City Hall Digest: Killer Robots, More Scandal at DPH, and a Plan to Build Housing on Vacant Lots

City Hall Digest is TogetherSF Action’s weekly dispatch from San Francisco’s City Hall, broken into bite-sized pieces—because understanding local government is your fundamental right.

Killer Robots Have Been Terminated

After a long debate last week, the board of supervisors voted 8 to 3 (with members Hillary Ronen, Shamann Walton, and Dean Preston dissenting) to approve a policy allowing robotic use of force, with an amendment to require that senior command staff authorize the bot’s use. There was significant debate, and critics like Preston continued to lambast the decision on Twitter, giving it more lip service than the story about a child who almost died after he ingested fentanyl at a park in the Marina. 

That criticism—and the fact that the policy garnered national attention—seem to have worked, as this week the supervisors reversed course, voting 8 to 3 (with members Mandelman, Dorsey, and Stefani dissenting) to instead temporarily prohibit police from using robots to deliver lethal force as part of wider legislation on obtaining military gear. However, this may change, as the issue of robots will be debated further in upcoming board committee meetings. 

We are disappointed that the supervisors, who have so much power to make meaningful change in San Francisco, choose performance over progress once again by blowing issues like this out of proportion while downplaying the very real crises our city faces. 

This only came up as a matter of discussion because state law said the police department must adopt a policy, approved by the board of supervisors, for whether their bots can use lethal force. Nobody wanted to create a precedent for building T-1000s. 

Under new state law, local law enforcement agencies must obtain approval for a policy to use military equipment from their local government. Between 2010 and 2017, the San Francisco Police Department purchased 17 remote controlled robots for purposes like examining or detonating potential explosive devices. That’s all they’re used for. They’ve never been equipped to deal lethal force. In fact, this type of robot has only used lethal force once in the entire country: in Dallas, in 2016. The situations in which bots could even be used by the SFPD are exceedingly rare, too—only in case of a mass shooter or suicide bomber. 

A Better Relationship Between the SFPD and DA is Leading to More Public Safety Accountability

A recent analysis done by the San Francisco Chronicle shows just how critical it is for the San Francisco Police Department and the District Attorney’s Office to have a healthy and cohesive relationship. 

The Chronicle found that SFPD has been turning arrests over to the DA’s office at a much higher rate since Brooke Jenkins took office. Specifically, SFPD has sent Jenkins 100 more arrests per month, for a total of 755 per month. The most noticeable jump in law enforcement activity under DA Jenkins came from arrests booked as felony narcotics cases, which increased by 74 percent from the second to the third quarter of 2022.

Jenkins’ critics have said they’re concerned that an increase in arrests would lead to higher incarceration rates. That’s a concern because high rates of incarceration have impacted Black and brown communities disproportionately. But prosecution rates are the same as they were before Jenkins took office. The increase in arrests is significant because it signals that the SFPD and the district attorney are working more cohesively, which will ultimately result in better outcomes for public safety.

Department of Public Health Faces Widening Scandal as 300 Employees Reveal They Have Second Jobs

In October, it was reported that Lisa Pratt, a senior Department of Public Health official, held a second job consulting for an organization that held contracts with DPH. City officials can hold second jobs, but they must first obtain permission from the city’s Human Resources department. Pratt did not do so. 

In a dramatic and disappointing turn last week, DPH reported that 300 more employees came forth to seek approval for their second jobs. The number of DPH employees with second jobs now totals 441—the next closest city agency has 18 such employees. The 441 employees totals six percent of DPH’s total human resources. To make matters worse, at least 22 of those employees are performing second jobs with organizations with whom DPH holds contracts. Something isn’t right here.

We need to see a full accounting of where DPH employees are working. If city employees have a small business or drive for a rideshare company, that’s one thing. It is quite another to be “consulting” for a nonprofit contracted by the department where they work that also oversees the nonprofit’s contract. 

Could Building Housing on Vacant Auto-Related Lots Solve the Housing Crisis?

Everything around housing in San Francisco seems to move at a snail’s pace. Last year, Mayor Breed introduced Cars to Casas, legislation that would help make it more appealing for developers to build on vacant lots that were formerly used for vehicle-related purposes like gas stations or auto garages. Last week, the consulting firm Century Urban conducted a financial analysis of this legislation, detailing the effect the incentive would have on housing development—and the results were mixed. But that doesn’t mean this policy should get the ax.

First, let’s start with the fact that building in San Francisco is expensive—recent estimates price a single unit of affordable housing at $1 million to build. (And we wonder why there’s a housing crisis?) The mayor’s idea would basically make it cheaper to build on these sorts of lots. An example shows Breed's legislation would reduce the losses incurred on building by about 20 percent.

Then, let’s remember that San Francisco must build 82,069 units of housing by 2031 to comply with our plan to accommodate the region’s growing population. When combined with state density incentives, the effect of Cars to Casas would be greater. Cars to Casas won't instantly make developers want to build on these vacant lots, nor will it directly reduce the cost of construction, but it is nonetheless an important piece to advancing us toward our RHNA goals.