Comment Archives: stories: Last 7 Days
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
Hi Len,
Ellen Cushing wrote a story about Richmond last month that touches on some of the stuff your bringing up- http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/what…
As for comparing Richmond and Oakland's inequality, yes, it's very similar in proportionate terms, and also in the role that racial segregation plays, but of course Oakland's number of poor households dwarfs Richmond's in absolute terms.
Half of the households of both cities subsist on less than $50,000 in household annual income. Using a conservative 2.5 persons per household figure, that means that half of Oakland and Richmond's populations are subsisting on less than $20,000 in individual income, and a majority of these impoverished persons are women and children.
Actually the data paints an even bleaker picture when you account for the differences in households sizes across different deciles of the income distribution. Toward the top levels, households making $100,000 and up, household sizes tend to be smaller, whereas those homes earning below $100,000 are probably larger on average. So the rich homes have fewer mouths to feed.
Of course the only reason any of this would relate to crime would be the socioeconomic factors Krivo and other sociologists are pointing out. According to this school of thought, the crime isn't caused by poverty; it's caused by the inequality.
Here's a quick and rough peek at Oakland and Richmond's household income distributions - http://www.scribd.com/doc/142302196/Distri…
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
Darwin/Ali, how about an in depth comparison of Richmond's situation to Oakland's instead of all of us quoting from academic social science studies whose statistical methodology is far above the one stat courses a few of us struggled thru in college?
Even if the Census stats show Oakland has much greater income or wealth inequality than Richmond, I would think residents compare themselves to people in much wider area than just Richmond, if not entire East Bay and SF.
For years Richmond cops had a much worse reputation for abuse (and corruption) than OPD has now.
Other than the ex Alameda Sheriff that Jerry Brown installed, most OPD chiefs in recent years have been African Americans with urban policing backgrounds. Jordan even had a background as a social worker in NYC.
How is it that Richmond with a Mayor with much more consistent progressive track record than Quan, brings in a white police chief from Montana of all places and their police department appears to have better rapport with residents than ours without their Chief putting the troops thru a cultural revolution?
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
I'm a well-educated computer programmer and scientist. I love data, evidence, and all. But if someone tries to tell me that there are more than enough police in Oakland, I just can't possibly believe it. Anyone who's been burglarized in the last few years and tried to get a cop to even come look at the crime scene a bit doesn't believe it either.
I firmly believe that big part of a functional, civil society is a base level of behavior that is respectful enough of other people that everyone feels safe. (This is essentially what laws are for.) When that level is achieved, people sweep their front yards, they open businesses, they employ "local youth". Without it, they hunker down and just try to survive, or plan their exit.
And in order to get to this level of mutual respect, I believe you need a justice system that early-on teaches people that if they violate the behavioral norms, they will hit a brick wall. It won't work. It won't be cool. They won't get away with it. Now of course parents SHOULD be the ones to teach this, but in cases where they don't, the police have to do it. And Oakland just DOESN'T have enough police to establish the "brick wall". It had ONE officer investigating 10,000 robberies last year, for crying out loud! And since the hoodlums around here KNOW of this staffing insufficiency, violating the law (and seriously hurting other people) has become a bit of a joke.
Count me in with the growing majority that wants a 900-officer OPD.
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
This article describes "Councilwoman Libby Schaaf" as a "Founding member of Make Oakland Better Now."
This is not technically untrue, but the short sentence is somewhat misleading. Ms. Schaaf was not a Councilwoman when she was a founding member of Make Oakland Better Now. She was not even a candidate, in fact she resigned from the board, as would be appropriate, before she became a candidate. She has not returned to the board since then.
An uninformed reader could get the impression that Make Oakland Better Now is a front group for Ms. Schaaf's agenda, which is simply not true. This is in stark contrast to the Block By Block Organizing Network, which is not only a front for Jean Quan, but is also not registered as a PAC, a 501c3, or a 501c4, or registered in any way in fact, while they have spent money that is arguably campaigning expenses.
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
Bob, For all the SEIU's complaining about how much money is spent on police, they never criticize how much cops or fire fighters are paid.
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
Bob, re the last November defeat of IDLF, Brunner and the value of police association endorsement and money. IDLF and Brunner would have lost by even bigger margins without that police support. IDLF lost because Kaplan is the most popular elected politician in Oakland and enough voters just thought IDLF was shady.
Brunner had her own campaign problems that had nothing to do with the crime issue. Apart from the skepticism of many cop supporting voters of Brunner turning overnight into a big police supporter, it’s not as if Parker disavowed her professional support of gang injunctions. That's why Brunner couldn't get votes on the crime thing.
But my point is that Brunner got re-elected for several terms in D1 telling voters that more cops wouldn’t solve crime problems here. Her refrain was “only you can prevent crime.” Her base of support was Rockridge and the Hills loved her.
And knowing that is why in this past D1 election, every candidate except for two of us, started with official platforms that were silent on OPD staffing. It had worked well for Brunner. Within just a couple of months the three leading candidates had gotten the voter feedback that most voters in D1 wanted more cops on the street, and adapted their platforms accordingly.
(Speaking of Dick Spees, the last elected Oakland Republican, my recollection is that his endorsement of Quan clinched her first council seat election. To this day our Mayor remains remarkably nimble on the perennial police vs social program wars here.)
If you don’t think police association support is worth much in elections anymore, are you expecting that the Mayor and Council will make substantial cuts in police and fire total compensation when the police and fire contract comes up in 2014?
I don’t see that happening until we get much closer to Chapter 9 bankruptcy in two to three years because the non public security employee unions don’t want to start compensation cutting at OPD that could easily spread to the also very well compensated non security employees.
Re: “Recreation Calendar”
SFMOMA puts Mark di Suvero's junk on Crissy Field. Steel eyesores are not art but I have fun imagining their removal.
http://alfidicapitalblog.blogspot.com/2013…
Re: “What's Your Local Summer Beer?”
Great beers! My summer beer of choice is Ale Industries Golden State of Mind!
Re: “Outside Lands 2013 Lineup Announced”
Check these out if you want to save money at Outside Lands http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/211369…
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
Also, getting passengers to the airport more quickly and pleasantly will probably increase the likelihood that they'll spend their money at the numerous locally owned food establishments at the airport, which is one of the main things that sets the place apart from the usual barrage of fast-food chains afflicting travelers. As for the hotels, they don't need this; any hotel worth its salt has a free shuttle anyway, which actually employs people.
Re: “Friday Must Reads: FEMA Moves to Chop Down 82,000 Trees in Berkeley and Oakland Hills; Lead Ammunition Ban Clears Assembly”
Plenty of blame to go around, apparently. This shameless pandering to the native plant religionists who don't care how much mayhem, toxicity, or destruction of thriving ecosystems they cause in their crusade to stamp out everything that wasn't here before the first Caucasian set foot here has got to stop. It's bogus nativist bigotry, and it's no more acceptably directed at plants than people.
Re: “Friday Must Reads: FEMA Moves to Chop Down 82,000 Trees in Berkeley and Oakland Hills; Lead Ammunition Ban Clears Assembly”
Tim,
More than 80,000 trees will be chopped down if this proposal goes through as is. Currently, FEMA is leading this process, and is on its way to funding the clear-cutting. Without FEMA's cash, the trees will not be cut down. So, yes, FEMA is moving forward on a plan for chopping -- a lot of chopping.
Re: “Friday Must Reads: FEMA Moves to Chop Down 82,000 Trees in Berkeley and Oakland Hills; Lead Ammunition Ban Clears Assembly”
Mary,
I agree that FEMA has done a miserable job at publicizing these plans -- but some of the blame also falls on UC Berkeley, East Bay Regional Park District, and the City of Oakland, who are partners in the project and have failed to properly inform folks as well.
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
The purpose of the BART Airport connector is a quick and seamless connection to the airport, not economic development along Hegenberger. Whether or not that was a good use of $440 million is up for debate, but any stops to slow it down makes it less useful and more a waste of money when compared to the current bus service. Agreed with Joe on everything else though.
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
Len,
I have to disagree with your characterization of Oakland voters in wealthy areas of the city. Traditionally, they've been far more moderate, and far more pro-police than folks in the flatlands. Perhaps you don't remember, but Dick Spees, a pro-police Republican represented the Oakland hills on the city council for a couple of decades until 2002, and repeatedly ran unopposed because he so closely identified with the residents up there.
Also, I think you're way off base about the overall electorate and it's feelings about police today. Just last fall, Ignacio De La Fuente and Jane Brunner ran on pro-police platforms and were heavily supported by the Oakland police union, which papered the city with ads on their behalf. They then were clobbered in the election -- De La Fuente lost by 20 points to Kaplan, and Brunner, by nearly 40 points to Barbara Parker.
