Comment Archives: stories: News: Last 30 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: “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: “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: “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: “Howard Jordan Was Never the Right Choice”
Len,
I think you're seriously underestimating the knowledge, abilities, and experiences of Compliance Director Thomas Frazier and Court Monitor Robert Warshaw. These guys are NOT anti-police. They both spent their entire careers as cops and were successful police chiefs.
Frazier was a cop in San Jose PD for 27 years, before he took over the Baltimore Police Department. President Clinton thought so highly of him that he appointed Frazier to run a key policing program for the White House.
Warshaw, meanwhile, had an extremely successful run as chief of the Rochester, New York police department -- a city that is not that dissimilar to Oakland (I've spent a lot of time in Rochester; my wife is from there).
In short, these guys are cops who know how to run police departments. And they have very little patience for cops who misbehave. They believe in ethical policing that does not run afoul of the US Constitution. Oakland's new police chief Sean Whent seems to be cut from the same cloth.
Now, if there are a substantial number of Oakland cops who are unwilling to do their jobs in an ethical way and abide by the reforms in the federal consent decree, and would rather leave the department than follow the rules, then that's not a bad thing for Oakland. In fact, it's a win-win-win.
1. The departure of those officers likely will speed up the reform process in OPD and give the department a much better chance of getting into compliance with the consent decree.
2. It'll save the city lots of money: These officers tend to be older veterans who make high salaries. Many of them also have cost the city millions in lawsuits involving their behavior.
3. The city will save even more money by replacing these veteran cops with rookies who will be trained to act ethically -- and thus will save the city even more cash over the long-run.
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
Bob, disagree with your "The number of police officers Oakland currently has is reflective of the incredibly expensive police union contract -- not a political philosophy that's anti-policing."
This is a city of which close to a majority of whom collectively voted for two mayoral candidates, Quan and Kaplan, who famously body blocked OPD during the first Oscar Grant demonstration.
Most of the Oaklanders who consistently vote in local elections live in the more affluent parts of town. And up until very recently, most of them shared the anti-cop beliefs of the old Quan and the old Brunner, and that of the consistent Nadel disdain for cops best expressed by one of our council members who said "We can't police our way out of crime."
The high compensation paid police here actually was the result of the widespread anti-police philosophy in combination with the economic self-interest of the police and of the other city employees. Voters and their elected officials didn't want more cops so they never bothered examining what cops were getting paid just so long as the total budgeted for cops didn't eat into other programs like libraries and anti-violence programs. Cops complained about high overtime but got addicted to it. The SEIU and other miscellaneous unions supported the hefty raises given to the cops and fire fighters as long as they also get hefty raises that lifted many non-safety city jobs in the highest paid in the country.
About the same time that the city ran out of smoke and mirror fiscal budgeting tools crime expanded out of the ghetto's into the hills and middle hills.
Practically overnight, liberal voters changed from being cop haters haters to cop lovers. The New Mayor Quan heard the drumbeat and hired Bratton.
And now the non-safety city employees are hoisted by their own petard of supporting their police and fire sisters and brothers past compensation demands because adding more cops now at 200k/cop average total compensation eats into the other employees' pie.
This extreme fast swing by voters and the politicians here from cop haters to cop lovers is not likely to result in rational, optimum use of city resources to increase safety.
I don't care what the elasticity of policing is on a broad sampling of American cities when you have a very specific city with a very specifically screwed up police department nominally overseen by officials who are bi-polar towards police. if anything, I'll bet the elasticity of dysfunction within OPD is such that you could increase the number of Oakland cops by 10% and only see a fraction of a percent drop in crime, if any, until you have doubled the number of cops.
At least one cop supporter, a retired sergeant, has posted cogent reasons why we don't have have to hire a bunch more cops in order to greatly improve OPD performance.
But it's a lot easier to get elected and re-elected by showing the likely to vote voters that you're tough on crime by hiring more cops and not delaying that by negotiating lower compensation. So what if in a couple of years there won't be any money for cops or for programs because local pols and union officials only plan two years at a time.
Re: “It's Time for the Union Fighting to Stop”
Juan Castillo used to be a union rep for UAW Local 2244 at NUMMI where he worked with management to shut down NUMMI with a pack of lies. The main lie used to justify shutting down NUMMI was the pullout of GM which somehow caused a financial strain. That was not true because we didn't make GM cars. We made Corollas and Tacomas and the Pontiac Vibe (25% at its height). GM made little from the sale of the Vibe because it was a rebadged Toyota Matrix. GM didn't get to keep all the profits. The vast majority of revenue came from Toyota production. The GM lie was nothing more than a red herring.
