Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
Way to stand up Desley Brooks!
No one *needs* that many units? That sounds awfully Marxist. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". What people forget is that money/resources actually have to be generated by someone/somehow. They don't just magically appear for the sake of the common good of the people.
It is sad to me that these new regulations are all about business opportunities and making money. What about patient access? What about dispensaries being non profits? It is sad that so much attention is being paid to the potential proprietors in these zip codes while nothing is said of the low income patients in these same zip codes who cannot afford their medicine.
The Rules Committee's decision to delay sending the proposed Charter amendment forward for discussion at the next Public Safety committee meeting in order to allow a currently non-existent proposal to be discussed at the same time is just another way of saying"screw you" to those citizens who labored for months to formulate a truly INDEPENDENT commission.
You go, Noel!
It is obvious what this landlord's motivation was by the sheer number of units that he purchased. There should be a law against such mass accummulation. No one *needs* that many units to acquire a livable income. Investors like Marr have no scruples. And this of course spills over into the maintenance (lack thereof) of such a huge number of units. It is clear that he doesn't care about people, only his bottom line. How could there be any question about this? I am a landlord. I put a large portion of the appreciation that I was lucky enough to see into improvements on my remaining units. And I resisted offers to purchase lots of units because I had no desire to "make a killing." And I lowered rents during the recession and have resisted raising them to the current crazy market level. That is because I do care about the people who rent from me. This should be obvious to anyone considering this situation. I wish the renters luck.
As cafe strada did to espresso Roma in the early 90s... the landlord's relative saw a thriving business and chose to capitalize on their tenant's entrepreneurial spirit and success by maliciously capitalizing on their own position of power to steal their customer base, ideas and LOCATION.
The most successful business plan is to steal a successfully devised model, and copy it...
I understand this is the way of the world, it still saddens me.
Both are very wrong. Imagine if you are poor, and those auctions would be the only chance your family has to afford a small piece of land.
While, the police state is scary and evil. In this case, for an extremely good cause. Bet those agents just want to use what they found to take over the insider bidding.
No expectation of privacy in a public place. If you are part of a criminal conspiracy best not to discuss it right outside of a court house where who know who could hear it.
Correcting the lopsided officer favorable arbitration rulings without repealing binding arbitration for discipline cases is going to be very difficult to do at contract re-negotiation time with more tightly defined offense definitions and punishments to guide arbitrators. In addition to the general reasons I mentioned about the political clout of muni unions over the elected officials negotiating the contracts, the even bigger obstacle is that Oakland public safety employees, unlike other city workers, are protected by binding arbitration in all contract negotiations. As a practical matter, if neighboring SF, Berkeley, Alameda have the same loose definitions of offenses as Oakland now has, it doesn't matter how much we pressure the Council at contract time. The arbitrators will be called in and say we can't change the rules if neigboring cities have similar rules.
I don't know the answer but it would help if the other city unions come up with some suggestions instead of blindly defending binding arbitration for personnel issues.
I hope people who care about this issue will let CMs Guillen and Campbell Washington know that truly independent oversight is needed. It is a bit disingenuous for them to say that they can write a proposal that is stronger than one people have researched, written and rewritten for over 2 years, consulting experts around the country.
This proposal (the coalition's proposal may be slightly different from the Kalb/Gallo one but those differences can be debated in Public Safety with the assistance of the chair of that committee, Desley Brooks) is unique in the country and breaks new ground, walking a thin line between the city's reps maintaining the entire responsibility and the community's need to take it out of the political realm.
The bottom line is that the Campbell Washington/Guillen proposal, should it ever be written, will not take the city administrator out of the catbird seat. But the City Administrator's job is to work closely with OPD and that makes it operationally difficult for the CA to impose charges brought by a commission-they are not nor can they be neutral. So it is a non-starter for independence if the CA still has that kind of control- such a commission CAN NEVER BE INDEPENDENT.
The commission cannot depend on who the mayor or administrator or council members are, it must exist independent of that influence no matter how positive it may be at any given time.
We have already
wasted millions of dollars on oversight and lawsuits. We need an innovative, well-thought-out solution and we have that now. Please do not disrespect the citizen-driven (as CM Gallo says) initiative in favor or a weak sister, half-baked proposal for political expediency. This good government measure must go forward.