(Also, Quan and Kaplan, while they've gotten heat in the media for their actions at the 2010 Oscar Grant protest, they probably helped OPD avert another public relations disaster -- much like what happened a year later when the department decided to start shooting tear gas and less-than-lethal weapons at an Occupy Oakland protest, an extremely bad decision that not only injured people unnecessarily, but also gave the city a black eye around the globe).
But having said that, Quan has never been the anti-police politician she's been portrayed as being in the media and by strident members of the law-and-order crowd. After all, many of the same moderate voters who cast their ballots year after year for Spees, voted for her when he retired.
As a result, I was not surprised at her decision to turn to Bratton and Wasserman for help (although I acknowledge she was probably influenced by the news media and the constant drumbeat of stories about how dangerous Oakland is and how understaffed OPD it is).
Having said that, though, I think the plan that Bratton and Wasserman put together is surprisingly good. No stop-and-frisk. No curfews. No gang injunctions. Instead, they're advocating for better investigations -- a problem OPD has had for years and badly needs to fix.
As for the public perception about OPD being understaffed, I blame local news media for failing to properly explain what is really going on. I doubt that most Oaklanders realize that their city already spends about twice the national average on policing per capita, and that the reason there aren't more cops is not because Oakland politicians are anti-police; it's because they handed out absurdly high pay and benefits packages to cops that are now bankrupting the city.
Re: “The A's Belong in Oakland”
Selig is Oakland number one enemy! He has gone puclic stating that he considers bringing the A's to Oakland a big mistake. After the Hass Family sold the team, there have been several groups willing to purchase the A's and keep them in Oakland. Bud Selig has boycotted and derailed any and all efforts coming from any group trying to make the fan's deserving dream to come true.
Bud Selig has handpicked the last and present ownerships with the sole mission of trying to relocate the team ANYWHERE but Oakland! They have not been successful i.e. Montreal but Selig can wait for the right time to extort another city willing to build a new ballpark with taxpayer's money for another corporate wellfare!
Re: “Friday Must Reads: FEMA Moves to Chop Down 82,000 Trees in Berkeley and Oakland Hills; Lead Ammunition Ban Clears Assembly”
This FEMA vandalism is obscene and must be stopped. And the stealthy manner in which this has been conducted to date is reprehensible, if not actually illegal.
Re: “The A's Belong in Oakland”
Nice post. However, I'm always puzzled when people ask "why won't the A's ownership show interest in Oakland?" The Wolff/Fisher ownership group was hand picked for one specific purpose: Get the A's out of Oakland. All other considerations are secondary. Blaming the Oakland fan base for the team's troubles is completely disingenuous and with the media parroting phrases like "small market team" and "perennially low attendance," MLB and the A's owners are succeeding in convincing the world that it is the fans' fault the A's must move. Since taking over the team, the A's ownership has stated loud and clear, over and over: "We Don't Want You Here." Tarping off all the cheap seats in the upper decks was nothing but a direct insult to the fans. When you're hoping to debut a new product (the A's in San Jose), it is typical marketing practice to make the old product (the A's in Oakland) appear as out-of-date and unattractive as possible. So the owners have made the coliseum experience as maddening as they can. Want to go get a hot dog from a concession stand? Get ready to miss an entire inning to do so.
The A's media relations, community outreach, fan relations and overall marketing are absolutely pathetic. The East Bay is most certainly NOT a "small market", especially considering the potential fan base in the rapidly growing cities further inland.
The Oakland A's have three major enemies, all deeply committed to getting them out of Oakland: 1) Their ownership group. 2) Bud Selig (a man who has bad-mouthed the A's for decades and led an all out campaign to convince the other owners that the team MUST be moved.) and 3) Peter McGowan and the Giants. The issue isn't really "Giants territorial rights" in San Jose---it is that McGowan wants the A's out of the ENTIRE bay area so he can have this massive rich market all to himself.
These are the sorry realities. Oakland has made generous offers. Oakland businesses have expressed strong interest in keeping the team in Oakland--even to the point of suggesting purchase of the team by a local group. At no time since they took over the team has the Wolff/Fisher group even listened to any of it. Their tepid feigned interest in Oakland is a complete fake.
If you could catch Lew Wolff in a candid moment, I bet he'd even admit to being angered by last year's division title. The A's winning makes it more difficult to move them.
If the A's do move, it will mean the end of one of baseball's all time most exciting franchises. The A's and Giants are essentially opposite in character. The New York Giants were one of baseball's storied teams. After moving to San Francisco, they have displayed decades of boring, mediocre baseball until their recent success. The A's on the other hand, never flowered to their full glory until arriving in Oakland. They set the tone in their first month here with Catfish Hunter's perfect game. Some of the greatest A's players in history are Oakland or East Bay locals, including the great Rickey Henderson. The A's are the consistently exciting bay area baseball team, in contrast with the perennially boring Giants.
