San Francisco, California, Prohibiting Tents on Public Sidewalks, Proposition Q (November 2016)

• Text of measure
  • Ballot question
  • Impartial analysis
• Support
  • Official argument
• Opposition
  • Official argument
• Path to the ballot
• See also
  • External links
  • Footnotes
• More
  • Local ballot measures
  • State ballot measures
  • Local politics

Proposition Q: San Francisco Prohibiting Tents on Public Sidewalks
The basics
Election date:
November 8, 2016
Status:
a Approved
Topic:
Local zoning, land use and development
Related articles
Local zoning, land use and development on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California San Francisco County, California ballot measures
See also
San Francisco, California

A measure prohibiting tents on public sidewalks was on the ballot for San Francisco voters in San Francisco County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was approved.

A yes vote was a vote in favor of prohibiting the use of tents on public sidewalks and requiring the city to offer temporary shelter before removing tents.

A no vote was a vote against this proposition to prohibit tents on public sidewalks, thereby leaving the city's laws against obstructing public sidewalks and sitting or lying down on sidewalks in place without adding a specific provision against tents.

Election results

Proposition Q
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		194,410	51.77%
No		181,138	48.23%

Election results from San Francisco Department of Elections

Text of measure

Ballot question

The following question appeared on the ballot:

“

Shall the City prohibit the placement of tents on public sidewalks without a City permit and allow the City to remove unauthorized tents if the City provides 24-hour advance notice, offers shelter for all tent residents and stores the residents’ personal property for up to 90 days?

”

Simplification digest

The following summary of Proposition Q was provided by San Francisco's Ballot Simplification Committee:

“ The Way It Is Now: City law prohibits the willful obstruction of public sidewalks. City law also prohibits sitting or lying on public sidewalks from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. City law authorizes the Department of Public Health to remove public nuisances, which include unsanitary structures. City law does not specifically prohibit placing tents on public sidewalks. The Proposal: Proposition Q would prohibit placing tents on public sidewalks without a City permit. The City would not be allowed to remove or order removal of an unauthorized tent unless the City had available shelter for all residents of the tent. Under Proposition Q, shelter includes City-operated shelters, Navigation Centers and other City-operated housing. Before removing or ordering a person to remove an unauthorized tent on a public sidewalk, the City would be required to: • offer shelter to all tent residents; • offer to pay the cost to transport all tent residents to live with friends or family outside San Francisco; and • provide written notice that the City will remove the tent in 24 hours. The City would have to provide this notice to all tent residents and post the notice near the tent. If residents do not accept the City’s offer of housing or shelter, or do not remove the unauthorized tent within 24 hours of the notice, the City may remove the tent. After removing the tent, the City would be required to post a written notice near the area where the tent was located. The notice would have to describe all personal property removed and state: • when and why the tent was removed; • where the City is storing the personal property; • that the City is not charging for the storage or retrieval of the personal property; and • that the City will discard the personal property after 90 days if not retrieved. A “YES” Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want to prohibit the placement of tents on public sidewalks without a City permit and allow the City to remove unauthorized tents if the City provides 24-hour advance notice, offers shelter for all tent residents and stores the residents’ personal property for up to 90 days. A “NO” Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want to make these changes. ”

Fiscal impact

The following fiscal impact statement about Proposition Q was provided by the San Francisco Controller:

“ Should the proposed ordinance be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would have a minimal to significant impact on the cost of government, depending on the practices used to implement the policies required in the ordinance. The proposed ordinance would prohibit tent encampments, or any structure with a top or roof that can fit a person sitting or lying down, on public sidewalks. There are approximately 3,500 unsheltered homeless in San Francisco, though the number of individuals who may be impacted by the proposed ordinance is unknown. The City would be required to offer housing or shelter, though the proposed ordinance does not specify the number of days of housing that must be offered. The City would also be required to offer homeless services, defined as a program (Homeward Bound) that pays for transportation to reunite individuals with family or friends outside of San Francisco. The proposed ordinance requires the City to provide written notice 24 hours in advance to individuals and also to post the notices in the area of the encampment. The affected individuals’ personal property, with certain exceptions, would be stored by the City for at least 90 days. The cost to implement the policies required in the ordinance would vary significantly depending on the practices used to implement them. Costs would likely be minimal to the extent that the City did not seek to enforce the prohibition on encampments, or to prioritize individuals in noticed encampments for existing shelter beds, housing options, or other services over other individuals currently provided those services or on waiting lists for them. Costs would likely be significant to the extent that the City instead increased services for individuals impacted by the ordinance without reprioritizing those receiving these services. ”

