Open Thread
Want to talk about something I haven’t covered? Do it here. You can find the previous open thread here.
Get Updates
Newest Comments
- len raphael: Unconfirmed that MJQ laid off 100 employees today, blaming RDA court case. How much did she and the CC waste in legal fees betting against Jerry’s lawyers?
- ralph: No, Livegreen, Occupy Oakland is doing plenty good. They are the poster children for the new, “This is Your Brain on Dope” Campaign.
- Livegreen: They seem to b determined to shut down Oakland and little else. They’ve forgotten Wall St. I can’t help but think the Officers who were preventing them from breaking in to City Hall could have spent...
- gregory mcconnell: The Occupest disrupted City Hall today. They managed to make it difficult, but not impossible, to go into City Hall. They demanded that people who accosted cops on Wednesday should be released. I was out...
- livegreen: I watched the M-Y mtg last night, & it was painful. Jose is a nice guy, but he has difficulty running a meeting that gets anything done. They debated for about 1 hour whether they should discuss recommendations...
- len raphael: The murder of 5 year old Gabriel Martinez. Got a call from an acquaintance who lives in East O and often gets supper at his family’s taco stand. She asked where she can sign up to help on the recall.
- Ravi: I’m sure that all of those Quan diehards (“a recall would be a waste of time and too expensive”) are very gratified that this lovely and deserving woman is having such a good time. No doubt they prefer...
- len raphael: JQ “”I’m actually having a lot of fun,” she said after rehashing many of the lower moments from her first year in office.” “http://www.insidebayare a.com/news/ci_19651889R...
- Ravi: And regarding police reform and the crime thing, Judge Henderson could decide to put OPD under Federal jurisdiction because the terms of the NSA haven’t been fulfilled by the City Administration. Those folks in City...
- len raphael: Harbinger of things to come to the City Council when they eventually have to make similar decisions. But they won’t. The Fed bankruptcy judge will do it for them.
- livegreen: Yeah, but OUSD has to do something. There are way too many schools for the school population. There’s simply no choice. At least they’re willing to make the tough decisions. Unlike the City of...
- len raphael: Are those school board recalls entirely over the school closing decisions? Different groups or one umbrella?
- Ravi: Two recall petitions for Quan; five recall petitions for five school board members.
- len raphael: City says there are now 7 concurrent recall petitions. Not clear how many are for Quan and how many for Council Members. Direct democracy at work.
- Ravi: Can the Oakland City Council lead? Nope, nor can the Mayor. It’s up to the citizens, who are deeply divided and have been for a very long time.
- len raphael: Oakland Local is the only on or offline general circulation media that shows understanding of the depths of our fiscal situation and understands that it’s causes precede the real estate crash. One of these...
- Mkilian: Related to the Cal Supremes haircut to Oakland with respect to RDA and the immediate need for a “fiscal operations plan” is another issue put forth in Oakland’s internet newspaper, Oakland Local, is...
303 Responses to “Open Thread ”
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 » Show All
December 4th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Via Oakland Seen’s Twitter, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen has okayed the use of Alameda County’s voting machines for Ranked Choice (or Instant Runoff) Voting. I guess that means IRV this November for Oakland, Berkeley, and San Leandro. It also means Oakland has a big chunk of change to cough up for a voter education campaign, the components of which Bowen’s letter dictates in detail (PDF).
December 5th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
What was the outcome of the city council meeting about the Fox Park monument??
December 6th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Salesforce.com has at least looked at locating in Oakland…
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/17/BU9R1AJ7OV.DTL
If Oakland could at least convince one or two big companies to locate here, it would b a game changer…
December 6th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Lg, re salesforce.com considering oakland: not that we can afford to picky, but the ceo straight out says the only reason he even considered oakland was it was cheap, but he likes SF better. we’re still the ugly duckling.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
I prefer working in SF to working in Oakland, too
Getting large companies should be just part of the plan. Remember that smaller companies do most of the hiring in America. Also, Silicon Valley didn’t start with a lot of large companies, they started with a lot of small companies and then some of them grew large. Our top priority should be bringing in talented people. Big companies are important, too, but not necessarily the top priority.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
James, Totally agreed. I think, however, if Oakland’s crime rate continues to go down, we might land a few big companies. Shorenstein has made a major bet on Oakland, and as the Condo units in Uptown get bought up and more are built there, it will become more attractive.
Of course crime will have to come down or the employees of any of these companies will howl about the reverse commute or relocating.
Len, that will never change, even when we are more attractive…
December 6th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
I think Oakland will prosper when more “pretty people” become the norm; but given some of the fashions in this town, I can only wince. I won’t expound on this theme but one could consider girth, attitude, self respect and dress appropriate with some modicum of success and optimism. One doesn’t have to be blond to meet this standard, some of the most beautiful people I have seen in this world have been in Oakland. I’ve been to Berlin, Paris, London, Geneva, Rome, etc. and Oakland is there. It’s just the contrast is so extreme with the downtrodden, the ugly and the hopeless which dominate our streets. You want to do business in Oakland, look at the people you see. Would you rather go to Marin, Mountain View, SF, or even, God forbid, San Jose? Check out the fashions.
December 6th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Companies relocated from Manhattan to Brooklyn too because it was cheaper.
Yes, Manhattan is still the ‘it’ place, but Brooklyn is cool too.
If Oakland could get half as cool as Brooklyn, we’d be doing great.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Oakland is cooler than Brooklyn.
But the Brooklyn/Oakland analogy has always been fairly weak. Brooklyn has three bridges that you can walk across to get to Manhattan, and they’re all only about a mile long. Brooklyn had at least half a dozen all night subway lines running back and forth to Manhattan. Brooklyn is five times the population and twice the land area of Oakland.
In short, if we want to be more like Brooklyn, we need public transit that doesn’t suck. We also need to more than double our population density. 10k Plan? We need a Million (hu)Man Plan.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Funny that my Oakland-grown younger daughter longed to and finally did relocate from Manhattan to Brooklyn. She isn’t close enough to walk to Manhattan: she takes the subway every day.
There are plenty of unbeautiful people in SF. The “what people look like” comparison seems incoherent to me: it all depends on what neighborhood in SF you are talking about. Many of those stylish people in the business district get their clothes at their local Walnut Creek Nordstrom’s.
