Please Tell City Hall To Amend Anti-Video Law
San Francisco residents concerned about property crime should send a message to City Hall ASAP about the anti-video surveillance law. It's currently being amended and some key words are missing.
Please tell supervisors to get this law right. Your emails must be received before May 6, 2019.
Your first round of emails helped. The supervisors noticed your hundreds of messages and added some amendments. But there are potential loopholes that could jeopardize public safety.
If you already know enough about this issue and you're ready to act now, click here for a sample email addressed to the supervisors. Add your name and neighborhood, then hit send.
If you want to learn more before sending your message, keep reading below.
If you wish to appear at the committee hearing in person and speak for two minutes during public comment:
Monday May 6
10am
City Hall Room 263
Please forward this message to your friends and neighbors. Share this link on Nextdoor and social media.
BACKGROUND
A proposed law could severely restrict the ability to solve crimes with video security cameras. The legislation needs amendments to avoid unintended consequences. Learn more:
San Francisco Chronicle op-ed by Joel Engardio that explains the concerns in simple terms.
Open letter from Stop Crime SF that offers specific amendments.
SAMPLE LETTER TO SUPERVISORS
Dear Supervisor:
Please amend the "Acquisition of Surveillance Technology" ordinance so it clearly allows the police department to use video from security cameras voluntarily provided by private homes and businesses.
There is a property crime epidemic in San Francisco and police need private security video footage to solve crimes. The amendment on page 12 (lines 6-9) only says police can receive private video. It should clearly say police can also use private video.
I'm also worried about the amendment (page 12, lines 8-9) that says police can receive private video only if it complies with all other parts of the ordinance. The legislation contains many requirements meant for city departments that would be onerous if applied to private citizens and businesses. This part of the amendment should be deleted.
Even more troubling is language (Page 10, lines 3-6 and 16-18) that says the police department must get full Board of Supervisors approval before working with a private entity that regularly provides video. This could jeopardize longstanding relationships with non-profits, private businesses and merchant associations that work closely with police. And it could jeopardize public safety.
These are the recommendations of Stop Crime SF, a group of more than 500 San Francisco residents working to reduce crime. I agree with Stop Crime SF that this legislation addresses legitimate concerns about privacy and civil liberties. But I also agree that more needs to be fixed so this law doesn't end up making us less safe.
CONTACT YOUR SUPERVISOR
Always send your email to Board.of.Supervisors@sfgov.org so your message is put in the official record. Then send a copy to your individual supervisor so they see it:
District 1 — Richmond
Sandra Lee Fewer
District 2 — Marina
Catherine Stefani
District 3 — North Beach, Chinatown
Aaron Peskin
District 4 — Sunset
Gordon Mar
District 5 — Inner Sunset, Cole Valley, Lower Haight, Hayes Valley, Fillmore, Japantown
Vallie Brown
District 6 — SOMA, Tenderloin
Matt Haney
District 7 — West of Twin Peaks, West Portal, Inner Sunset, Sunnyside, Lakeshore/Merced Manor, Westwood Park, Miraloma Park
Norman Yee
District 8 — Castro, Glen Park
Rafael Mandelman
District 9 — Mission
Hillary Ronen
District 10 — Bayview, Portrero Hill, Visitacion Valley
Shamann Walton
District 11 — Excelsior
Ahsha Safai