I read somewhere that Lew Wolff, Bud Selig and Peter McGowan were all frat buddies. That figures. The MLB owners are the ultimate "good old boy" network. The truth is that, if it weren't for baseball's anti-trust exemption, the only way to describe what these men are doing to the A's would be CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. Modern baseball is not about fans. It's not about the cities or the ballparks, or the traditions, the history, any of that. It is solely and exclusively about MONEY. Baseball wants the predictable revenue that comes from long term TV contracts, corporate luxury boxes, and other groups that buy large blocks of season tickets. The LAST thing they want is the unpredictable revenue stream of walk-up, game by game attendance. They don't want us coming to the park! People coming to the park means staffing, restrooms, clean-up, and an array of other services. Unless you're a season ticket holder or are willing to spend $50 or more at the park--they'd really prefer you stay home, watch it on TV, and patronize the advertisers. That's modern sports.
Let's Go Oakland!
Re: “Friday Must Reads: FEMA Moves to Chop Down 82,000 Trees in Berkeley and Oakland Hills; Lead Ammunition Ban Clears Assembly”
FEMA is not chopping anything. They are required by law to take public comments, and they are, on their draft EIS, triggered by the grant applications submitted by UC Berkeley, EBRPD, and City of Oakland to reduce fire risk (which, yes, means removing fuel loads, ie trees). By all means, weigh in via the public process, but read the EIS, not Randy Shaw's alarmist op ed in California Progress Report (which implies that FEMA is trying to sneak something by).
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
Charlie Pine writes: "City government simply does not have the financial scope to dent structural income inequalities." Well, there's your (overly simplified) answer as to why Oakland has so much crime. Pine goes on to say, "Mayor Quan and her army of social program operators...have sucked money out of Measure Y and Kids First for years, with no documented evidence of results." But Pine conveniently ignores the fact that 60% of Measure Y spending, off-top, goes to--wait for it-- the police and fire departments. So who's really "sucking money" out of Measure Y?
I can understand why this article seems to be unpopular with proponents of allocating the majority of Oakland's resources toward police. Basically, it reaches a conclusion, supported by empirical evidence, that they don't want to hear: that merely throwing more money at OPD won't make it more effective nor address the underlying cause of crime, i.e., economic inequity at a structural level. That line of thinking, interestingly enough, also explains why anti-violence programs aimed at youth don't drive down crime in the larger sense, because they are not aimed at increasing economic opportunity or addressing structural inequality, only violence reduction (which is not the same as crime reduction).
Along with addressing the elephant in the room--the too-high cost-per-cop which makes adding officers a significant financial drain on the city--perhaps the answer lies in refining Measure Y to maximize economic and educational opportunities for youth, which could not only ultimately impact youth violence, but youth crime, as well as graduation rates--studies have shown a link between drop-out rates and recidivism, and the lack of job opportunities for the formerly-incarcerated has also been identified as a major causal factor of recurring crime. Increasing police staffing won't address this, since even if more arrests are made, those arrests will only contribute to the revolving door of incarceration and recidivism, which does not in and of itself constitute a long-term solution.
Zero-tolerance policies and the "Broken Windows" theory have long been debunked by many studies which show their very premise is flawed. If statistical gains which appear to show crime reductions are only possible by underreporting actual crime, then those numbers aren't very credible, are they?
Finally, asking reporters to have answers that city government doesn't have is to misstate the role of the media. The Express is not a think tank, but BondGraham and Winston have clearly done more thinking on this subject than most of the local media pundits. Rather than try to bash them by calling them dispatchers from the "looney left" (sic), and smear them with Occupy accusations, Bair would do well to remind himself that at its core, Occupy was about addressing economic inequity and the corporate greed which contributed to the financial collapse, the subprime crisis, and the foreclosure epidemic, then rewarded financial institutions with a bailout while homeowners became homeless. All the political hash-slinging from Pine, and to some extent, Tuman--a former and perhaps future mayoral candidate--is misguided, since only a truly objective look at the problems (social/economic inequity = crime) can arrive at a truly objective solution. An objective reading can only arrive at one conclusion: Oakland cannot significantly increase its number of officers without first reducing its cost-per-officer, but even if it does so, it must also address inequity and become more proactive in closing the income gap which is the main underlying cause of crime.