Seems to me we have fewer mattresses in doorways. Whenever an SF mayor decides to “clean up the streets” we get a new influx of street people, so I guess it is easy enough to get between the two cities.
I think we can lose the inferiority complex vis a vis SF. We are a less-well-known city. Fine. So this means we are less of a tourist attraction (sometimes a plus: a lot of folks seem to appreciate a less self-conscious stance in a city, and have lived good lives with few visits to Pier 39 and the dread Fisherman’s Wharf. )
I agree that we need to attract business. We probably aren’t going to do it on glamour. We might just be able to sell ourselves as a good place for employees to live near their workplaces, though, our access to transportation, our available areas and re-usable buildings for commercial development.
Did you all notice that a Toyota dealer is coming in to take over the never-opened Toyota Palace over near the airport? Let’s congratulate whoever put that one together, and welcome this new generator of sales tax!
December 7th, 2009 at 9:52 am
We’ll have to agree to disagree on Oakland being cooler than Brooklyn. Ain’t no way you could convince me, even if we had miles of subways etc.
Oakland should, however, maximize its lower expenses compared to SF. Just like a few people are always heading over here from SF to buy a house etc, a few businesses will always relocate when a big enough cost differential. Get rid of red tape, and lower costs.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:51 am
I have to agree with David about Brooklyn. I think the Brooklyn to Manhattan :
Oakland to SF is a valid comparison when describing the relationship generally.
I agree with Max that the transportation here sucks compared to the multiple subway & bus lines in Brooklyn (I’ve never understood why the Bay Area thinks BART and MUNI are so great). And I agree with Max about density here in Oakland.
By the same token when one thinks of Brooklyn’s neighborhoods one thinks of the areas closer and more easily accessible to Manhattan: Cobble Hill, Brooklyn Heights, Fort Green, Park Slope, Williamsburg, Greenpoint, etc. and great areas spread that have spread beyond these. To keep it real, most of the population doesn’t live in these, but spreads beyond them.
Oakland can do this realistically, esp. by improving safety, bringing in new businesses, and blowing out the art scene (which is too underground).
Finally, I would LOVE a good Band Shell like Prospect Park has to do regular high-profile music events all summer long (not just one-offs like Art & Soul, which are great, but just 1x a year). The Paramount, FOX, etc. here are great but we need a wonderful outdoor concert venue accessible to the masses…
Does Oakland have or ever had a Band Shell?
December 7th, 2009 at 11:08 am
We have a historic bandstand at Lake Merritt (not so large as Prospect Park, but which hosts band concerts on summer weekends). It is not set up for large rock concerts, but works for medium-sized events.
We have the terrific Woodminster, which might conceivably be used for events such as this, on dates not occupied by the musical theater group there. It is up the hill, though, with some but not fabulous bus access.
Years ago there were blues festivals at Estuary Park, but then when they built condos next door, the complaining meant they stopped doing that.
Quite a number of people advocated for waterfront assembly and performance space at the time of the Oak to Ninth controversy. The city and developer in their wisdom ruled out such uses by planning a sprawling condo development which does not leave a site for such gatherings, dos not furnish either enough parking nor enough transit, and which builds in conflict of uses. A number of us hoped to preserve the area between Fifth Avenue and the Lake Merritt Channel as park, but the current plan puts 20-story buildings there adjacent to the parkland. Hard to imagine that if we can’t do concerts at Estuary Park, we’d be able to do them there, with so many potential residents within earshot.
The new park at 12th Street will provide a sort of natural amphitheater which is intended to be workable for public events; I can’t tell you exactly what scale, but it will be a couple of acres sloping gently down to an area which might well be usable for occasional performances if not so loud they would bring objections from Lake Chalet or folks living nearby.
http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/ceda/dcsd_currentprojects_measure_dd_lakemerritt_parkprojects_12thstreet.asp
You can download pdf 1169
I think the main problem at Lake Merritt is that it is so much narrower everywhere than something like Prospect Park–or even the bandshell near the Bethesda Fountain in Central Park–so that there are likely to always be conflicts with nearby residents. There isn’t enough of a buffer zone, except possibly at 12th St.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Those are logical explanations. Even if a Bandshell were faced away from apartment buildings over Lake Merritt that would be a problem since sound carries so well over water. The only place it could probably be done is either facing some trees somewhere to insulate the noise, or down by the HJK Convention Center.
Oakland really needs a centralized Bandshell that has acts from everywhere open to the broader public: local and international musicians (Brooklyn regularly has more musicians from Africa and elsewhere, than does Central Park), as well as outdoor Symphony-in-the-Park…
December 7th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Oakland can’t just improve safety, they have to create a PERCEPTION of improving safety. Here’s my favorite example. Atlanta’s crime is almost as bad as Oakland’s crime, but certain groups in the USA treat Atlanta like it is heaven on earth. Why? Because the ATL has hella good PR. The masses don’t care about reality, even if they do spend an inordinate amount of time watching “reality” shows. The masses only care about perception. Oakland has some brand building to do.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
That’s cuz Hotlanta’s been the go-to destination for buppies, James, and you know it. Oakland, not since WWII and early post-war.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
brooklyn’s almost complete makeover from a combo of various bedroom ethnic communities plus several poor ghetoos, to what it is today, was largely a result of the supercharged allen greenspan driven worldwide financial services economy of Manhattan.
It created a very large group of people earning incomes over 100k, and often over 250k/year. It also reduced unemployment and raised wages and benefits for many poor people.
We had a taste of that toward the end of the dot com era. The (funny, when i grew up there I thought the subway system sucked) great subway system and multiple bridges certainly were necessary but not sufficient. High density in Bklyn wasn’t a factor.
But Oakland has more good restaurants per person.
-len raphael
temescal
December 7th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Giuliani cleaning up the City (the real City, not SF), began in 1993.
D
December 7th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Bratton cleaned up NYC. And people had already started moving back to both Manhattan and Brooklyn even before. They did in mass, at the same time as the economy became better and crime went down. As Manhattan filled up and rentals got more expensive people moved to Brooklyn, Queens, etc.
It was a cycle where several things fell into place. That’s what Oakland needs too.
We have the base of good places to live and good restaurants, as well as the proximity to SF. But we don’t have the safety and the jobs.
Some of this is private business, some of it is Police. But to have more of either, and have them done better, we need political leaders with both a plan and an ability to make it happan.
I haven’t heard from either if our Mayoral candidates about how, or even what, they’re going to do. They better have plans to do something…
December 7th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Oakland has so much potential for an economic turnaround:
* cheaper than SF
* an international airport!
* a shipping port!
* short BART commute for (Far) East Bay commuters
* good restaurants
* a range of housing from affordable in the plains to very expensive in the hills
But this is all squandered by our senile mayor, doofus city council, an “innumerate” citizenry, and too much “criminals are victims” mentality.
I’m almost ready to give up..
December 7th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Bklyn jobs were not the economic engine for Bklyn’s transformation. Don’t know how revenue sharing works in NYC, but would think that Manhattan’s tax revenues are shared with Bklyn, which eliminated the handicap on Bklyn muni services of being essentialy a high density bedroom community for Manhattan.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I have to disagree with David. Atlanta was basically not much different than Charlotte, NC or Birmingham Alabama until Atlanta won the 1996 Olympics. That is when the “Hotlanta” hype began. DC, on the other hand, has been the go-to place for the black middle class since WWII because of the white-collar government jobs that integrated far sooner than the private-sector jobs in other cities.
The point is that, if Oakland wants to really grow, it is going to have to step up its PR game. Having dull Dellums in the mayor’s office doesn’t help. It needs to start with a younger, more dynamic mayor and a staff with actual experience. That mayor needs to work hand in hand with the new chief of police the way Guliani worked with his chief. By the way, Guiliani cleaning up New York is another PR myth, because that city’s crime had already begun declining before he became mayor. Check “Freakonomics” and “Comeback Cities: A Blueprint for Urban Neighborhood Revival.”
Regarding Brooklyn taxes, people seem to forget that Manhattan and Brooklyn are both boroughs of the same city of New York. Therefore, one can assume that that tax revenue generated by the borough of Manhattan would be distributed to all of the boroughs, including Brooklyn, to some extent. SF and Oakland are different cities in different counties, so Oakland can’t share in any SF goodness unless we are talking about state taxes. That being said, I predict large chunks of Oakland will essentially become bedroom communities for both SF and Berkeley. Hopefully, some of the working-class folks who will be pushed out of the western and northern regions of Oakland will move to my hood so I can stop seeing so much ghetto all around my island.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
NYC does not depend on residential real estate tax revenue the way Oakland or SF does. It has a substantial income tax on all residents, as well as a commuter income tax.
Residential real estate taxes in Bklyn, at least for old residences, were almost as low as Prop 13. Don’t know if that was true when residence ownership changed.
Before we follow the siren call of becoming a high density bedroom community, someone has to run the numbers and check the reasonableness of underlying assumption comparing the cost of servicing those additional residents vs the incremental tax revenue. My guess is that It takes a whole bunch more than restaurants, starbucks, and nail salons and the city’s general fund tiny share of residential real estate taxes to provide the services that residents expect when they pay high rents and condo prices.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
By the way, last week’s “San Francisco Business Times” has a special section on Oakland. There are some interesting things brewing in the town! I highly recommend it, although I doubt if you can find that issue still on newsstands.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
By the way, Oakland Class A office space had a 13.6% vacancy rate in the 3rd quarter.
East Bay in general: 19.81%
San Francisco: 15.1%
This is according to the “San Francisco Business Times” issue that I mentioned above.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Since we’re probably stuck for next decade at best being an upgraded bedroom community for SF, San Jose, Berkeley with great restaurants and nail salons.
We’re not allowed to impose an income tax, how about assessing hefty impact fees on all new construction to try to recoup the costs of servicing the new residents. Not clear if that means chasing our muni financial tail, by lowering the profit to developers to the point where they say heck with it. But maybe it would lower the cost of land to offset that effect on developer profit.
Then how to keep the pols and the electorate from spending the impact fees immediately..
December 7th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
How about this: let’s NOT impose any new taxes. Let’s find a way to efficiently spend the money we have, starting with cutting back the mayor’s travel budget. Also, let’s audit every non-governmental agency that takes money from the city government. And let’s figure out a way to abolish Measure Y so we can take that parcel tax money in using for hiring more cops ONLY.
And if you want Oakland to generate more tax revenue, then we need to figure out a way to increase homebuying. Oakland has the highest transfer taxes in the county, so Oakland stands to benefit greatly if some of those renters start buying.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Slash spending, increase efficiency, then raise taxes and fees.
Cost cutting would have worked at one point, but when a very high percentage of all cities in the country are finding they have to cut core services, there’s no way Oakland could deliver core services without higher fees and taxes. Oakland is special but not that special.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Why don’t we figure out what a core service really is? Bedroom communities learned pretty quickly that they needed the tax base from business. Look at all the industrial parks out in what started as suburbs such as Pleasanton.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
I couldn’t find the SF Business Times article u mentioned James but I’ll look a little further. In the meantime I did find this map of developments in work:
http://www.bizjournals.com/mobile/news/sanfrancisco/2009/11/30/focus1?b=1259557200
Also a business relocating to the new Jack London Square development:
http://www.bizjournals.com/mobile/news/sanfrancisco/2009/11/23/daily13
I hope this is a sign of things to come. It can’t hurt…
December 7th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Oakland could very easily deliver core service if the voters would stop giving money away to non-core services such as Kids First. Everytime I think of Measure OO, I am reminded of an exchange b/w Dr. Weaver and Dr. Romano. The role of Dr. Weaver will be played by the KF Brigade. In the role of Dr. Romano will be city council. Because this is a family publication, I can not print the exchange, but someone said something about owning someone else.
It is almost criminal that those pinheads and anyone for that matter is allowed to put before the voters a ballot measure that reads in short it will not increase taxes. Any unfunded measure is going to take money away from core services. Since the city can not print money, it must raise taxes. Yet, the nimrods who vote for such measure ignore these small facts. If they think non-profits of questionable merit deserve $$$$ to squander so be it, but do not come back to me for additional tax revenue to support core services. It is not going to happen. Basically, KF made us their and now Oakland and its residents need to learn to make do with less.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Rbt, re KF, I have a special warm place in my heart for the OUSD prez and KF makher David K.
The board (with what, one exception) actually begged David K to ignore the OUSD lawyer opinion that he had the appearance of a conflict of interest. One of the reasons given for his importance was that he was one of the few board members who understood the OUSD finances.
The nonprofits and other vendors understand Oakland’s finances better than our officials do.
And who knows, maybe the under 21 year olds we’ve put on the KF oversight board have figured out the game too.
A helluva a town.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
meant Ralph.
Maybe, to restate V’s point in the Measure K discussion, for perhaps a majority of residents, many of the services funded by K are core. Which is to say, that they would accept cutbacks in public security staffing, street maintenance, lighting, etc.
It will come down to voter turnout.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Core functions do not pertain to a segment of the population. Core functions should fall along the line of services that individuals can not provide for themselves. An example of a core service is public safety. If my tax dollars are going to be used for afterschool daycare, which is typically the responsibility of the parent, then I should have a say in how that money is used. My top priorities are sterilization programs and military schools.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Hey, James, did you hear the gunshots from the shooting on 94th & Bancroft? Speaking of ghetto. I heard it as I was trying to catch up on some sleep after putting the kiddies to bed. And people wonder why oakland has a bad rep…
December 7th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Were you talking about the shooting Saturday night? If it was at 9:30 then I was watching the new “Star Trek” movie at the time and probably thought it was part of the soundtrack
That shooting and the one a block down from Bancroft last weekend really has me wondering about my home purchase. . .
Let’s hope the new police chief can make some changes. Also, I think Measure Y is a crock. All that money should have gone to adding police.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Ralph, core is the largest set of services that the majority of residents believes they can’t live without and can’t provide by themselves? Not sure that definition is going to make this budgeting process any easier.
I don’t see how our current officials can put this off till next mayor comes aboard, but i’ll bet they’re praying every day for the feds to send a bunch of addtl stimulus money to local governments.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
len, not sure what you mean by the largest set of services that the majority of resident believe they can’t live without and can’t provide by themselves? Exactly what do you include and exclude in this definition.
What is the this our current official can not put off until next year. Our current officials don’t have to put off anything, they need to cut services. heck, I would even cutoff the pimps at kids first.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
There are population estimates for Oakland as of 2009. Those estimates ranges from 600,000+ to 650,000+. I remember that the city’s population was a little under 400,000 (2000).
What are your guesses on the population in Oakland? Which part of the city is seeing a population increase?
December 7th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
As far I know, the population is still at around 400,000 with a projected population increase of 20,000 by 2020.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
I thought so, seeing 600k is a surprising estimate. That’s 200k moving in Oakland in the span of 10 years. Something big would had to happen if these estimates are true.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Ralph, i was trying to rephrase your post re what’s core and what’s not. sounds like i didn’t do that too good.
by “What is the this our current official can not put off until next year.” i meant they will have to lead the howling pack in coming up with consensus on definition of “core” services. it won’t be pretty if the residents apply the Donner Pass method of allocating scarce resources.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Gotcha, I would not necessarily call it the largest set of services that tha majority of residents can not afford. I think those dimwits who believe in Kids First would use your rephrased definition to mean that they are a core service. The city should provide services that individual citizens can not provide for themselves and that allow business to flourish, people to feel safe in their person, and create an environment which allows people to reach their full potential.
Individuals can not provide public safety, business regulation, permitting, public health concerns. individuals can pay for afterschool care. whether individuals decide either to allocate resources or don’t have the income to allocate resources is not the city’s issue. And if it is my issue, sterilization and military school are my answers.
Sidebar: I will tell you what is disturbing. Oakland is a multi hundred million dollar business. Yet, they lack a chief accounting officer and a policy manual. Without proper internal financial controls, I expect nothing but waste.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:12 am
James, yeah, it was Sat. night around 9:30-9:45. About 10 shots or so.
At least with the money I’m saving on my mortgage, I can 1) afford a gun, 2) afford a pit bull and 3) afford to send my kids to Catholic school (in San Leandro).
Amen Ralph. Don’t forget the lack of incentives or disincentives (i.e. who the heck ever gets fired for incompetence?) at the muni employee level. Of course the ranks are filled with gold brickers, racketeers, incompetents and the result is what you see.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:28 am
The Census Bureau thinks the 2008 population of Oakland was 404,155, up from 399,484 in 2000. The California Department of Finance thinks it was 420,183 in 2008.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
James: My latest proposal to the City is to replace Measure Y with a new measure that does just what you’re proposing. I’ll be interested to see how they respond.
December 11th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I just spoke with my boss about getting paid for overtime work I can’t document as well as for time I spend every day dressing, undressing, washing myself and transporting myself to and from work. To avoid unnecessary cost, we decided to settle out of court. I got nothing – and he got a big laugh. Only plaintiffs are laughing in Oakland today. Unionized crooks.
December 16th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Today, I heard the Port of Oakland was awarded $253 million last week from the California Transportation Commission Fund but haven’t heard about it publicly. The Port’s website doesn’t mention it, either. Anyone have any information about this?
December 16th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
JK, is that the grant from Trade Corridor Improvement Fund $$?
Patrick, be nice. You can not fault OPD for collecting pay which the courts have said is due them. These lawsuits have been making the rounds for years with the employer more often than not on the losing end. Would you feel the same way if it were a big hi-tech corp forced to pay their workers?
December 16th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Ralph, that a union asked for and received the right to collect pay for the time spent dressing for their job is ridiculous. Whether it’s OPD or a big company, the insanity has to stop. And let’s not forget that much of this back pay is for work that OPD cannot substantiate.
December 16th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
I guess I just think the outrage should be with the courts. From Seattle to Miami, from San Diego to Portland, courts have more or less sided with union and non-union employees on these suit.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
if you’re gonna get po’d, how about the retirement package for the ex swat team leader. age 50 something and 187k/year. sorry, i know enough people who risk their lives and manage a bunch of people who don’t get more than a fraction of that.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Ralph, that’s all the information I have – this is why I ask. Seems like the Port would let the public know it just got a quarter of a billion dollars. Or, looking at it from a slightly different perspective, the public has the right to know the Port just got this much money and what the Port intends to do with it.
December 17th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
North Oakland public security meeting tonight, 12/17/09 7PM at Senior Center on 5714 MLK. (old grove street jc etc.). This was initiated by residents mostly below Shattuck, but joined by other residents throughout District One. Intent was that Jane Brunner or staff would also attend, but no confirm of that.
Trying to break out of the beat specific dog and pony shows where each beat does the squeaky wheel routine, and opd and cc member nod in sympathy, temporarily send some patrols out for a while, and tell everyone the same thing for the past 3 years how no money means “only you can prevent crime”. If nothing else, people can let opd and more importantly JB’s representative what budget priorities should be. Maybe some consensus building on priorities. One can hope.
