Keeping first responders staffed up is a perennial concern in San Francisco: New laws come along every now and then to attract and/or retain cops and firefighters. This year, we have two propositions aimed at finding that first responder equilibrium: One plans to pay police officers to postpone their retirement; the other will lower the retirement age for firefighters.
Proposition H would return firefighter’s retirement age to 55 from 58, which voters rolled back in 2012 after the recession. The controller analysis expects the law to cost the city $3.7 million in the first year and then increase thereafter as the city’s retirement contributions increase. Early results showed the measure narrowly leading as of Thursday.
Despite its cost, Prop. H is more or less uncontroversial. There’s only one opponent, self-proclaimed libertarian Starchild, who objects to the cost.
Proposition F, on the other hand, is a hotter issue by far.
Proponents say Prop. F will incentivize veteran SFPD officers to stay in the force, forgoing retirement to buttress low staffing numbers. The law would allow officers to postpone retirement for up to five years, working patrol or investigations. The no votes were narrowly leading in early results Thursday.
Supervisor Hillary Ronen opposes the law. She says it will be wasteful, ineffective, and unfair to other city employees, who do not get similar options to postpone retirement.
“Proposition F is a City Hall insider redo of a policy that’s already been tried and was a massive failure,” she wrote. “With San Francisco facing a major budget deficit, every dollar we waste on Proposition F is a dollar we can’t use to address actual public safety concerns.”
She contends the law will offer some officers half a million dollars, allowing them to double-dip their salaries. She also said it won’t add any new officers to the department, and in some cases could pay officers who’ve retired but are still under investigation for alleged wrongdoing.
Opponents of Prop. F say that most officers leave the department after only five to seven years, so if any incentive to stay should be offered, it should be for them — not middle-aged officers who have worked for the department for 25 years.
“With San Francisco facing a major budget deficit, every dollar we waste on Proposition F is a dollar we can’t use to address actual public safety concerns.”
Hillary Ronen
Ronen says the city decided not to continue a similar 2008 program because there was no evidence it helped retain officers. Besides, the city has already okayed what she called the “biggest retention plan in the city’s history,” including giving some senior officers 17% retention pay premiums.
One last objection: Opponents, including the ACLU, Supervisors Dean Preston and Shamann Walton, and Public Defender Manu Raju, argue that it’s unfair to other public safety workers, like firefighters and 911 dispatchers, who get no such retention pay.
Prop. F’s proponents — every supervisor besides Ronen, Preston, and Walton — argue that such incentives are needed for the short-staffed department, which has not been able to maintain its ranks since 2019.
That short staffing, proponents say, endangers the public because it elongates response times, perpetuates the city’s image as a lawless metropolis, and forces taxpayers to spend far more on overtime.
Like Prop. H, Prop. F won’t come cheap either: A Controller’s analysis determined that Prop. F will cost the city $3 million annually.