Comment by keneda7 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by keneda7 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It is crazy to me how many people just straight up lie on here.

The article the poster linked to does not show the overall department budget, rather that was spent on employees' wages. I don't see you or the other poster mentioning this at all though. Here is an article you can see the overall budget of numerous police departments including SF

https://abc7news.com/sfpd-budget-defund-the-police-departmen...

18-19: 629.8M 19-20: 692.3M 20-21: 667.9M 21-22: 657.4M

I believe I see one increase and two decreases. Between 18-19 to 19-20 the departments funding increased. While the department had funding decreased from 19-20 to 20-21 and again from 20-21 to 21-22. Now whether or not this defunding (funding decrease) was due to "defund the police" or some other factor I cannot say. However I can say for a fact that the narrative police were NOT defunded is wrong. I have provided 2 overall budgets that show they were defunded for two separate time periods.

Its also worth noting we are not adjusting for inflation or cost of living increases.

Your numbers don't include supplemental $27.5 million to fund police overtime in 21-22 or the increase to $761.9 million in 22-23. By my count, that's 3 increases and one decrease.

https://missionlocal.org/2023/03/sf-mayor-27m-police-overtim...

https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/BLA.SF_Police_Dept._Bu...

So just be clear you are claiming there is 0 defunding but then admit by your count there is one decrease which is also known as defunding?

Also based on the timeline for 21-22 they defunded, then recognized the need more money because you know they defunded from the previous year so then allocated more funding.

The article I linked didn't have 22-23.

And just to be clear, you're agreeing with somebody who claimed that SFPD is defunded and is only acting differently because they are currently defunded.

You're also saying that 3 out of 4 isn't consistent. Fine. Does that make me a liar, or are you picking nits?

> The article I linked didn't have 22-23.

That's what I said.

>>And just to be clear, you're agreeing with somebody who claimed that SFPD is defunded and is only acting differently because they are currently defunded.

I responded to you, you responded to someone claiming "The police aren't defunded in San Francisco. They have consistently gotten budget increases."

I pointed out the police have been defunded depending on the time span you look at. I also pointed both of you misrepresenting the data pretending it was the overall budget when it was in fact the employees wages.

>>You're also saying that 3 out of 4 isn't consistent.

I disagree with you. You claimed a link said there was a "$27.5 million to fund police overtime in 21-22". Could you point specifically to where that is?

One does reference a 27.5 million proposal and says "The Budget and Appropriations Committee of the Board of Supervisors approved a $25 million budget supplemental Wednesday to fund police overtime in San Francisco. It next goes to the full Board of Supervisors on March 21st." No where does this say that this is being added to last years budget. In fact the article is from March 2023.

Even if it was for 21-22, if original budget allocated less money than the previous year, they defunded the police that year. Rushing to add in extra funding AFTER the budget was done so people can pretend it never happened does not erase the original budget that defunded them.

So I still see it as 2-2 even with your added 22-23 data which is not consistent in my eyes.

> I pointed out the police have been defunded depending on the time span you look at

And what does "have been" have to do with "are?" You seem to be having some difficulty understanding tense. That explains it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com