PGI logo cropped.png
Congressional Millionaire’s Club
The Personal Gain Index shines a light on how members of Congress benefit during their tenure.





Difference between revisions of "San Francisco Police Foot Patrol Program, Proposition M (November 2010)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Path to the ballot: ballot question text)
m (Text replace - ""," to ","")
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{tnr}}A '''San Francisco Police Foot Patrol Program Ordinance, Proposition M''' is on the {{nov02ca2010}} for voters in {{san francisco}}.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=68866 ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Police foot-patrols measure to go before voters", July 28, 2010]</ref>
+
{{tnr}}A '''San Francisco Police Foot Patrol Program Ordinance, Proposition M''' was on the {{nov02ca2010}} for voters in {{san francisco}}.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=68866 ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Police foot-patrols measure to go before voters," July 28, 2010]</ref> It was '''defeated.'''
  
The proposal, if voters approve it, will require the San Francisco Police Department to establish a foot patrol program.
+
Proposition M, if voters had approved it, would have required the San Francisco Police Department to establish a foot patrol program.
  
The measure conflicts with an ordinance favored by Mayor [[Gavin Newsom]], the [[San Francisco Sit-Lie Ordinance (November 2010)|San Francisco Sit-Lie Ordinance]].  The ballot language for the Foot Patrol Program contains a [[poison pill]] that says that if it earns more votes than the Sit-Lie Ordinance, the Sit-Lie Ordinance is null-and-void, even if it wins a majority of the vote.
+
Proposition M competed with an ordinance favored by Mayor [[Gavin Newsom]], the [[San Francisco Sit-Lie Ordinance, Proposition L (November 2010)|San Francisco Sit-Lie Ordinance, Proposition L]].  The ballot language for the Foot Patrol Program contained a [[poison pill]] that said that if it earns more votes than the Sit-Lie Ordinance, the Sit-Lie Ordinance is null-and-void, even if it wins a majority of the vote.  However, this provision turned out to be moot, since [[San Francisco Sit-Lie Ordinance, Proposition L (November 2010)|Proposition L]] did receive an affirmative majority of votes, while Proposition M did not.
  
==Ballot question==
+
==Election results==
 +
 
 +
* Yes: 117,608 (46.59%)
 +
* No: 134,808 (53.41%) {{defeated}}
 +
 
 +
Election results are from the [http://www.sfelections.org/results/20101102/ San Francisco elections division] as of November 26, 2010.
 +
 
 +
==Text of measure==
  
 
{{Q box |
 
{{Q box |
Line 28: Line 35:
 
The grounds given by Proposition L supporters as to why Proposition M ought to be taken off the ballot revolve around whether or not the San Francisco Board of Supervisors held a required "second comment period" before voting to put Proposition M on the ballot.
 
The grounds given by Proposition L supporters as to why Proposition M ought to be taken off the ballot revolve around whether or not the San Francisco Board of Supervisors held a required "second comment period" before voting to put Proposition M on the ballot.
  
If Arntz doesn't take action on the request, a lawsuit may be filed to accomplish the objective of removing Prop M from the ballot.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/23/BA9V1F25VT.DTL ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Ballot battles", August 24, 2010]</ref>
+
If Arntz doesn't take action on the request, a lawsuit may be filed to accomplish the objective of removing Prop M from the ballot.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/23/BA9V1F25VT.DTL ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Ballot battles," August 24, 2010]</ref>
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
Line 36: Line 43:
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
<references/>
+
{{reflist}}
  
{{california stub}}
+
{{lbm stub}}
[[Category:California 2010 local ballot measures]]
+
[[Category:City governance, California, 2010]]

Latest revision as of 08:07, 21 March 2014

A San Francisco Police Foot Patrol Program Ordinance, Proposition M was on the November 2, 2010 ballot for voters in San Francisco.[1] It was defeated.

Proposition M, if voters had approved it, would have required the San Francisco Police Department to establish a foot patrol program.

Proposition M competed with an ordinance favored by Mayor Gavin Newsom, the San Francisco Sit-Lie Ordinance, Proposition L. The ballot language for the Foot Patrol Program contained a poison pill that said that if it earns more votes than the Sit-Lie Ordinance, the Sit-Lie Ordinance is null-and-void, even if it wins a majority of the vote. However, this provision turned out to be moot, since Proposition L did receive an affirmative majority of votes, while Proposition M did not.

Election results

  • Yes: 117,608 (46.59%)
  • No: 134,808 (53.41%) Defeatedd

Election results are from the San Francisco elections division as of November 26, 2010.

Text of measure

The question on the ballot:

Proposition M: Shall the City require the Police Commission to adopt a written community policing policy, require the Chief of Police to establish a comprehensive Foot Beat Patrol Program, and not amend its Police Code to prohibit sitting or lying on sidewalks?[2]

Path to the ballot

The measure was placed on the ballot with a 7-4 vote of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Ross Mirkarimi, Chris Daly, David Chiu, John Avalos, David Campos, Eric Mar and Sophie Maxwell voted in favor of putting it on the ballot.

Sean Elsbernd, Michela Alioto-Pier, Carmen Chu and Bevan Dufty voted against putting it on the ballot.

Possible lawsuit to remove

See also: 2010 ballot measure litigation

On August 24, supporters of the competing Proposition L asked John Arntz, director of elections for San Francisco, to remove Proposition M from the ballot.

The grounds given by Proposition L supporters as to why Proposition M ought to be taken off the ballot revolve around whether or not the San Francisco Board of Supervisors held a required "second comment period" before voting to put Proposition M on the ballot.

If Arntz doesn't take action on the request, a lawsuit may be filed to accomplish the objective of removing Prop M from the ballot.[3]

External links

References

  1. San Francisco Chronicle, "Police foot-patrols measure to go before voters," July 28, 2010
  2. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  3. San Francisco Chronicle, "Ballot battles," August 24, 2010

LocalBallotMeasures Final.png This local ballot measure article is a stub. You can help people learn by expanding it.