With crime impacting the city, San Francisco voters will decide during the March primary election whether police staffing should be increased, though late amendments to the measure—approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors—that include a proposed increase of taxes on citizens, has complicated the matter.
Introduced as a plan to set aside $30 million to fund full-time police staffing increases from about 1,700 to more than 2,074 in five years, the measure was “hijacked” by a “hostile amendment,” according to its author, San Francisco Supervisor Matt Dorsey—who ultimately voted against it.
A recent amendment to the ballot question requires voters to approve a new tax to fund the additional officers instead of using general funds as originally proposed.
“The notion that San Franciscans can only have a fully-funded police department if they’re willing to pay extra for it is a marketing gimmick ... and not something that a responsible city government should be doing,” Mr. Dorsey said during the supervisors’ Nov. 28 board meeting. “I don’t think this is something that is going to go over well with voters.”
Constituents are requesting help regarding public safety, with no issue more important for the city, he said.
“The ‘Cop Tax’ scheme is going to ballot, denying voters a role to mandate full police staffing—unless they pass a ‘future tax’ with ‘additional revenue,’” Mr. Dorsey wrote Nov. 28 on X, formerly known as Twitter. “Galling? Yes. Surprising? No.”
The 11-member board approved the changed language on a 6 to 5 vote.
Citing budgets covering 2000 through 2025, he showed police funding cuts in 22 of the years—including $80 million slashed in fiscal 2020–21, by far the largest reduction.
“It’s performative politics that typifies why the [San Francisco Board of Supervisors] can’t be trusted to solve problems,” he wrote in the post.
Staffing has languished below the recommended minimum of 1,700 and is currently 100 full-time officers short.
The issue has persisted for years and was exacerbated in 2020—when voters approved eliminating a longstanding staffing level mandate amidst widespread “defund the police movements,” according to law enforcement experts.
Now faced with increased criminal activity and an aging police force—with 300 officers currently eligible for full retirement, officials say new recruits are needed soon.
The police department has warned of “potentially catastrophic” consequences if more officers are not hired, according to Mr. Dorsey.
One supervisor who voted against the amendment said the measure is now the most problematic she’s ever encountered as a supervisor.
“This is the worst written piece of legislation I think I’ve seen in my 15 years on this board,” Supervisor Hillary Ronen said during the meeting. “It started as something completely different, and now ... it could jeopardize our ability to provide public safety in the future.”
If approved, the measure could lead to lawsuits and prevent the city from raising taxes for other purposes until the police department is fully staffed, she told colleagues.
San Francisco Mayor London Breed also opposed the measure after it was revised.
“We should not require our residents and businesses to pay more taxes to provide the police officers they rightly expect to see on our streets,” Ms. Breed said in a Nov. 3 letter to the board contesting the proposal.
