Without a doubt, Proposition L’s defeat was a major egg on Mayor Newsom’s face – as nobody thought San Francisco voters would reject it by a 15-point landslide. But if yesterday’s rally by Supervisor Chris Daly and his allies calling on the City de-fund the Community Justice Center was any indication, the “anti-Newsom” Left is in grave danger of overreaching their mandate. They’re right that voters rejected the CJC in this bad economic climate, and it makes no sense to launch the court if the Mayor cuts services for homeless people. But it’s naïve to presume that voters now have “seen the light” on the City’s homelessness crisis. Local progressives have a lot to offer with their agenda: affordable housing, quality health care, transit justice and a progressive approach on crime. But turning this fight into the Board’s next “battle” with Mayor Newsom could jeopardize much of what they have accomplished. Because yesterday’s rally ignored that many progressives liked the idea of a CJC – rejecting Prop L for other reasons.

Gavin Newsom’s decision to keep Prop L on the ballot – but then not campaign for it – will go down as one of Eric Jaye’s dumbest political moves ever. The Mayor initially put the Community Justice Center on the ballot for the most unethical reason: scare the Board of Supervisors into funding it, as polling showed it was a very popular idea. Once the Board relented to pressure, however, Newsom kept it on – although its funding was basically a done deal.

The Mayor then argued it was necessary to keep Prop L on the ballot, because Chris Daly had vowed to “de-fund” the CJC after a new Board gets sworn in. But at the time nobody took Daly’s threat seriously, as everyone (including myself) assumed that Prop L would pass—and there would be no political will to shift gears.

So if Newsom felt he needed the clear validation that the people were “on his side,” why did he not campaign for Prop L? There was little campaigning on either side of the issue, and in a sleepy campaign the voters simply rejected it. Newsom, ironically, would have been better off keeping Prop L off the ballot. Because now he has inadvertently handed Daly a very convincing argument to his colleagues on the Board that they should de-fund the CJC.

But Prop L’s defeat doesn’t necessarily mean a rejection of the CJC. Everyone knew the idea was popular before it went on the ballot, and opponents never mounted a serious challenge after it stayed. In fact, opponents were caught off guard that Prop L even lost. “I really thought voters were going to pass it, but I was wrong,” said James Keys at yesterday’s rally. “I apologize to each and every San Franciscan. You have my sincere gratitude.”

Without much of a “yes” campaign, Prop L lost because: (a) voters didn’t see the point of ratifying it, since the Board of Supervisors had already funded the Court, and (b) in these tough economic times, voters didn’t support the idea of funding a new program. Due to the same fiscal concerns, voters rejected Proposition B (an affordable housing set-aside) – although there was a strong campaign for it. And while voters did pass Proposition T (treatment on demand – which will cost money), the price tag was far less apparent or obvious than it was for Prop B ($33 million a year) or Prop L (about $2 million in start-up costs.)

At yesterday’s press conference, CJC opponents denounced a new Court that “connects” homeless people with mental health services and harm reduction programs – while the Mayor plans to cut these very same services. That’s true. It makes no sense to have a CJC – unless the services will be there to make it successful. As long as Mayor Newsom proposes further cuts in such vital programs, and as long as the economic crisis hurts our budget, opponents are absolutely right to call upon the City to not fund a CJC that is designed to fail.

The problem, however, is that opponents question the whole premise of a CJC. We heard a lot of rhetoric at yesterday’s rally about courts “making poverty a crime,” and the folly of “punishment” as an ineffective remedy to preventing crime. Many spoke eloquently about how incarceration doesn’t solve homelessness – while ignoring the fact that a CJC is designed to prevent people from going to jail for committing a petty crime. If a person commits a car break-in, wouldn’t you rather they get services than be thrown in jail?

Supervisor Chris Daly spoke about how his colleagues felt “pressured” to fund the CJC – although the community most affected came to City Hall and spoke out against it.

I remember those hearings, but my recollection is that Tenderloin leaders like Elaine Zamora, Mark Ellinger, Tomiquia Moss and Father John Hardin of St. Anthony’s supported the CJC. Even the late Jeoflin Roh – who used to work for Chris Daly – was a strong supporter, and spoke out in favor until his death in August. Granted, these neighborhood residents supported it with the caveat that the services would be there. But nevertheless, they supported the CJC.

Progressives have much to celebrate from last week’s Election results. Coordinated attacks from business, landlords and realtors failed to dislodge their majority on the Board of Supervisors – giving them a clear mandate in 2009 to pass a pro-tenant and pro-labor agenda. But by gloating about Prop L’s defeat, and interpreting it as a mass rejection of the CJC, they risk making a big political mistake that will hurt them politically down the road.

And that’s something that a new progressive majority needs to start thinking about.