Safety and reform are both possible
Last November, just a few blocks from my San Francisco apartment, dozens of Latina and Muslim mothers marched through the Tenderloin with their fists in the air and little ones in tow. They didn’t come with a political agenda and weren’t organized by special interests. Their message was simple: Children should be safe on their walk to school.
Those moms expressed something many of us feel that has somehow become taboo to say: Crime is a real problem here that disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable.
That shouldn’t be controversial. Yet lately, we’re told we can either protect our community from crime or stand for social justice — not both. That false choice poisons our local politics and undermines the progress we desperately need.
I work for the American Civil Liberties Union because I want to end mass incarceration, reform law enforcement and invest in communities of color long under-resourced and short on community policing. But like some of those moms, I’m a South Asian American who lives here, and I see improving public safety as a basic need for our entire city.
Too many local politicians and activists pit criminal justice reform, police reform and public safety against each other. We deserve all three — they’re mutually reinforcing goals. You wouldn’t know it from our polarized politics, but we can support Mayor London Breed’s plan to make neighborhoods safer and dueling calls for humane alternatives.
We can take three steps now to reject the false choice and build a fairer, safer, more livable San Francisco.
First, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors should pass Mayor Breed’s supplemental budget. I urge everyone to read the plan, not just what critics say about it, because it’s rooted in a holistic understanding of our challenges. The mayor’s plan can deter brazen theft and hate crimes against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders while disrupting the open sale of fentanyl — which was deadlier in 2021 than COVID-19 — by strategically deploying foot patrols. She pairs that with continued funding for harm reduction strategies such as sobering facilities, drop-in centers that connect people to social services and housing, and the Dreamkeeper Initiative to reimagine smallbusiness ownership and youth development in the Black community.
And let’s be clear: Resources to stop crime need not be at odds with police reform. We can enhance police presence while demanding the San Francisco Police Department build on recent Department of Justice reforms and continue investments to eliminate bias, strengthen accountability and demilitarize responses.
Second, we can’t continue to indulge the mindset that treats social services as mutually exclusive with anti-crime investments. With San Francisco’s record budget surplus and unspent Proposition C dollars for homeless services, we can expand opportunity and fund the mayor’s public safety request. Detractors are right that we can’t arrest our way to safety. Harm reduction, mental health services, employment and childcare services, and housing and diversion programs can all reduce crime and recidivism — but not if they are underfunded. At scale, they can reduce over-reliance on police.
When an emergency room doctor books someone on a mental health hold, there has to be staff and space for that person to receive compassionate treatment. Otherwise, a police officer who comes across someone needing help on Monday will run into that same person on Wednesday, in the same neighborhood, needing the same help.
Similarly, clean slate programs — which clear criminal records to ensure past crimes do not needlessly prevent future employment — should pair collectively bargained jobs with training and housing assistance, adequately staffed to serve everyone.
Unfortunately, some of the same politicians attacking the mayor’s plan also oppose crucial investments in housing and basic needs in our neighborhoods at the speed and scale they require. That hypocrisy only perpetuates cycles of crime and poverty.
Third, not every disagreement should be a personal, ideological battle. Last week’s ending of an agreement on how the San Francisco Police Department and the District Attorney’s Office cooperate in use-of-force investigations underscores that our leaders can only begin restoring public trust in public safety by restoring their trust in each other. Only by working together can they tackle endemic challenges like homelessness, crime and racist legal systems. If mayors, police chiefs and district attorneys put aside differences and coordinate enforcement regionally, their impact will be greater than the sum of their parts. United, they speak louder on critical state funding and federal sentencing reforms. If they share data openly, political fights can become factual debates.
The bottom line before an individual turns to crime, we need to make sure they have access to social services, a great education and a quality job. At the point of crime, we need to enforce the law equally. And after a crime, we need to balance diversion, restorative justice and fair sentencing.
If we avoid pitting shared goals against each other, we can achieve the Bay Area’s promise of an inclusive community where workers and small businesses thrive, schools work for teachers and parents, and where our downtown skyline means both a second chance and a safe walk to school for kids everywhere.
Vikrum Aiyer is deputy director in the national ACLU’s political advocacy department and a former senior policy adviser in the Obama White House. He is also a District Six resident and a commissioner on San Francisco’s Workforce Investment Board.