We heard a lot about California’s perfidious Proposition 8 in
Washington, but another California election question got less
attention. That was Proposition K, a measure that aimed to
“prohibit the [San Francisco] Police Department from providing
resources to investigate and prosecute prostitution.” That’s not
exactly saying prostitution isn’t illegal—but no money equals no
arrests, so it would have made a big difference to lives of working
girls in the City by the Bay.
I liked the proposition, but even with the blue wave of Barack Obama
lifting all boats, I knew it wouldn’t pass. My guess is average voters
didn’t feel they’d get enough personal value out of the measure.
San Francisco is liberal, but presented with the idea of not arresting
prostitutes, even Joe the Democratic Plumber can all too easily conjure
up a vision of garish hookers lining once-quiet residential streets,
disrupting peaceful enjoyment of life and bringing property values
down. The abstract argument of prostitutes’ human rights doesn’t weigh
heavily enough against that.
What would I do differently? Take a page from Tim Eyman’s
playbook. Make it a state initiative to spend no money prosecuting
prostitutes, create a tax rebate around it, and tell people this will
put money back in their pockets—working up some numbers about how
much money is spent annually arresting consenting adults for
prostitution, and giving a per-taxpayer estimate.
Or if the individual rebate didn’t look impressive enough, the
initiative could be written so that the funds got specifically
redirected to some extremely sympathetic social
service—say, care for wounded veterans. The women in SF
talked about how the money saved could be used for sex workers’ drug
treatment, but to the less-liberal ear, that sounds like coddling
criminals. Don’t make the beneficiary anything to do with children,
either—too many opportunities for nasty innuendo. But I can see
some great publicity shots of wounded soldiers with sexy babes on
their laps. “Vets Vote Yes on Initiative X!”
But even with the tax-rebate angle, it would still be a tough sell
unless the NIMBY types could be convinced that it wouldn’t affect their
everyday lives. The solution is to keep street prostitution
prosecutable. Streetwalkers actually make up a small minority of all
prostitutes, but to most people that’s the visible face of
prostitution, and they don’t like it. Look at the state of Rhode
Island—they have laws against “Loitering for Indecent
Purposes” and “Soliciting from Motor Vehicles for Indecent
Purposes,” but what’s called “inside prostitution” is not
prosecuted. (It’s a little different, yes, because they have no state
laws forbidding prostitution, and Washington does. But we’re
brainstorming here.)
I can hear the human-rights types wailing about how it would be
unfair to leave the street girls out in the cold. But I call it
expedient for both sides. I bet the street girls would happily go
inside if it meant not getting busted. They understand that in
politics, as in sex work, you go where the money is. 
no
yes
yes
Yes, I would vote for that.
Make up your mind angie2.
“6 votes for President McCain.”
“Hey! Only 1 of those votes was for President McCain!”
love it!
pretty obvious, sure, but still one of the most intelligent things ever to come outta this column, nice!
I think you miss the point, many San Franciscan want prostitution decriminalized, which would cost the police less in the long run. Eliminate the middle men and make it safe for women involved in it. Maybe San Franciscans know that not funding prostitution arrests in general is not the way to go. There are some NIMBYs everywhere but give the voters of San Francisco alittle credit and never suggest to put it to a statewide vote. There are way more NUMBY voters down south.
I like the initiative idea, but you’re not takign the Eyman angle far enough. Do what he does – advertise it as an initiative to eliminate some percentage point of some tax that goes to law enforcement and then in the fine print include a condition that the reduction will specifically be paid for by eliminating prosecution of “personal services restricted under RWC…, provided contracts for such services are concluded and the services delivered in private.” No one will know what the heck the intiiative is for, but they’ll just blindly vote for it, because, you know, all taxes are bad and government is wasteful. Mission accomplished! And yes, the street walkers will be left out in the cold, but no law or lack of a law will help them. If they had the capacity to move indoors, they wouldn’t be out walking the street in the first place. Their problems are more profound that prosecution for prostitution.
and evidently, i can’t type and the edit button doesn’t work.
The best argument I heard against the prop K was that without money to “fight” prostitution how would the human trafficking be addressed. I’ve heard the argument that prostitutes would self address this issue; that they’d report it as they see it. But then we are essentially saying,”yeah you got kidnapped and shipped halfway around the world and repeatedly raped, but don’t worry someday some one will take pity on you and report it to the cops.”
I’m not trying to say that prostitutes are in any way less kind or less committed to the fight against human trafficking, but it shouldn’t be their responsibility alone. We should be doing everything we can to prevent such a fate.
Well if looking at us is the problem them i’d expect the NIMBYs to be up in arms about the recent changes in Craigslist that will surely send scores of workers back to the streets.
See ya!