Getty Images

SF police would patrol neighborhoods

In a show of defiance toward Mayor Gavin Newsom, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday night to attach a “poison pill” provision to a police patrol measure that will compete with — and potentially annul — the mayor’s sit/lie ordinance on the November ballot.

By a vote of 7-4, the board advanced a foot patrol program proposed by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi for consideration by the public. The measure, however, includes language that would void Newsom’s ban on lying or sitting on public sidewalks if it receives fewer votes than Mirkarimi’s measure.

Supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier, Bevan Dufty, Carmen Chu and Elsbernd voted against the measure.

The vote was a significant victory for Mirkarimi, a police academy graduate who has long touted foot patrols as a crime-fighting strategy. Mirkarimi has repeatedly argued that officers on foot would be able to quickly respond to neighborhood incidents, such as the problems in the Haight involving aggressive panhandlers that prompted the sit/lie policy.

Newsom and Police Chief George Gascon have blasted Mirkarimi and his cosponsors on the poison pill initiative -- Board President David Chiu and Supervisor Eric Mar -- calling them “out of their league” for attempting to dictate policing strategy.

But the vote on Mirkarimi's measure was notable for the political theater between its supporters and Newsom ally Supervisor Elsbernd. The addition of the poison-pill language to Mirkarimi’s original proposal was widely seen as an act of retribution after Newsom submitted his own poison-pill tax proposal to counter a hotel tax raise that he opposed bitterly.

Elsbernd attempted to stall the vote on Mirkarimi's measure, which threatened to delay the initiative past the deadline for making the November ballot. He repeatedly demanded that the poison-pill provision be detached from Mirkarimi’s original foot patrol proposal—a move that would legally require public discussion taking at least a week. Mirkarimi repeatedly moved to re-attach the provision leading to deadlock.

In the evening, Chiu ordered a recess to examine the board's procedural rules.

“Supervisor Elsbernd has made repeated motions that I believe would result in filibuster,” Chiu said after reconvening. “Everyone would agree that is not a fair -- and fairly absurd -- outcome.”

The board finally voted to approve Mirkarimi's measure.

After the vote, Elsbernd said that he attempted the filibuster because he believed the board could have simply passed the foot patrol legislatively, without taking it to the voters. Despite his seeming opposition to Chiu, he said, “I believe that President Chiu was acting in good faith.”

Newsom spokesman Tony Winnicker applauded Elsbernd for the effort.

“Supervisor Elsbernd deserves great credit for trying to protect voters from an unnecessary waste of taxpayer money and time,” said Winnicker in an e-mail message. “For the cost of adding a sworn officer ($150,000) to protect our streets, they've placed an unnecessary measure on the ballot that they could have passed themselves with a simple majority at the Board of Supervisors last month.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated the final vote for a foot patrol policing measure. The vote was 7-4 in favor, with supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier, Carmen Chu, Bevan Dufty and Sean Elsbernd voting in opposition.