Oakland has been a hub of of child sex trafficking for years.
How can we depend on our police officers to fight sex trafficking if OPD fails to investigate even one officer's violation of the laws protecting minors without the intervention of a Federal monitor?
Len Raphael, CPA
Treasurer Coalition for Police Accountability
Candidate for 15AD Alameda County Democratic Central Committee , Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Piedmont (last name on ballot)
@Dno, this girl was underage at the time the officer apparently got sexually involved with her. End of story. There is an age of consent because teenagers have not developed mature judgement to be able to give true informed consent. If a man with power and more money than her pays a girl attention, some girls are flattered, especially if there is not a strong father figure in their lives, and some girls are intimidated into cooperating. But the bottom line is that they are underage, no matter their physical development or bad judgement "consent."
Bad "legalization" laws are a real problem, and certainly are nowdays more "over-regulation" than they are "legalization".
In CA, the AUMA is a disaster. And, people are mistaken in the claims it will "let you grow your own", when it will really permit local governments to flat out ban outdoor grows, and will permit "reasonable regulation" of your indoor grow (and we all know what THAT will mean - besides, most folks cannot grow indoors for many reasons).
This thing is a huge conglomeration of give-aways of power to storefronts and big farms, as well as litigation-ready employment for cops and lawyers. We can't let the crappy be the enemy of the decent law we know is out there. The trick seems to be convincing some moneybag like Parker to back something worthwhile, and to convince the "pro pot lobby" to demonstrate a modicum of selectivity with their endorsements. The incremental "is it ANY better than what we have now?" (somewhat subjective, I might add) is threadbare at best, and probably harmful.
We are not beggars. Demographics are shifting fast. We don't need to settle
for a crap sandwich.
Completely understand that police rank and file routinely get scapegoated by brass or subjected to internal departmental politics/favoritism. The problem that our charter amendment as well as Gallo-Kalb was trying to fix were the repeated failures to prevail at arbitration hearings. OPD and the City Attorney repeatedly have to re-instate serious serial abusive officers. In other city departments if that happens, it's without life or death consequences.
One Coalition member suggested the solution isn't to eliminate binding arbitration for personnel matters for police, but to make arbitration fair:
1. Track the arbitrators who seem pro-police, and veto their selection in the future. For sure the OPOA does that for arbitrators who seem to be anti-police.
2. Prepare much better for arbitration hearings. Some of that has already been done by the City Attorney's office. A dedicated staff attorney for a Police Commission might offset the advantage of the dedicated private attorney's that OPOA hires.
2. Next time the police contract comes up, the public should pressure City Council to negotiate tough discipline for specific police misbehavior and include false reports as well as failing to report fellow police misbehavior as matters for discipline. That way the arbitrators will have clearer guidelines to arbitrate. I'm told (but haven't confirmed) that now filing a false report doesn't subject an officer to discipline. If the US military academies can have an honor code requiring cadets to turn in fellows or face punishment, why can't OPD do the same? If you look at private industry, corporations love arbitration because it works in their favor.
The difference between private industry and local government is that city union members are often voters and their unions, especially in the case of the police, exert powerful influence over politicians thru their PAC and endorsements. The city council doesn't tell voters anything specific about police contract negotiations until they go before the full council for final approval.
We need to hear suggestions from the other city unions how we can effectively discipline bad cops without throwing out personnel binding arbitration only for police because the arbitration system is not protecting all of us now.
Len Raphael, CPA
Treasurer - Coalition for Police Accountability
Candidate for 15AD Alameda County Democratic Central Committee
Landmark is a for-profit, manipulative psychology cult. It's primary goal is to make its owners money. At the expense of the weak willed attendees.
In Tennessee its almost impossible to have a thug with a badge fired because of family members who are high ranking police and corrupt officials,One family of cops had nine other family members at the same dept,they still hold that small Tennessee county in a grip of fear today,In one case it took six years to fire a deputy and the decision came the day after he retired with full benefits,
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.
So the Oakland PD hired a future murderer and registered sex offender. Not to mention all the other cops that were in on the murders cover up and sex crimes.
Big Fail! Your fired!
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation