The wording of the Nadel/Brooks resolution is extremely confusing to several of us who read it. Looks like it might have gotten truncated online also.

Regardless of the poor drafting (what else is new).

The resolution covers both North Oakland and Fruitvale, so you can't pick and choose.

if you support the GI, then you want to select

AGAINST
Item 11
on 5-17-2011 of the City Council.

-len raphael, temescal

Your emails and online cards worked.

The motion passed to support the GI in Fruitvale and N Oakland, with the provision that the "John Does" would be dropped; and a formal evaluation of the costs and benefits would be performed before it was expanded.

Kaplan, Nadel, and Brooks voted against the GI proposal. Reid, Schaaf, Pat K, and DLF voted to support the modifed GI.   Brunner recused.

Several of us from North Oakland spoke. Seems like we were all supporters of the GI. With a few passionate exceptions, we were also the only supporters who showed up in person.

Pat K noted that many supporters of the GI were intimated to speak. I understand that, but didn't feel any personal hostility when I stayed after speaking.

The chambers were filled mostly with kids under 18 who were to put it bluntly, sweet. Unfortunately, they have convinced themselves with the eager assistance of “community workers” and Segal attorneys, as one 16 year old put it, that the GI will only result in cops beating and killing youth of color.

Kaplan didn't address  that blood libel, but did express irritation at a flood of emails she got saing that the LGBT community would be attacked by the cops via the Gang Injunction. 

Fascinating that some of the kids and community organizers referred to the budget deficit, and even acknowledged Pat K’s point that most of the cost of the GI are fixed salaries in the City Attorney’s office and OPD. But then they ignored their own statements, and jumped to a non-sequitor that the big bucks spent on GI should be spent on social programs.

Those community organizers and Segalistas did a number on those kids’ heads.

I talked with a twenty something GI opponent. He agreed with me that there had been 0 lawsuits and settlements resulting from the North Oakland GI. he even agreed that violence seemed to have dropped.

But then he said Fruitvale GI was different because it had a high number of unamed John Does. (this got dropped in the proposal that passed. as it should have.)

My hunch is that there is a qualitative difference between the Fruitvale situation and North Oakland. That difference could be the nature of Latino gangs. That unlike the black gangs, the Latino gangs are tightly woven into multi generational family life. In a sense these kids want to protect their family members, even though they know they are violent.

One of the lighter moments was hearing Segal JR say that proof that the North Oakland GI was a failure was that property values in North Oakland dropped 12% since it was started.

Considering prices in Fruitvale probably dropped, what twice that, in the same period, I’d have drawn a different conclusion.

The only speaker the whole evening who pointed out that there will be no improvement in the  private sector jobs that everyone said was needed, until crime levels drop, was Pat K. To hear the many anti GI supporters, young and old, is to believe that jobs are something that “programs” and better education create out of thin air.

Pat K flatly stated that Clorox moved many of its jobs out of Oakland because employees were getting mugged.

-len raphael, desmond st   

that's a fairly selective recollection, len, to put it mildly.

Eric, the Gang Injunctions might well turn out to ineffective or inefficient.

Wouldn't be the first or the worst example of that here. Just look at the the Rider's NSA that has cost unknown tens of millions and everyone agrees has been ineffective.

But to take as the gospel as amost of the kids at the CC did, that it would lead to massive  incarcerations and cop violence against youth has o basis in reality. That hasn't occurred anywhere in the country, or in North Oakland.

Now we have the question of implementing the GI and evaluating both of them.

The resolution calls for an independent evaluation of the GI. No time specified.

Not clear to me how City will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the Fruitvale injunction now that it frozen at the current level.

With such a small sample, it will be easy to decide it’s effective if most of the named gang members get convicted of serious crimes, but if very few get convicted does that mean the wrong people were targeted or that the GI discouraged crimeL

Also with such a small number of targets, limited to one overall gang, no there could be a measurable impact on gang activity attributable to this GI.

Lastly, with dimishing OPD resources, not clear if the GI can even be implemented properly.

Monica?

-len raphael, temscal

len, i think it's pretty clear at this point that the injunctions were flawed from the get-go and the giddy-up. the council pretty much admitted that, but wasn't able to bring itself to pull the curtain back. Russo was a no-show (as usual) and even batts didn't seem 100% on the GIs. Fierro had to correct her numbers at least twice when Brooks called BS. and Kernighan had no answer when it was pointed out that violent crime is up in NSO, other than to say she's more comfortable with the perception than the reality. so this speaks to the inefficiancy of city government rather than an overreach by youth activists, many of whom were saying quite different things than your take-away.

i don't really have the time or energy to point out all the places where your opinion differs from facts, so i posit that you heard only what you allowed yourself to hear.

fyi, i recorded much of the meeting, but haven't had the time to go through all 4 hours or so of the audio. but there are some pretty revealing quotes, such as de la fuente saying "a lot of the programs we fund don't work." that statement could prove prophetic in this case.

Now that Segal Jr., Cunningham et al lost this round in the political arena,  the Council should consider offering an out of court settlement whereby Segal's public interest law firm gets a very modest fixed price contract to provide legal defense in civil only matters with a cap per defendent.

None of this Rider open ended court supervised NSA where the costs have possibly run into the tens of millions.

Such a settlement would both address what might be a civil liberties flaw in the GI and save us continuing legal costs.

-len raphael, temescal

len, sorry, but michael siegel isn't the problem here.

also, your proposal would only add to the city's expenditures, since all the costs incurred--estimated in the range of $1 million-- have been by the City's Attorney's office, outside co-counsel, and OPD. what you suggest would be to pay for an expense which currently has zero cost to the city, since all the defense attorneys are representing their clients pro bono.

please explain, if possible, how would that "save us continuing legal costs"?

hmm, an accountant who thinks we can save money by spending money? you don't work for AIG, do you?

(you are correct, though, that pursuing the civil case is indeed a civil liberties flaw, since it was designed to eliminate due process. the judge noted as much back in february.)

got any more bright ideas?