Full text

The full text of the measure is available here.

Support

Supporters

The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:

• Supervisor Mark Farrell
• Supervisor Katy Tang

Arguments in favor

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:

“

Vote Yes on Prop Q to Move Homeless San Franciscans out of Tent Encampments and Into a Better Life Homelessness has reached crisis proportions in San Francisco. One of its worst symptoms is the tent encampments that are spreading in our neighborhoods. It is not compassionate to allow human beings to live in tents on our streets. It is both dangerous and unhealthy. The answer to homelessness is housing, not tents. Proposition Q, “Housing Not Tents,” will move homeless individuals out of tent encampments and into housing. Prop Q mandates that temporary shelter or housing be offered to individuals residing in an encampment before removing it, and that 24 hours’ notice is given. This measure would also continue the City’s successful Homeward Bound program that offers paid transportation to a destination outside of San Francisco for homeless individuals who are offered housing by a friend or family member. Prop Q will ensure that tent encampments are not just simply pushed to other neighborhoods. Under Prop Q, the City would be required to provide notice to all individuals residing in a tent and inform them of a specific available shelter or housing opportunity. We would also store an individual’s personal property for up to 90 days after removal. Allowing tent cities to remain in place only prolongs homelessness and doesn’t help ensure homeless residents get the help and services they need. Prop Q ensures that the City prioritizes housing and support services for the homeless instead. Vote YES vote on Prop Q to move the homeless out of tent encampments and into a better life.

”

Opposition

Opponents

The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:

• Coalition on Homelessness
• John Burton, Chair, California Democratic Party
• Public Defender Jeff Adachi*
• Supervisor John Avalos
• Supervisor Eric Mar
• Supervisor Aaron Peskin
• Former Supervisor Angela Alioto
• Former Supervisor Bevan Dufty
• Paul Boden, Western Regional Advocacy Project

Arguments against

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:

“

Prop Q offers rhetoric, but it doesn't offer solutions. Prop Q doesn't create additional housing or beds—it would simply shuffle people from block to block. San Francisco currently has multiple year waits for public housing, and 800 people are languishing on the shelter waitlist. To comply with Prop Q, the City will likely hold existing shelter beds empty to make temporary space for campers, bypassing elderly and disabled people who were already in line for desperately needed shelter. Prop Q would force City outreach workers to dismantle tents with only 24 hours' notice, and to offer only a one-night stay in a shelter, after which campers would be right back out on the streets. This is unworkable in a number of ways. For example, shelters require a Tuberculosis clearance before entry, and it takes three days for the test results. Tents are already illegal under state law, and police already use local laws like sit/lie to cite people camping on the streets. The Budget and Legislative Office reports we spent $20.6 million enforcing anti-homeless laws last year, ticketing and arresting people simply for resting. This has been a resounding failure: Homelessness has increased. To make matters worse, tickets create legal barriers to housing eligibility. The sidewalk shuffle doesn't work and the reason is obvious: We cannot address homelessness through enforcement – only housing gets people off the streets. Four Supervisors waited to the last minute to put Prop Q on the ballot, avoiding community input. With no offer of actual housing in the measure, Q is impractical and inhumane. Vote No on Q.

”

Campaign finance

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$683,812
Opposition:	$5,500

Note: Opposition contributions featured multiple ballot measure activity. Therefore, contributions were made to multiple measures on the 2016 ballot -- Propositions Q & R.

Support

In support of Proposition Q, there were $683,812 in contributions and $594,734 in expenditures.

