San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom owes much of his popularity the past three years to his promotion of collaboration over confrontation. While his critics describe such collaboration as the Mayor’s “co-opting” of Supervisor proposals on issues such as universal health care, increased inclusionary housing, and anti-violence programs, the bottom-line is that Newsom’s support of these and other issues has left little for opponents to grumble about.

But in recent weeks, the Mayor has preferred a confrontational approach. He is now threatening to put a measure on the ballot to overturn the Board’s support of foot patrols, has made a mountain out of molehill by refusing to comply with voter’s wishes on “question time,” and is responding to media criticism in an angry, defensive manner. Facing no declared opponent for his re-election, the Mayor’s new approach is hard to understand.

Politicians facing re-election try to avoid giving political ammunition to potential opponents. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did a masterful job of this in 2006, when he adopted so many Democratic proposals that Phil Angelides was left with little to argue about in the fall election. Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown spent his re-election year of 1999 passing far-reaching legislation for tenants, which then helped him maintain some tenant support in his race that year against Tom Ammiano.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom appears to be following a different approach. In recent weeks he has gone out of his way to provoke confrontation on a range of issues where the mayor’s position is likely not supported by most voters.

Consider the issue of foot patrols. The Mayor has twice vetoed legislation mandating foot patrols for various neighborhoods, even though all indications are that the public is clamoring for foot patrols.

The Mayor’s argument is that the Board of Supervisors should not be telling the police how to fight crime. But his timing for raising this issue could not be worse.

San Franciscans overwhelmingly support the efforts by Nancy Pelosi and other Congressmembers to rein in the Executive Branch on a range of issues. Given the timing, Newsom’s claim that the Board lacks authority to allocate police resources could strike many as sounding like President Bush’s claim that Congress should have no right to limit troop levels in Iraq.

In other words, this is the wrong time in history for a San Francisco mayor to be pressing to limit legislative authority.

Over one year ago, the Mayor held a press conference and stated that the San Francisco Police Department needed a complete overhaul. Now he is attacking the Board of Supervisors for providing a necessary reform that the SFPD has foolishly resisted.

Does Newsom really want November’s mayoral race to be decided on the popular issue of foot patrols? If so, he shouldn’t be surprised if his stance entices a prominent candidate into the race.

Newsom’s fierce resistance to having to spend one afternoon a month answering questions at the Board of Supervisors is even more inexplicable.

Willie Brown would have loved the opportunity to take over the Board’s stage, and after a few question sessions of Brown dominating the proceedings the Board would likely have not invited him back. Willie would see question time as an opportunity to spread his own message, and to address issues that might have little connection to the question asked.

Rather than seize upon the opportunity of question time, Gavin Newsom should have seen it as an opportunity to publicize his agenda. He certainly has nothing to fear from the questions, as, contrary to what his critics believe, he is conversant on issues and can hold his own in debate.

Newsom’s confrontational approach to the voter-approved question time has resulted in criticism of the mayor from his usual ally at the San Francisco Chronicle, and the paper gave lengthy coverage to the people dressed up as chickens at Newsom’s public event in the Richmond on January 13.

The mayor’s attitude toward question time is even more befuddling because it does not even fit his foot patrol theme of the Mayor vs. Board of Supervisors. When 56% of the voters approved question time, Newsom is creating a confrontation with the voters, not the Board.

Finally, after a three-year media honeymoon, Newsom is now chafing at criticism of his stance on question time and of coverage in the Chronicle of his alleged excessive drinking. The Newsom-Chronicle connection is too strong to ever be severed, and it may be that the Mayor figures he can take a confrontational approach to the paper’s coverage without a political downside.

He is probably correct. But reporters, columnists, and lower-level editors have ways of retaliating against the Mayor without running into problems with the paper’s top honchos. And why Newsom would risk raising the stakes with these folks in an election year defies understanding.

One thing is clear about Mayor Newsom’s shift to confrontational politics: he’s the one calling the shots. No political consultant would advise a Mayor to get on the wrong side of the popular foot patrol and question time issues, or to start battling with the media when facing re-election.

Send feedback to rshaw@beyondchron.org