S.F. supes can fix comment system
By the end of this month, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors will have almost certainly moved to eliminate remote public comments on important policy discussions. This despite the fact that an earlier proposal to end the practice was tabled recently, when — no surprise — many citizens participating in remote public comment on the issue were vociferously against the proposal.
There is no doubt that the public comment process in San Francisco needs reforming. Look only to the marathon sessions on the closing of John F. Kennedy Drive to cars (nine hours of public comment!) or the disastrous debacle of the redistricting commission last year — when public comment dragged the poor, unpaid commissioners into multiple 2 a.m. and later working sessions — to understand that reform is needed. Our elected officials, who (usually) work very hard to craft nuanced policy informed by a variety of inputs, shouldn’t have to withstand the verbal equivalent of a computer network distributed denial of service attack on their ability to govern.
But ending remote public comment isn’t the answer. Doing so would severely restrict the kinds of people who can participate.
Most people simply can’t attend an in-person meeting in the middle of a workday and wait hours for their turn to speak. Disability advocates are particularly upset about the proposed change. Even though the lived experience of the pandemic is over for most, COVID still lurks. Asking the immunocompromised to travel on public transit and stand in crowded rooms of the unmasked to have their voices heard smacks of uncaring.
Supervisor Rafael Mandelman has proposed allowing remote public comment only for those with disabilities. But it’s not hard to see this loophole being wedged wide open by public comment gadflies, the same people who bring their teacup Chihuahuas into Trader Joe’s under the guise of service animal exemptions. Even if this exemption were somehow enacted in a fair and appropriate manner, it would still prevent thousands of people from voicing their opinions — making parents and those with full-time jobs unlikely to weigh in on important policy decisions.
So, who will sound off in their stead? The same cross-section of San Francisco that was the predominant voice in public comment prior to the pandemic — wealthier homeowners and those who are retired.
Why is this so concerning?
As a housing advocate and regular attendee of public meetings, I’m often dismayed when I hear voice after voice of cranky, privileged neighbors sound off about the latest development down the street — while renters are stuck at their jobs.
Many of these public commenters, it’s worth noting, have owned property for decades and thus, thanks to Proposition 13 taxation rules, pay a fraction of the state property tax of their would-be neighbors if new developments were allowed to be built.
Not all city business, of course, is conducted in the middle of a workday. Many commission meetings take place in the late afternoon and early evening, a nod to allowing more public participation. But this is when parents are picking up, feeding and putting to bed their kids. It is extremely burdensome to expect these same parents to trek down to City Hall in the middle of this phalanx of duties just to speak for a minute or two about some new development. (And what are single parents to do except opt out of public comment, or in extreme cases, bring their kids to City Hall?)
All told, the likely impact of this proposed change will be a chilling effect on participation; parents simply won’t have their voices heard, in a city that already has more dogs than kids.
It’s understandable that supervisors would want to amend the practice that effectively indulges hundreds of people who waste everyone’s time writing silly poems about proposed policy changes. But narrowing who can participate in public comment to only the affluent, retired, childless or otherwise idle is not the answer.
So why not take this opportunity to reform public comment instead of eliminating the remote portion of it?
California’s Brown Act prevents the elimination of public comment entirely, but there are many things the supervisors can do to ensure that all voices are heard — just not at a volume that leads to deafness.
Limiting public comment in some form — whether by length of comment or total length of time — is allowed under the Brown Act, according to state court decisions.
How about reducing the length of public comment for most matters to under a minute — instead of the current status quo of two or three minutes? Why not ask participants to use part of their time to state their name, neighborhood and whether they are for or against a proposed piece of legislation?
Our supervisors should do the real work to come up with a legitimate public comment reform proposal that enables a diverse set of San Franciscans to participate.
Other cities across California are struggling with the same issues; they can use whatever model San Francisco comes up with as a blueprint to follow. I’m sure politicians across our Golden State would appreciate the help.