December 17th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
The Catch-22 cycle of excuses u describe won’t change until: –We get more Officers; –The OPOA accepts lower salaries for new Officers in a down market; –Investigators get freed up from the NSA (or added to); over the long term Oakland improves it’s middle class tax base & employment for blue collar jobs.
Of course this is familiar on ABO. But what about the JB, the City Council, and the OPOA?
December 18th, 2009 at 12:29 am
N Oakland District One crime meeting had at least one good result: active community crime people from rockridge, temescal, convened with counterparts and normal residents from below shattuck.
we kept pushing opd to figure out a way to notify residents when there was a police action in a neighborhood that affected residents’ safety or needed their cooperation. as one person explained: she wants to know when she had to pull her kid out of the front living room so he wouldn’t get caught in crossfire, whether to look at back windows for the bad guys. opd countered by saying they have had bad guys family members join ncpc’s to get the scoop on opd investigations. they were concerned about tipping off bad guys, and they were concerned about the cost of notification. currently only method they have is the one run by the fire dept for hazmat notifications by phone. cost is 29 cents per call plus labor costs. in any event they don’t have any to spare to train to use it.
suggestion was made that they only notify one designated person per block by text message. that person could decide whom to contact next.
which brings us to another opd tech interface problem: the much heralded shot spotter. turns out that costs about 50k/year in license fees plus 50k for equipment rental, plus staff time. there is one in east o but it has not been effective because opd does not have a dedicated staff to quickly follow up on the shot spotting. will probably discontinue.
In north oakland, “overwhelming % of shootings” and “significant % of robberies” are committed by gangs. not sure how that jives with another statement that in north oakland majority of crime victims are white and not elderly.
Each year Oakland gets approx 3,700 new parollees an 5,000 probationers. By state law they discharged to the city where they were arrested
For all of Oakland there are 6 burglary investigators, and 6 robbery investigators. (other crime investigator info not mentioned). In addition, the PSO’s and beat cops are slowly being trained to investigate crimes but overall the “solvability” rate in Oakland is much worse than in neighboring cities. It is “very poor”.
In Area One ( Lake Merrit to North O?) over 2,100 thefts/month and 200 robberies are not investigated because they fail opd’s triage protocol.
And that Drug Hotline? Don’t bother because opd cannot keep up with all of those tips.
We heard a very credible resident describe how medical marijuana licensing has brought even more crime to her neighborhood. cops said they’re trying to monitor that too.
And no virginia, it is not an urban myth that thousands of fingerprints taken by techs are stacked up at opd storage. opd lacks both the budget and the staff to analyse and input the fingerprint data.
toward the end, Jane B. summarized the earlier cc budget meeting where it was decided they either had to lay off 100 cops next summer or get the unlikely approval of the voters for police parcel tax. Basically she said they would not/could not make any more cuts to the other city services and programs. (she might have also mention changing measure Y, but maybe she was just half acknowledging the cc mishandled that one)
when i asked her why was the cc waiting till next spring to deal with the impending doom, her reply was something to the effect that no one wants to make painful cuts any sooner than they have to. that some members were hoping for an economic recovery to boost sales and transfer taxes, but at same time most realize the recovery will come to oakland last.
-len raphael
temescal
December 18th, 2009 at 1:20 am
opd staff agreed that there is massive underreporting of certain crimes. they have not done any stat work to estimate how big that underreporting is. example was given of DTO vicinity of bart crime. most commuters do not want to stick aound to fill out crime report.
in general, it seems that if a crime report is not filed, no statistic is generated. an incident number is not enough. since many incidents are never reported, and most incidents do not result in a crime report, underreporting is possibly huge for certain crimes.
December 18th, 2009 at 9:35 am
City Attorney John Russo’s office has issued an opinion (written by Alix Rosenthal) that City Council must now implement IRV voting, under the City Charter.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Underreporting crime is nothing new. I have been underreporting crime for over 20 years. I would love to know what OPD is doing to make reporting a crime easier. I also want to know what they are doing to inform people how to report a crime.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Why in Hell are Probationers and Parolees returned to the City where they’re arrested?? They should b returned to he City where they Reside! As we’ve already discussed many perps committing crimes at sideshows are from out of town. I bet that’s not unusal for drug dealing, gangs, etc.
So State Law empties the criminals from smaller, safer cities into the city that already has the most crime? Insane!
December 18th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
I believe parolees are returned to the city where they have family under the assumption there is a built in support network that will keep them clean. Of course, it was probably in this same community where they did the deed; so, I am not sure how well that policy works. I could be mistaken but I believe that CA also takes in more parolees than it exports because parolees are allowed to move to where they have family. Imported parolees committed some of the most heinous crimes in CA.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Those who are interested in actually doing something about improving crime investigation in Oakland, rather than simply complaining here, can contact their City Councilmembers and OPD Chief Batts.
Federal grant funds were received by Oakland in March to hire two civilian investigators to work on complaints filed with the Citizens’ Police Review Board. Currently there are 10 sworn OPD Internal Affairs officers doing this work. Two of the IA officers could be relieved by Batts to do crime-solving police work, letting the civilian investigators work on the civilian complaints.
Why is this not being done now? The City Administrator won’t release the grant funds. The City Council is not demanding that the grant funds be released and the civilian investigators hired.
Chief Batts has heard about this proposal and seems supportive. Your email/letters/calls to him could spur him to act quickly.
In the long run, all 10 OPD Internal Affairs investigators who are doing CPRB work rather than real policing could be replaced with civilian investigators. Funding for the civilians could be sought by the Oakland grant writer. You might mention this to the City Council, too.
December 18th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Is there someplace where we residents can go to identify open OPD issues we would like OPD and the council to address. It would seem rather pointless for me to ask them to do X if they are already doing X.
But if they have already identified a list of priorities, which they are slow to address I might have a better ally in council.
Just for starters they could update the website and provide more recent annual reports. Reading the annual reports that are available it is clear that tangible goals for the people of Oakland is not a high priority. I think in one report, I read that a goal for the year is to send 5 people to training. But how does that help the people of Oakland. I would love to see something about x% increase in arrest rate or x% decrease in crime. A training class should support those goals not be the goal itself.