Top donors

As of October 29, 2016, the following were the top donors in support of the measure:

Donor	Amount
Committee on Jobs Government Reform Fund	$355,000
San Francisco Forward, Sponsored by San Francisco Chamber of Commerce	$50,000
William Oberndorf	$49,999
Ronald Conway	$49,999
Michael Moritz	$50,000

Opposition

Opposition contributions featured multiple ballot measure activity. Therefore, contributions were made to multiple measures on the 2016 ballot -- Propositions Q & R. Contributions totaled $5,500, while expenditures totaled $2,396.

Top donors

As of October 29, 2016, the following were the top donors in opposition:

Donor	Amount
Swords to Ploughshares	$1,000
Stop the Developer Giveaway	$1,000
Phil Ting for Assembly 2016	$1,000
Bevan Dufty for Bart Board 2016	$750
John Andrew Blue	$400

Media editorials

Support

Email editor@ballotpedia.org to submit media editorials that should be posted here.

Opposition

• San Francisco Chronicle: "This proposal, though, needs a reality check. The sidewalk move-along order hinges on finding a bed in the city’s oversubscribed shelters. If there’s no slot available, then the 24-hour notice to leave won’t take effect. Farrell, who has devoted himself to homeless policy, floated the idea to send a message that the city is serious about ending the camps. For now, city teams give multiday warnings before scooping up the homeless and their possessions for interviews, treatment and placement or a ticket out of town. It’s painstaking, slow work, and not the one-shot answer that this measure calls for. Voters may want to send a message by approving this plan. But if it wins, there isn’t likely to be a visible result with fewer camps. The persistent problem will continue, leading supporters of Prop. Q to wonder what they accomplished. Vote NO."

• The Bay Area Reporter recommended a no vote for Proposition Q.

• San Francisco Bay Guardian: "This is one of the most ridiculous, mean-spirited measures to make the city ballot in years. It’s nothing but a pointless way to stir up sentiment against homeless people for political points. Prop. Q would ban camping on the sidewalks in San Francisco. Guess what? That’s already the law. Prop. Q would give the campers 24 hours’ notice and offer them shelter (for one night). Guess what? There’s nowhere near enough available shelter for the existing homeless population. Why is this even on the ballot? One reason: So Farrell and his ally Wiener can use homelessness as a wedge issue in the state Senate campaign. Disgusting. Vote no."

• San Francisco Examiner: "Homeless advocates warn the measure only encourages growing anti-homeless sentiment instead of working toward solutions. They argue Prop. Q is unnecessary since The City already has the power to remove tents when they wish. The one bright spot in this dismal conversation, and perhaps the best reason to reject Prop. Q, is that San Francisco recently formed a Department of Homelessness under the leadership of Jeff Kositsky. If the tent ban is a policy he believes would help the homeless situation in The City, he should be the one proposing it. Kositsky should have the chance to lead and not be hamstrung by mandates that may complicate or confound his work. Kositsky has kept quiet on the merits of Prop. Q. “Politics is a very bad way to make public policy on a complex issue like homelessness,” Kositsky told the Examiner."

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

San Francisco's city code allows four or more members of the San Francisco board of supervisors to sponsor a measure and put it before voters by signing the proposed ordinance and submitting it to the San Francisco department of elections. The following supervisors signed the ordinance proposed by Proposition Q and submitted it on June 21, 2016:

• Mark Farrell - District 2
• Katy Tang - District 4
• Scott Wiener - District 8
• Malia Cohen - District 10

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms San Francisco tents on sidewalks Proposition Q. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

San Francisco, California, Prohibiting Tents on Public Sidewalks, Proposition Q (November 2016) - Google News

See also

Local measures

• Local measures in 2016
• Local zoning, land use and development on the ballot

• San Francisco County measures

California

• November 8, 2016 measures in California
• Local ballot measures, California
• San Francisco, California

News and analysis

• State and local preemption conflicts
• Measures advancing national agendas

External links

Suggest a link

• San Francisco County Elections Office website