Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Policing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors Debate Whether Foot‑Beat Patrols Should Be Legislated or Left to SFPD
Summary
A proposed ballot measure and companion amendment would institutionalize citywide foot patrols and a community policing policy. Supporters and neighborhood residents praised foot beats; SFPD leaders said they endorse the strategy but urged working together to implement it rather than placing it on the ballot.
Supervisor Ross introduced a measure to order community policing policy and require an SFPD foot‑beat patrol program, citing a successful 2006–07 pilot and a controller report that found positive community impacts. "Foot beats are the best strategy," he told the Rules Committee, arguing voters should institutionalize regular walking patrols.
Assistant Chief Judson True and Captain David Lazar appeared for SFPD. The assistant chief said the department embraces foot patrols and described CompStat and training investments, but he questioned whether the city should resolve operational details via a ballot initiative rather than departmental policy and local collaboration. "If foot patrols are a necessary component and the community wants more foot patrols, maybe we should work to get more foot patrols," he told supervisors.
Multiple neighborhood leaders — including organizers from Hayes Valley, the Western Addition and Ingleside — testified that foot beats improved relationships between residents and officers and contributed to drops in violent crime in some precincts. Several speakers urged the board to institutionalize a baseline deployment so gains persist when captains rotate.
President David Chiu’s office proposed an amendment tying the foot‑beat proposal to the mayor’s sit‑lie ordinance, saying foot beats should "supplant any city ordinance that voters approve" banning sitting or lying on sidewalks. The committee voted to duplicate the file so one version will include that amendment and one will not; the item is scheduled to return to the Rules Committee on July 20.
Supervisors also raised cost and staffing questions: prior estimates discussed in the hearing included proposals and MOU figures the committee said require clarification; several members asked the controller to provide staffing and fiscal impact analyses before final action.
