Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
Good article! Unlike some other states, most of CA's greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation (around 35-40%), a lot of that from people commuting to and from work. Infill and transit-oriented development are important tools in addressing climate change because it reduces commute time and distance.
I agree with some of what Michelle said, about needing to bolster public transit options. But the important consideration for environmental success is not just whether the 10k residents end up driving cars or not, but the total commute distance. Even if all these new residents do get around by car, if they're driving from Oakland to Oakland or from Oakland to San Francisco to work it has significantly less environmental impact than if they're driving from Walnut Creek to Oakland or Walnut Creek to San Francisco.
"During the past several decades, the A's — gritty, hardworking, and underappreciated — also have come to exemplify their host city in ways that few professional sports teams ever do." Spot on.
I agree with Marlene completely. As an attorney, when I read "suspended" I assumed it meant misconduct. There's no question the general public thinks it means misconduct. And there's little doubt that's what the Parker campaign was going for. It's disingenuous in its intent and incorrect in usage: the "Explanation of Member Status" section on every lawyer's bar profile page even distinguishes between "suspension" and "involuntary transfer to inactive status."
That said, the overall point is correct. As Russo explained, I don't see any Court finding this to meet the strict requirements for defamation, especially given that Brunner is a public figure (=higher standard). Also, this has been a brutal campaign and the pro-Brunner side has sent out far more and far worse hit pieces.
Call it a wash and just vote for the candidates (tomorrow! Nov. 6!) based upon their legal experience, commitment to justice, and leadership ability.
I'm sure Len will chime in here soon... but I think you may be confusing different types of binding arbitration. The arbitration provision that Len is talking about is the clause in the Charter (Section 901) that prevents the City from imposing a contract on OPD. He may also be opposed to arbitration prior to terminating employees, but that's not been what his rallying cry is about.
Having a greater proportion of OPD be Oaklanders would undoubtedly be a good thing. People always perform better at their job the more personally invested they are; making Oakland "home" as well as "job site" would do that. Another benefit not mentioned is that some day a major earthquake will hit the Bay Area and transportation will effectively be shut down -- times like that you want your public safety professionals near by.
That said, I had two issues with this article:
(1) The article states that police officers do not get to know their communities because the officers aren't Oaklanders. I don't think that's the main issue at all. I've lived in Oakland my whole life but that wouldn't make me an expert on what's going down on E. 14th and 104 or make me a significantly more effective officer there than someone originally from Concord. What does make a difference is having an officer walking one neighborhood, getting to know people and the players, for 3+ years. That's what community policing is all about. We don't have that because OPD is way understaffed, there just aren't enough resources for community policing.
(2) The article would lead the reader to the natural conclusion that, hey, those dummies on City Council should require cops to live in Oakland. It should have been pointed out that that is illegal. Article 11, Section 10(b) of the California Constitution says: "A city ... may not require that its employees be residents of such city ...; except that such employees may be required to reside within a reasonable and specific distance of their place of employment or other designated location." The only options to get more officers living in Oakland are (a) recruiting in Oakland and hope that they stay, or (b) give incentives to encourage officers to live here. Oakland has tried (a) without much success; perhaps it could be done better. (b) is unfortunately a political non-starter; as the article mentions, OPD already absorbs such a large part of the budget it would be hard to justify an added perk (at the expense of some other program or more officers) when there is little academic evidence that can quantify the level of benefit we'd receive from it.
I've been missing it for months now. VSmoothe had an awesome blog -- it was wonky in the best way and had real personality too. She showed that engaged Oaklanders can influence city hall. Thanks V.
This is GREAT news! Thank you Ceasar for all your hard work!
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation