 100 percent of tax revenues—squeezing out all other spending.