Now that was from a 2007 report. For all I know, someone at OPD realized how silly these reports were and institued changes for 2008. But that is a concern I have. We need to implement strong management objectives at OPD, who do I talk – is this a Chief Batts item?
December 18th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Ralph–
Make Oakland Better Now! (there is a MOBN website; “Oaktalk” is where public safety specifics are addressed) and PUEBLO (website also) are both working on police reform. PUEBLO has been working for some time on “civilianizing” OPD.
Even if the City Council has approved something, it doesn’t mean that it’s being done. So pestering them is always important. That is the unrewarding work of trying to get this City to actually move forward.
You probably know that the CC has a Public Safety Committee. Larry Reid is Chair. Pat Kernighan, Nancy Nadel and Jean Quan are also on PSC. PSC meets 2nd and 4th Tuesdays 530 to 7. Requests to schedule items on the PSC agenda (3 weeks in advance) can be filed at http://www.oaklandnet.com/cityclerk/agend-item-instructions.html.
December 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Ralph–
Chief Batts is still going to a lot of public meetings where you can ask him anything. Call Rene Sykes of the Neighborhood Crime Prevention Councils and ask her where the next meeting is. Asking Batts about how to measure police performance/crime reduction or how does/will OPD identify perpetrators of violent crime and how will OPD intervene without causing a riot–any such question–will keep him on his toes and remind him that there is lots of sentiment for change.
Batts seems (I have met with him) to be talking the talk about “evidence-based” policing which is the latest thinking. He has several highly-qualified consultants helping him with his long-term strategic plan for police change in Oakland.
“Evidence-based policing” means police active anti-crime interventions are based on actual evidence of the activity of criminals and their social networks. This means police go after specific targets very precisely rather than simply cruise violent neighborhoods looking to bust people who they “profile” as being “criminals.” Profiling doesn’t reduce crime–it just pisses off the community and then the police can’t get the information they need to actually do anything useful because no one will talk to them.
December 19th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I will support the bond measure being placed on the July ballot to fund police on three conditions:
1. OPD agrees to a two-tier system: all future new hires will start at a lower base salary, pay will escalate more slowly, have a defined contribution pension (to which they contribute), and do not get paid to dress for work;
2. The City puts another measure on the same ballot that rolls back funding for Measure OO;
3. The City admits fault for its misuse of Measure Y funds and works to correct it.
Unless these 3 conditions are met, they can go suck an egg.
December 20th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Sorry, ain’t got anymore money to give at the point of a gun to the tax man. Learn to make do like the rest of us in the private sector who’ve had 40% pay cuts, no pensions, no health care and are thankful we don’t have a 100% pay cut. And don’t you dare whine to me about how you went into the public sector and never planned to get rich. Guess how many of your private sector counterparts actually get rich, dimwits.
Got one word for our public officials: Jack*****. No other way to describe ‘em.
I’m waiting for the East Bay Express to take a look at Oakland’s government waste like SF Weekly did for SF. It’s disgusting and should point out why you should never support a tax increase.
December 20th, 2009 at 10:05 am
It really is kind of pathetic. Does anyone on the City Council truly believe that a bond measure or parcel tax will pass in July? Or is this just another “You didn’t give us more money waaaaaaaaah now look what we have to do it’s your fault not ours” scenario?
December 20th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Patrick,
I hear you on the bond measure. I would probably require that 1 and 2 be combined. You can always get the measure on the ballot. It is the passing that is tricky.
I am inclined to believe that city council knows some things about some of our electorate that we tend to forget. The electorate is stupid. Suppose you think the kids (or mgrs at non-profits) need money. Well if you submit to the electorate a ballott measure to allocate money to those dimwits and tell the electorate that it will not require new taxes, then the electorate votes for it.
Now, you and I would not vote for it because it obviously means something is not going to get money and either the city needs to find that money somewhere or cut programs. But given the frequency with which the electorate votes for such measures, it is fairly safe to say that the electorate will do something stupid.
Same thing happens with a bond measure, someone will slip in language no new taxes and you and I will sitting around thinking exactly how do they expect to service this debt. My property tax bill tells me otherwise.
So while I would normally agree with the stmt, “you didn’t give us more money…,” I believe city council is taking advantage of what is obviously a mentally impaired electorate. I am beginning to see the value in having literacy test before we allow people to vote.
I am also waiting for the EBE news story. A city this size without a Controller – shameful!!!
December 20th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
PS. One thing you forget is that an election in July is going to be extremely low turnout….except for public sector union employees who will be compelled to vote.
This is standard tactics on any vote involving wasting more taxpayer money in local elections.
Remember to vote and remind your friends so that you can overpower the muni employee racket.
December 20th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Yes, and let’s not forget that 60% of Oaklanders are not responsible for the repayment of a bond measure – which is exactly why it IS a bond measure. “Your taxes won’t go up” … until next year and the year after that when they jack up the ad valorem rate to 3% and only assuming you own property in this piece o’ crap city. If this shee-ite passes it will make every piece of property in Oakland WORTHLESS.
December 20th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
question: when we’re told by our officials that city employees have already accepted a 10% cut in pay, are they referring to the unpaid temporary furloughs? so only benefits that accrue based on pay or hours would be reduced also? eg. retirement plan employer contributions, vacation, sick leave, but not medical and dental?
but the cops and firefighters 10% cut was in the form of forgoing a promised 10% raise? but they still work the same number of hours? (wasn’t there something about OT calculation changing?)
-len
December 20th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
I wonder if bond measures have a better rate of electorate support than do parcel taxes? Anyone know? Is it easier to “sell” a bond measure? Do bonds and parcel taxes both require a 2/3rds “aye” vote?
December 20th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Good point Len. I wonder about the benefits too, maybe V knows.
Since they’re based on temporary furloughs and not permanent salary cuts, they should b referred to as such.
December 20th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
the muni bond underwriters would never sell a muni bond issue for most cities these days that was not backed by dedicated tax revenue source. but i doubt if they’d even float one then, unless the dedicated tax was enough to cover say a 10% interest rate. ie. muni junk bond rate.
wasn’t it just a few years that either CA or Alameda county did issue bonds to cover a shortfall in pension contributions?
the question is whether our officials succeed in defining the issue as choosing between a big parcel tax or laying off cops. if people accept that false choice, it isn’t that much further to convincing enough renters that parcel taxes don’t cost them anything. but then there’s a significant percentage of voters who think it wb a good thing to reduce the size of opd.
a low turnout off season election would hurt a parcel tax. most likely voters are resident property owners. yes, city union members would work for the parcel tax, but other union members who don’t work for the city would vote like typical property owners.
nope, the tax has better chance passing in november.
December 20th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Reading jane’s comments in the Oakland north article…what can I say that I haven’t already screamed before? They just don’t get it. Maybe it’s time for my next lawsuit….
December 20th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Ml, not fair that you can file lawsuits any time, while the rest of us between elections and public hearings can just complain to each other on blogs. But to paraphrase Joe Hill ” don’t complain, organize”.
December 21st, 2009 at 7:28 am
Actually Len there are things you can do. Write emails to councilmembers and let them know how you feel. (I know nancy reads hers because one of my neighbors sent a group email to the cc saying they would be voted out of office unless they did the right thing and she wrote back, “thanks for the threat.”). Also, please go to the next council meeting and speak out!
December 21st, 2009 at 10:51 am
Bounhom Manyvong left Laos for a better place. He died in Oakland, the 106th homicide this year. How can the violence here be put in a perspective serious enough for action?
Since the war began in the Afghanistan region in late 2001, there have been 662 Americans killed by hostile action.
In that same time period, there have been 890 Americans killed by hostile action in Oakland.
The last “Daily” Crime Analysis posted by OPD [November 23, 2009] indicates that in the current quarter Oakland has suffered the highest average daily violence against its citizens in our recorded history.
Every Sunday, as a kid in Oakland in the 50′s, our family went to Mosswood Park for a picnic. Every Christmas season we walked the downtown at night to see the store displays and decorations. I rode my bike after school three days a week from North Oakland to 98th and East 14th for a part time job.
In 1956, when I was in the eighth grade at Claremont Junior High School on College Avenue, Oakland experienced 1,421 Part I Violent Crimes. That was an average of about 3.9 per day. There were about 872% more Part I Property Crimes Reported [including 1,052 bicycle thefts].
In this current quarter [DCR 11/23] Oakland is suffering an average daily rate of Part I Violent Crimes that is 733% higher than when I was a kid [28.6 vs. 3.9]. The ratio of reported propery crimes to violent crimes has dropped -73% from 8.72 in 1956 to 2.34 today.
Maybe we can’t go back to 1956, and there are some things about that period we shouldn’t go back to, but why do we have to have the highest violent crime rate in the country today?
ronoz
December 21st, 2009 at 11:58 am
An interesting conundrum is that while many of us state the City should focus on Core Services, JB and others say that over 80% of the General Fund is spent on Safety, a core service. We need to clear up this contradiction or the CC will continue to use this statistic as a reason to either pass another bond or do nothing (including no cuts to the remaining 20% of non-safety General Fund spending, core or not).
The point is further driven home by reducing the contradiction to it’s most basic: We need more Officers, but we can’t afford them.
How do we resolve this, without a further tax increase? The only way I can see is further cuts for new hires of all City Employees, if not existing ones (pay & benefits cuts, not temporary furloughs), as well as canceling the automatic pay increases in the Salary Schedules (that duplicate COLA adjustments).
And a further reduction in non-core functions (at least temporarily), especially cultural organizations that already receive funding from foundations, community block grants, and other organizations whose core missions better align with the beneficiairies.
But these might b only part answers. However I suggest writing to CC members with these proposals. I will email mine now, as well as my neighborhood association. Any other specific solutions before I do?
December 21st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Marleen, Is there anything in the City Charter that requires the City to adequately fund City Services (essential or not)? As opposed to cultural or discretionary spending?
December 21st, 2009 at 6:53 pm
LG, ask the cc members for what the projected annual deficit would be 1, 3, and also 5 years from the year endind June 2010 using optimistic, medium optimistic, and pessimistic assumptions.
What would our fiscal situation be if current tax revenues did not go up or down except for an additional 200/parcel tax, inflation stayed low, but we set aside money to fund our old public safety retirement obligations, our projected increased retirement obligations to Calpers, and projected obligations for retiree medical benefits. Then ask what happens if interest rates on city borrowings increases by 40%. Don’t bother asking them for projected OUSD deficits because “that’s not our job”.
I think the honest answer would be, we’ll be running large deficits and need another +300 parcel tax. Which is to say our officials are praying that this recession is just another normal downtown that wb followed by quickly rising tax revenues and slowly increasing interest rates.
-len raphael
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:21 am
We need to strike “bond issue” and “bonds” from this discussion. Regardless of what certain clueless Councilmembers might say, the City couldn’t (and shouldn’t) issue bonds to fund police services. Bonds are simply a form of borrowing — investors give the City money and they recieve a bond, which is the City’s pledge to repay that money at some future date with interest. Bonds are normally issued to pay for buildings and long lived public works. Bonds MAY be supported by parcel or other taxes.
To fund current operating expenditures, there is no need to borrow long term. The voters can approve a parcel tax and the tax revenues are used to fund current spending. This is how Measure Y or the library parcel tax work.
A parcel tax to repay bonds or a parcel tax to fund current expenditures both require a 2/3 vote to pass. So, next time your elected officials talk about a “bond measure” to fund public safety expenditures, you will know better. Feel free to boo and hiss and tell them to get a clue. Bond measures are for major capital projects — NOT for current operations.
Of course, as previously mentioned, there are Pension Obligation Bonds, but we’ll save that for another day.
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:35 am
As I’ve oft stated, parcel taxes are so unfair that it is almost criminal. They can legally base the amount on the tax on the size of the property, but of course, this is Oakland where the government can’t figure out the e-mail system.
@len: I don’t think the City’s unionized employees would skew the election results – after all, most of them can afford to live, and do live, somewhere else.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:26 am
Patrick, what kinds of taxes do you think are fair?
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Please help find, and bring to justice, the callous, piece-of-shit motorist that committed a heinous act of hit-and-run vehicular homicide near downtown Oakland. 84 year-old Nong Chen was slaughtered by a multi-thousand pound bullet on the morning of Saturday Dec. 14th, in the 200 block of 6th Street at Jackson. http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_13995735
It must be difficult for Nong’s killer motorist to not talk to somebody over even just a ten day period.
