The San Francisco Controller’s Office issued a report this week calling for the closure of five police stations and their replacement with new larger facilities. While Mayor Newsom and every Supervisor quoted on the report has been understandably skeptical, the proposal does involve a great irony. As the agency charged with ensuring San Francisco lives within its means, the Controller’s Office would hardly be expected to promote pie in the sky, fiscally unsound proposals. Yet in proposing to close the Tenderloin police station among others, and to build a new larger facility, the Controller provides no funding source. Instead, it merely asks the Board of Supervisors to identify sources of revenue. One quick idea: save money by stopping the Controller from squandering money on such reports.

The Controller’s police reform proposal has about as much chance of being implemented as President Bush has of leaving office with high poll numbers. In other words, nil.

But what I found interesting in the report was that it hinged on the construction of a new police station. Where would this facility be located? And, more importantly, where would the money come to pay for it?

Well, those who assumed that the Controller’s Office would be recognizing fiscal realities in its proposals were wrong. Instead, here is what the report says about funding the new police stations:

FUNDING ASSESSMENT. The SFPD Administration, in cooperation with the governing body of the City, must establish financial needs, identify sources for revenue and in a cost-effective manner commit the resources to the priority needs of the SFPD.

Translated, this means: police brass, work with the Supes to find the money for our proposals.

The Controller’s Office knows that the city has a budget deficit of over $300 million, requiring the Supes to search every nook and cranny to keep current programs going.

And the Controller also knows about the proposed $887 million General Hospital bond, announced the same day the police reform report was released. This means that bond financing for a new police station is not likely anytime soon.

So why release a proposal that not only is bad policy, but which is based on the premise of a funding source that simply does not exist?

I’ve seen more than my share of controller reports over the years. While some have been excellent, they are typically used to bolster what a politician (usually a mayor) wants to do anyway.

In this case, it is unimaginable that Mayor Newsom would start closing police stations in neighborhoods like the Tenderloin. A better solution is for the Board to eliminate funding for such unnecessary reports, whose production and distribution also adds to the city’s carbon footprint.

{Note: Current Controller Ben Rosenfeld was only recently appointed and likely had nothing to do with his office’s report}