Juan Castillo was also a part of the union busting crew who started a riot at the union hall , videotaped it and spread that across the union busting milieu in the U.S. to frame union workers as "thugs". It's still on You Tube. The whole "riot" was nothing more than a fabricated provocation. People still have flyers from Juan promoting that day with incendiary language designed to provoke anger against the union instead of Toyota.
FYI: Toyota had $39 billion when they announced the shutdown of NUMMI
The lies from Toyota was spread through Juan's newsletter called "Autoworkers News". Juan's newsletter replaced the legitimate workers newsletter called "The Barking Dog" after Caroline Lund passed away. Workers simply assumed "Autoworkers News" was legit and believed the lies from a pro-Reagan anti-union mole. Juan's cheesy website is still up, but the incriminating articles have been taken down to give the impression of just another loyal union rep.
Juan Castillo is still on You Tube in interviews by "laborvideo" where he is quoted as calling the UAW a "business" and spreading the lies about GM.
Juan Castillo lied then and he lies now. Ignore his position as a union rep. He's a union buster.
Either SEIU-UHW was ignorant of who they were hiring; or worse, SEIU-UHW knew of his past collaboration with Toyota management and hired the right guy for the job.
Re: “Howard Jordan Was Never the Right Choice”
Mayor Quan chose Jordan to be Chief because she thought he would follow her orders via Santana and back up her silly ideas like the 100 block plan.
To his credit, he did contradict some of her more ridiculous assertions, but generally he went along with the Mayor.
Your optimistism that Frazier via interim chief Whent is a big improvement is not justified. We've switched from a police chief who was a lapdog for the Mayor to one who is a yes man for Thomas Frazier. He'll carry out Frazier's directives no doubt. But whether he should is another question.
Frazier's selection of Whent signals his approach of changing the culture of OPD by playing tough cop on other cops.
There is a concept foreign to Frazier called restorative justice. In Oakland it's only brought up in the context of an alternative to punishment for civilian crimes. In South Africa it was called Reconciliation and was primarily between officials and law enforcement people who committed human rights crimes during apartheid. It had mixed results in South Africa but some success.
It shouldn't apply to cops who truly seem to be abusive or who shot people recklessly. There are some of those still in OPD who have benefited from the protection "binding arbitration" clause of the city charter.
The South African approach should be tried before Frazier pushes half of OPD onto medical leave and we have even worse crime than before Frazier took over.
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
Jonathan,
I'm glad you brought up Measure DD.
Measure DD was funded as a capital project via $198 million in bonds, but there is no money for the operations and maintenance budget for the lakefront improvements. Deanna Santana pointed this out at the recent community forum on public safety sponsored by Make Oakland Better Now! (April 28, 2013 at St. Paul's Episcopal Church). I believe Santana also said the new West Oakland Youth Center also has no operations and upkeep budget.
Santana's point was similar to the one we've highlighted in this article; public safety is about more than cops. There's a delicate balance. De-funding important capital projects and non-police services can have major negative impacts on public safety.
Santana said at that meeting that she would like to implement a "fair share" budget, one that doesn't require the trade-off of funding one department at the expense of others.
Unfortunately the police department, because of its outsized costs, directly competes with general fund dollars that should be used to upkeep this beautiful public works project. Perhaps the Council will find money to fund maintenance and repairs for the millions we've borrowed and spent. It would be a shame if we had to let our wonderful city improvements crumble over the next few years because of a very costly effort to ramp up police staffing levels, an agenda that is by no means guaranteed to make the city safer.
Re: “Oakland Officials Withhold Air Pollution Plan”
Good coverage, a well balanced article.
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
What this really comes down to, is are you going to believe two Occupiers and their cherry-picked quotes from academic studies that don't discuss Oakland, or your own eyes? Oakland has invested in tremendous infrastructure projects recently like Measure DD (Love Our Lake Day is June 9!), as well as crime prevention, subsidized housing and all sorts of social programs, while cutting the number of police. And crime has gone up dramatically. If cities didn't need police, someone besides Occupiers would have figured that out long ago. Oakland's need for more police is apparent to virtually everyone in the city except this newspaper, it seems.
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
Personally, I cannot wait for the airport "boondoggle" to be built, because it is what passengers want, a seamless connection from BART to the airport, and is likely to go a long way in making BART a really viable option for airport transit. Both AirBART and AC Transit's airport run are miserably unpleasant and inefficient, and the new system bypasses everything that makes them that way. It would have been better to have a BART station AT the airport, but no one had the sense to make that happen.
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.