Comment Archives: Last 30 Days
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
@Robert Gammon, you are making the same fundamental error in interpreting the IBM study as the authors of the article. It does NOT apply to the Oakland experience.
The main thesis of the report is that if crime is going down and it has been for awhile and your city wants to reduce it even further, spending more on police may not be a very good idea. This is why the sub-title of the article is "Re-Calibrating Spending on Police Services in an Era of Declining Crime Rates."
Are you arguing that crime rates have been down in Oakland? You have to make that case if you want to say this research is relevant.
In fact, let's follow the authors recommendations for first steps in assessing your city's situation:
1. Examine local police spending and employment history.
Go back as far as the data permits.
2. Examine changes in crime rates over that period and see if
any patterns emerge. Is there a relationship between
police spending and changes in crime rates in your city?
Hmmm, Oakland had budget problems, reduced police spending, and crime went up. I think the IBM study indicates that Oakland should hire more police.
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
Gammon: "not (spending) enough on other public-service programs that could help close the steep inequality gap in the city."
City government simply does not have the financial scope to dent structural income inequalities. Nor do Mayor Quan and her army of social program operators make this argument. Instead, they dangle the hope that "anti-violence social programs" can make a difference. They have sucked money out of Measure Y and Kids First for years, with no documented evidence of results. Their only result has been to build an unaccountable "nonprofit" bureaucracy that supports Jean Quan at election time.
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
Jonathan,
The IBM study referenced in this report, along with research from Lauren Krivo at Rutgers, whose research is funded by the National Science Foundation, are hardly radical.
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
Bob, this dispatch from the looney left is not arguing that we should reduce police pay so we can have more police, it attempts to argue the laughably absurd contention that Oakland doesn't desperately need more cops. And the fact is that, unfortunately, the City's poor negotiations and weak fiscal management have put Oakland in the position of having to cut important service to deal with out of control crime - not with fatter paychecks to civilian workers (the implication of this article) but with more badges on the street.
If you want to publish nuanced takes on crime and budget in Oakland, I would suggest looking for reporters somewhere other than the Occupy Oakland Tribune.
Re: “Your Teen's Marijuana Counselor Might Be A Convicted Pedophile or Thief — Nobody Checks”
Shame on you California.
Re: “CEQA Reform Bill Is Too Modest”
Developers, WalMart, and the SF Bicycle Coalition think CEQA needs to be "reformed." See a pattern there? They just want their projects to sail through the process unhindered by any pesky environmental review on the impacts. Still waiting for the author to tell us who he was quoting with "too much traffic" and "enough parking" quotations.
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
Justin,
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. If Oakland cops got the same salary and benefits as those in comparable cities nationwide, Oakland would have far more officers than it has now -- without having to spend any more money. In fact, when comparing Oakland to other similar cities, Oakland already spends more on policing than they do.
From this perspective, and from the perspective of the IBM study and others, Oakland may be already spending too much on police and not enough on other public-service programs that could help close the steep inequality gap in the city, and thereby have a greater impact on crime.
It's worth repeating, more than 40 percent of Oakland's general fund already goes to police, and Quan and Santana want to increase new spending to above 50 percent. Make Oakland Better Now! wants to go even higher. If that were to happen, Oakland would basically become a city with cops and not much money for anything else. According to research cited in this report, that's a bad idea.
Re: “Two East Bay Barbecue Joints Where Side Dishes Are the Main Attraction”
Hello, everybody (readers):
My granddaughter is an employee of this community located restaurant. By-the-way...you have just got to eat that BBQ!!
My granddaughter, Lady Shay, sometimes work the cash register for the owner, Tina, SMOKE BERKELEY (did I say YUMMY). I'd like to add Lady Shay's bio to Luke Tsai one sided (poor journalism method) reporting.
Lady Shay grew up in Oakland, California. She attended private school most of her life graduating from a private Seventh Day Adventist School in Oakland Hills (8th) grade moving on to San Lorenzo High. At sixteen she graduated from high school then entered Texas Southern University at the age of 16 years old.