Police and Crime Stoppers of Oakland are offering up to $10,000 in reward money for information leading to a arrest of Chen’s hit-and-run killer. Anyone with information may call police at 510-238-3821 or Crime Stoppers at 510-777-8572 or 510-777-3211.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:36 am
@critChris thanks for posting this. lots of other crimes go unreported according to all the OPD I talk to. city council would be “upset” if OPD started actually reporting more crimes to local news media.
as a follow up, since we have 50% of a police dept here, I suggest that everyone start “packing heat” like Goldman Sachs execs now do and take care of business on the spot instead of waiting for help that won’t come.
As one anecdote, I spoke with security at a local bar this week and after a fight broke out and they called OPD, there were no OPD available so dispatch sent firefighters instead. WTF??
What are FFs gonna do? So 45min later dispatch calls to see if the bar still needs OPD. Turns out the combatants left tens of minutes ago. Yep. Security is the basis for civil society, a stable local economy and stable tax collection.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Can someone explain to me how a camera on a sweeper is more intrusive and a violation of privacy compared to a person with two eyes?
December 28th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
ralph – i guess because unlike a person with two eyes, a camera scanning every car on the street can save the info in a hard drive, and supposedly this scales up quite nicely as google maps street view shows you, and perhaps “someone” can scan through all that shit and figure out who’s been where.
and frankly, a fair number of people prefer privacy over publicity when it comes down to it, FB/twitter notwithstanding. the basic question is, do you trust your government at all levels?
personally i don’t think it’s a big deal. eventually the city won’t be able to perform its basic functions due to having no money. for those of you with expandable imaginations, try visioning Oakland without police and fire staff.
I wouldn’t say this will happen next year, or the year after that, but it’s coming in less than ten years and maybe even in eight. (translation: go back to sleep
—
Here’s a glowing 2010 forecast for anyone that’s listening:
http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/12/forecast-2010.html#more
December 28th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
len, afaik the opd took a 15% pay cut this year not 10% but i may be missing something.
ken
January 6th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
I have noticed this scene the last few weeks on a daily basis at Park Boulevard and Highway 580: At least 3 cops hanging out with the road construction crews. Police are apparently doing nothing other than back-slapping and looking cool. I understand there might be a need for traffic control of sorts. This does not look like a good use of City resources. How about one patrol car and one officer? The area is very well marked with cones, flashing signs, etc.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
KenO- don’t they make cameras with delete buttons
MikeSpencer – I believe the user of these services pay for these services. It would think it is no different than hiring police to manage a race course.
January 7th, 2010 at 7:24 am
I don’t get why we need sworn officers at construction sites. Even if it is being paid for by someone else, it’s taking away from the number of officers available to do real police work.
It’s been going on downtown too, on Grand Ave, for a while. Makes no sense.
January 7th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Actually it makes a lot of sense. Like road race mgrs, construction site mgrs hire the cops for safety reasons. The police presence tends to calm the traffic in the area. My guess is each of you will be singing a different tune if a worker were injured and sued everyone including the city and won a huge settlement.
From what I recall, these cops are not regularly scheduled for this time. Thus they are not taking away from the normal staff. Why is no one outraged by the CHP officers sitting on the Bridge during construction hours?
January 7th, 2010 at 9:14 am
The police are there because PG&E requested them; I don’t know if they are paying for them, but I assume they are. You’d have to check with OPD about the specifics. It is possible that the officers are working during their unscheduled hours, ie., moonlighting.
The situation at each site is extremely dangerous and the liability for PGE and the City of Oakland is very great. One or two injuries to the public could easily wipe out any savings from not having police there.
The main reason is for general security to the sites. That is, OPD has the power to arrest and remove trespassers – the workers or PGE don’t. The sites are extremely dangerous because of the proximity to traffic and pedestrians. If a pedestrian doesn’t want to leave, the workers can’t force them or arrest them. Any such attempt by a worker could come back on them as an assault or something. Plus, controlling the site without OPD would be a big distraction for the workers. OPD are the only ones who can apply maximum control over the sites. The liability to PGE and the City is huge.
January 7th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Thanks John, that actually makes a lot more sense.
I also think, based on seeing familiar officer’s faces, that seniority plays a role in who gets called to stand around these sites. I seriously hope that PG&E is covering all costs, because overtime pay and pay in general escalates rapidly with seniority.
January 11th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
How long do you think Chief Batts will stay when the Mayor and most of the cc reject his proposal for a youth curfew and continue to cut police staffing? Like any new job, best to quit very soon so it doesn’t mess up your resume.
(http://oaklandnorth.net/2010/01/09/opd-chief-batts-ready-to-try-curfew-and-new-technology-but-is-oakland/)
-len raphael
temescal
January 11th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
I think they should give the chief the benefit of his position, and at least try his recommendations. If they work they pat themselves too + save a lot of money. If it doesn’t work they can blame the Chief. What’s to lose?
& Certainly better than kids watching their parents get shot and killed in front of them…
January 11th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
What’s the deal. Hundreds killed during his term and today the Mayor sends out his first letter decrying the violence? Maybe I just got on a mailing list or something.
January 12th, 2010 at 12:41 am
“Many cities have imposed youth curfews in recent years. A 1995 survey by The U.S. Conference of Mayors found that 272 cities, 70 percent of those surveyed, had a nighttime curfew. Fifty-seven percent of these cities considered their curfew effective.” A Status Report on Youth Curfews in America’s Cities
A 347-City Survey
I hope that Chief Batts and Larry Reid can move forward with a proposal for a youth curfew. The problem I tend to have is Oakland’s white liberal think it is a bad thing because it end up snagging a bunch of brown and black children. So if my alternative if a dead child versus a child that we are able to get off the street and into the needed social help and programs that they need, I am going to take the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday. There is no good reason for a 15 year old to be on the street at 1am and if any of council members think there is maybe they should forfeit the honor of bearing children. When the street lights come on, your butt had better be on the porch. Find me a black child who hasn’t heard those words and I will show you a black child that needs the very help that Batts and Reid are proposing we offer to kids picked up in the curfew hours. DWLE.
Survey comment:
Nine out of 10 of the cities (247) said that enforcing a curfew is a good use of a police officer’s time. Many respondents felt that curfews represented a proactive way to combat youth violence. They saw curfews as a way to involve parents, as a deterrent to future crime, and as a way to keep juveniles from being victimized. In addition, they commented that a curfew gives the police probable cause to stop someone they think is suspicious. Examples of city comments:
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 » Show All