A ballot measure that would allow the police department to use advanced technology and also give it more independent authority—introduced by San Francisco Mayor London Breed—is drawing support from tech investors who have made approximately $400,000 in recent donations, according to city and county ethics commission records.
Proposition E would authorize police to use drones and surveillance cameras, allow officers to pursue suspects involved in felony or violent misdemeanor crimes, and reduce paperwork needed to file reports. It would also alter the balance of power between the department and the commission tasked with overseeing it by requiring public meetings for policy changes.
Chris Larsen, founder and executive chairman of Ripple—a San Francisco-based cryptocurrency firm—donated $250,000 toward the initiative earlier this month. Another $100,000 came in from Ronald Conway, philanthropist, founder, and managing partner of the venture capital firm SV Angel, according to campaign finance records.
The campaign behind the initiative, Safer San Francisco, said the funds will help inform the public about the proposal’s plan to address crime in the city.
“Improving public safety, specifically on car break-ins and retail theft, is a major priority for San Francisco residents,” Joe Arellano, spokesperson for Proposition E, told The Epoch Times Dec. 22. “We appreciate the support we’ve received to ensure Prop. E passes this March.”
The goal of the proposition, he said, is to stop what are described as contradictory orders from the police commission that complicate policing.
“The current system has needless bureaucracy and restrictions that force officers to spend too much time filling out reports and paperwork,” Mr. Arellano said. “Prop E will get police officers out from behind their desks and back onto the streets where we need them.”
Not being able to use drone and camera surveillance technology, some say, is allowing crime to proliferate in the city.
“We can’t be living in the dark ages when San Francisco is the AI capital of the world,” Ms. Breed said during an October press conference announcing the measure. “We have technology tools, and we need to use them.”
Supporters say change is needed due to a series of policy decisions—like ordering police not to pursue theft suspects by the city’s police commission—that some, including Ms. Breed, believe are hampering the department’s ability to police effectively.
“Members of the police commission have gone too far,” she said. “These conflicting policies have not helped with reform; they’ve only made San Francisco less safe.”
She said concern for public safety is widespread, with all walks of life approaching her about creating a better future.
“Everyone is speaking the same language,” Ms. Breed said. “Victims of crime and even people who are former perpetrators of crime want to see change in this city.”
If approved by voters, police would be allowed to pursue suspects involved in felony or misdemeanor crimes, but they would have to write annual reports enumerating the number of pursuits, arrests, and any incidents or damage to other individuals or property that occur during car chases.
Other provisions focus on eliminating redundant paperwork, allowing more officers to be on patrols.
“Police officers should not be spending more than 20 percent of their time doing paperwork,” Ms. Breed said. “It takes officers off the street ... and it’s ridiculous, it’s insane.”
While the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has been reluctant to approve expanding police powers or reducing the police commission’s authority, several members spoke out in support of the proposition during the press conference with Ms. Breed in October.
“This measure will do everything we can to make certain that we are giving officers the tools they need to keep San Francisco safe,” Supervisor Catherine Stefani said during the press conference.
Another said the measure could help streamline operations and address complicated policies.
“This is a smart-on-crime approach,” Supervisor Matt Dorsey said while announcing the measure with the mayor. “This removes needless inefficiencies, and it will enable our police officers to do their jobs for us more effectively.”
Suggesting that not being able to use technology like drones and cameras is benefitting drug dealers and endangering the public, he said the proposal will improve the quality of life for all San Franciscans.
“The restrictions on the surveillance technology are nothing more than a fentanyl dealer employment act, and it needs to end,” Mr. Dorsey said. “[This measure] will hold criminals and fentanyl dealers accountable; it will make San Francisco safer, and most importantly, it will save lives.”
Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, say the proposal would weaken oversight by requiring hearings in each of the city’s 11 districts to allow for public comment before policy changes are allowed and could lead to racial disparities in local policing.
Acknowledging recent efforts to address policing concerns, including a 2016 initiative that focused on reducing use of force, one supervisor suggested that decisions made in good faith could be negatively impacting the region.
“San Francisco is a leader in reform, and that’s a good thing,” Supervisor Joel Engardio said during the press conference. “But it can’t get in the way of effective policing.”