Lady Shay discovered THE BREAD PROJECT after realizing her inner self. She changed her occupation and turned to becoming a Chef. While researching options to the tuition that Le Gordon Blue, San Francisco, CA., charged her fortune lay before her in another "dress", she graduated from THE BREAD PROJECT and became its' CAFE MANAGER.
While looking for a second job (economics--Bush economics), Lady Shay found SMOKE BERKELEY. What good fortune.
Perhaps Mr. Luke Tsai meant well but who wants to read the mind of a journalist when we're supposed to read his written words?
Do a better job, LUKE. Did you interview any employees? You've made my granddaughter's impression dwindle!
HOWEVER, hey!! Let's give Ms. Tina over at SMOKE BERKELEY a shout out. Run over (yes, run) today. Get that meal you've always dreamed about coming straight outta TEXAS.
And that's where I'm from. HOUSTON, TEXAS.
ms. akilah mohammed
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
Haven't we already been implementing a public safety strategy that relies on a very very small number of police officers? For those who don't want lots of cops, this is your Golden Age!
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
There's a lot wrong with this article, but the statement about findings from the IBM study strikes me as very true:
"Up to a certain point, hiring more cops might help reduce crime, but above a certain point, the returns — the crime rate — simply don't change, the authors found."
Well by any conceivable measure, the number of Oakland cops is well below that threshold. We can start talking about "more cops not being the solution to the crime problem" when the crime problem is not at absurdly high levels.
Re: “Letters for the Week of May 15, 2013”
Thanks to Ms. Boyd for her contributions to accuracy, however deaf the ears on which they fall.
Re: “The A's Belong in Oakland”
agreed, but they really should be downtown on the waterfront.
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
Fascinating that the union that is directly competing with police for money thinks the police department should continue to shrink as crime escalates. How persuasive!
Re: “Are More Cops the Answer?”
More officers are definitely the answer for Oakland.
No one disputes that crime has many causes, and that economics especially has a lot to do with it. General truisms do not change the fact that Oakland police are seriously understaffed by any reasonable comparison. The Oakland poverty rate is typically much lower - yes, lower - than in most violent cities.
See orpn.org for the facts.
Jean Quan has relentlessly driven down OPD officer staffing, and now Oakland is number one in the country for robberies.
Re: “CEQA Reform Bill Is Too Modest”
Keep Gammon away from that Koolaid! Can he provide cites to any "current research on climate change" which proves that building apartments will prevent people from buying homes in the suburbs? Can he tell us exactly which "research shows that residents of Manhattan have a much smaller carbon footprint than the average American?" Does this include the second and third homes of the increasingly 1% Manhattanites? Making our cities unpleasant, cutting off light and air and paving over open space, will just drive people, especially those who have families, farther out. Jerry Brown's original plan to gut CEQA has been opposed by both labor and environmentalists, and Steinberg's version is almost as bad.
Re: “The Anti-Rapture”
This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.
Re: “Sean Whent Appears to be the Right Choice to Lead OPD”
I probably like Sean Whent more than most people with an OPD background. I have had a lot of conversations with him over the years and I believe that he is a fundamentally good person with good intentions. I think he is better than people realize and I hope that he will surprise some people. He is certainly an upgrade over Tucker, Batts, Jordan & Toribio.
Re: “New Michigan Law Would Keep Kids Out of Drug Stings”
The Police involved in this activity should be brought up on charges of murder. They are directly responsible for the deaths of these children and adults whom they put in extreme danger. And I know they don't care about the people they put in danger. They only care about their career advancement.
Re: “The A's Belong in Oakland”
Given the size of events I am in total agreement with the site. All the factors you mention, BART, Freeways, just access, plus the weather is the best in the Bay Area. Today we here the NBA, never an archtype when it comes to public relations in regard to franchise moving, made a statement to the Sacramento owners. That team should stay there as they have buyers for it. The same thing MLB should do to Wolfe and Fisher. Your article captured the fans of the East Bay in particular. We need to keep putting people in the seats, in spite of them moving guys like Gomes, the glue of last years team, which they do every year. The profit sharing agreement makes it profitable for them to lose while not building the team. They said they would keep last years champs intact, but..