By Luke Thomas

August 26, 2010

An attempt to force the withdrawal of a foot patrol measure on the November ballot has failed.

Department of Elections Director John Arntz yesterday responded to Sutton law firm attorney Kevin Heneghan saying, “The version of Proposition M filed with the Department of Elections is identical to the version attached to the Board of Supervisors agenda for its July, 27, 2010 meeting.  Therefore, the measure was not amended and I will not be taking any action in response to your letter.”

In his August 24 letter to Arntz, Heneghan claimed the measure should be withdrawn from the November ballot, “because the Board of Supervisors violated the San Francisco Elections Code when adding a ‘poison pill’ to the measure.”

Heneghan is representing a coalition of merchants and residents who support a controversial Sit/Lie measure (Proposition L) on the same ballot. Its members are opposed to Proposition M, sponsored by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, because an amendment, added by Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, effectively nullifies Proposition L if Proposition M passes with more votes.

Progressives support proactive foot patrols to deter crime.  Proposition M requires police captains to work with merchants and community groups to establish foot beats where their presence would deter street levels crimes.

The Sit/Lie measure, by comparison, is reactive and aims to criminalize the act of the sitting or lying on a sidewalk.