Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
I had my doubts about LGM due to some of her past anti-police and anti-gentrification rhetoric, but this article has given me newfound respect for her. Oakland already has far more affordable housing than other cities in the Bay Area, and it bears a disproportionate burden from the crime that often accompanies such housing. If anything, the city should be investing in efforts to accelerate the process of bringing in productive new residents who will contribute to our city's ongoing rebirth.
From a study featured last week on NPR:
"We found that people who began using marijuana in their teenage years and then continued to use marijuana for many years lost about eight IQ points from childhood to adulthood,"
Whom do you trust more, NPR or "Leaf Science?"
1.2 million per year is peanuts, especially if the DAC will have a staff of 12 full time employees. It actually seems like a relatively cost-effective use of city funds, with potentially high ROI for Oakland taxpayers.
From today's SF Chronicle: "Police saturated certain neighborhoods and heavily used stop-and-frisk when Bratton was New York's police commissioner from 1994 to 1996. During that two-year stretch, homicides fell 39 percent, robberies 31 percent, burglaries 25 percent and car thefts 36 percent."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Stop-a…
These facts contradict the premise of your article and expose what appears to be a deep and troubling bias in your reporting. Why did you omit these facts? How can we trust your reporting if you only present facts that support your own personal agenda?
Why are youth curfews and gang injunctions "unsuitable" for Oakland? Please explain without making non-arguments like "OPD does not have the resources to enact and enforce a youth curfew." Neither OPD nor any other police department have the resources to completely enforce every statute (consider jaywalking, exceeding the speed limit, and driving at night without your turning on your headlights, for example), but that doesn't mean that those statutes should not be on the books. Youth curfews and gang injunctions have clearly been shown to be effective tools for combating crime. These tools would clearly save lives and make Oakland a safer place to live. Enacting these tools is a total "no-brainer," so why is EBX so hellbent against this?
Oakland politicians are great at turning tractable goals like reducing local crime into completely intractable ones, like getting Congress to effectively overturn the 2nd amendment. Any rational person who feels empathy for victims of violence should be completely appalled by the fact that Jean Quan, Rebecca Kaplan, and Desley Brooks have refused to enact common-sense crime fighting tools like gang injunctions and youth curfews. These shameless, self-serving politicians are almost as guilty as the murderers themselves.
I was completely shocked and dismayed last October when Rebecca Kaplan voted AGAINST Ignacio De La Fuente's proposed gang injunctions and youth curfews. This vote shows that Kaplan is completely out-of-touch with the fact that Oakland has one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation and that crime is by far the city's most dire problem. I voted for Kaplan in 2008, but I will not vote for her again until she shows that she is serious about fighting crime.
All Comments »
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation