Portraying this as an either/or choice about funding is preposterous.  Do we make an either/or choice about whether we have a police department OR a school district?  No.  We have both.  Similarly, we should have youth programs AND crime surpression tactics like the gang injunctions.

Desley Brooks' comments about fear being a driving force behind this issue are only half right: Fear of the police is just as much of a problem as fear of gangs.  

People at that meeting used terms like "occupying army" to refer to Oakland's Police department.  The meeting even attracted a woman from Marin who was a self-styled "armed revolutionary" back in the 60s. (what she really did was rob an armored car and hide a fugitive who killed two cops.)  It attracted Uhuru Solidarity, a group that refered to Lovelle Mixon as a hero for murdering 4 cops. It attracted Critical Resistance, a group that wants to abolish prisons completely (not just reform them, which I think we need to do).

In short, a lot of absolutists and extremists showed up and made a lot of noise.  One of them had the audacity to call Rebecca Kaplan anti-gay for voicing support for injunctions!

There was also a lot of call for proof that injunctions work. Proof before we even try them in Oakland? How does that work?  There are criminology studies from other cities that support them, and other studies that do not.  But the ACLU told the Chronicle that there has never been a study of injunctions like the one in Oakland, which is unique in that it names individuals, and allows them all to have a day in court.

If we need proof that programs work in order to continue them, we should end Measure Y's youth violence prevention programs.  Measure Y started in 2004.  By 2007, Oakland had the 3rd highest rate in the country of people under 19 killed by guns!  That doesn't look like a successful violence prevention program to me.  But wait. The council wants to give it more time to work.  It costs 10 times what the injunctions cost, but it gets a fair chance to prove results over years, and injunctions don't?

I think that Oakland has a small but vocal clique that simply doesn't believe in using coercive force of any kind to stop crime.  They shouldn't be taken seriously here, because they're wrong, and no other city takes that idea seriously.  Maybe that's why we are the most violent city in California.

In answer to "Why the gang injunctions got funded and what to do about it", I say: "They got funded because Ignacio De La Fuente, Larry Ried, Pat Kernighan and Libby Schaaf had the courage to stand up to an irrational protest, and what we should do about it is thank those councilmembers for having some backbone".

Actually,

Re-examining what happened on Tuesday night, I think that Pamela Drake and other Anti-Injunction folks are failing to notice something: they won.

The council, in effect, unanimously voted to stop doing any more gang injunctions.  The ones in effect in North Oakland will continue, but it doesn't need any more funding to continue because it's already been through the courts, and if anyone under the injunction gets arrested for violating the court order, that isn't a special expense.  The judge has already sait that he'll hear the Norteno injunction, the outside counsel have been contracted already, and you can't break the contract.

So I take it back about thanking the City Council.  What they did was a carefully orchestrated political escape from gang injunctions. Four made statements that were generally pro-injunctions, but voted to have no more so they wouldn't need to deal with the issue again, because they don't have the guts to stand up for a sound law and order strategy while being yelled at by radicals.  Three just voted no, Nadel out of ideology, Brooks out of ideology, and Kaplan because a non-substantive motion that she added to the mix was rejected.

Do you realize that EVERY supervisor in San Francisco voted for injunctions more than once, and that the SF injunctions pay less attention civil rights protections than in Oakland?  That includes Chris Fucking Daly.

So we're down to SF being very liberal, and Oakland being off the deep end.  I don't know if it matters in the long run.  If Oakland doesn't do something drastic soon in terms of finance policies, one of the issues in the 2012 election will be whether or not the City will be able to make payroll.

max, looking past the knee-jerk tenor of your posts, pamela does make some very good points, such as the real estate agent citing the code which requires disclosure of an injunction--which cannot have a positive effect on real estate values in the Fruitvale.

your posts also illustrate the degree to which this issue has been polarized along race and class lines. those supporting the injunctions tend to be older and/or whiter; those against tend to be younger, more multicultural, and, one assumes, with less economic clout and therefore less political leverage.

it's an old story.

your assertion that Reid, Schaaf, de la Fuente, and Kernighan showed "backbone" could easily be read exactly opposite: that in the face of facts, empirical evidence, and the presence of an outspoken community--many of them from the affected area--they chose not to show any backbone whatsoever, and made the most conservative choice available to them under the circumstances. the fact that Kernighan repeated verbatim the same statements she had made back in February speaks to the probability that her mind was made up well before the meeting. Schaaf actually applauded some of the speakers against the injunction--but then chose not to vote with her heart, instead letting fear of reprisal from affluent Hill voters come election time guide her actions. De La Fuente sold out his own community. ditto Reid.

I do concur that Kaplan voted against the injunctions in a weasle-y way, but she was probably leaning that way anyway. it's absolutely false, though, to say that the LGBT activist took Kaplan to task for supporting the injunctions--which she didn't. what he actually said was that a large number of homeless youth are LGBT and his belief was that they would be caught up in the gang injunction dragnet and subjected to increased harassment and persectution by police, which Kaplan refuted as incorrect.

in my opinion--and this is me speaking as a community member, not a reporter--the only council members who truly had backbone were Nadel and Brooks. time and time again, they asked the tough questions, demanded accountability from OPD and the City Attorney, and pointed out the fallacy of rubber-stamping a flawed policy that was known to be flawed. That's what Council members are supposed to do, not be lily-livered and passive-aggressive.

you are wrong, by the way, that the contract with Meyers-Nave cannot be broken. What the judge actually said, was that if the city council voted to de-authorize the injunctions, that the legal proceedings would essentially become null and void. I was there in court when this happened; didn't see you there.

Also, in your own statements to me immediately after the vote, you remarked on the "civil" tone of the proceedings. A day later, that has changed to "yelling radicals."

One can draw one's own conclusion from that; i don't have to point out there's a huge disconnect between those two statements.

There's also a huge disconnect between your statements and the facts. The NSO injunction has been in place for long enough to receive official OPD statistics indicating it has had little to no effect on reducing violent crime. With the Fruitvale injunction, you are saying, in essence, well, even though all indicators point to the fact that it probably won't work as a long-term crime-reduction strategy, let's go ahead and spend the money anyway, just so we can find out for sure. That's a flawed perspective, especially in a city with limited resources.

One thing i think needs to be reiterated here is that, as Brooks noted, both the anti- and pro- injunction folks agree on one thing: they are both concerned with public safety and want a permanent reduction in violent crime. Where the sides differ, i think, is that the anti-injunction contingent is also concerned about police accountability, civil liberties, and the most effective use of city resources to address this problem.

 

 

 

 

 

Max,

I'm glad you pointed out that we did win something-the injunctions cannot now be easily expanded. I also pointed that out in my column.

I have seen the same old law & order only vs. programs-only play out over the decades that I have been watching Oakland politics. Last time around it was the anti-loitering ordinance and we continue to have a policy in place of towing vehicles if the drivers are suspected, just suspected, of taking part in a sideshow. That has been and probably continues to be misused, and even though the Cali Supreme Court okayed it, John Russo opined against it as unconstitutional when he took the job.

My own daughter was threatened with the loss of my car when she came out of a parking lot in JLS w/o her headlights on. As she had changed purses, she didn't have her license and the cop told her "I could've taken your car," which he couldn't have, at least not legally. It will continue to be a problem when the only time "tools" are spoken of is when they are for the police to use rather than other public servants like teachers. Sorry for harping on adult education, but it was very important and has died a quiet, little lamented death.

I live in the Eastlake district and 6 of the 8 households on my corner are in favor of the injunctions. Surprisingly, the strongest support came from a Guatemalan family who have been in the neighborhood for several years. They told me that Nortenos are homies entre ellos. Which translates into if your not down with them you not getting any love from them. A friend of mine who lives in the Fruitvale was jumped by some Nortenos, but he couldn't go to the police because he is undocumented. So if these cats are down for La Raza why are they beating on their own and pushing drugs to their own? I grew up around gangs, partied with bangers. I know that the older cats use the younger ones to do the dirt (shootings, ect.) because they'll probably be charged as a juvi if they don't have priors. A lot of kids who are drawn to the life see the bling and the power that these gangsters seem to have. They don't realize that they are being used. We have to face facts, violence can be power. If you have a rep' that equals respect in the hood. It also means that you've made a lot enemies. If we can break the cycle of younger people being brought into the life' by making it harder for the gang to operate, then the injunctions are a good thing. 

 

I believe what you are saying, Geraldo, but I think more effort put into community policing would solve more. It encourages the officers to get to know who the bad guys in the area are and even offers insight into where the next problem might pop up. I wish we could talk to the rank & file into seeing the long term benefits of this kind of approach which I have written about on my blog.

Pamela, it has nothing to do with the rank & file.  We don't have enough Police Officers to do Community Policing, especially after the City Council laid off 80.  Since he didn't have enough officers to cover all the Beats, the Chief had to shrink the # of them.

Officers spend all their time racing around in their cars trying to catch up AFTER crimes have been committed.

So you say you want Community Policing, and at the same time you support those who a) don't want more Officers, b) Believe all Officers are bad, c) cut funding for Officers.

BTW, re. adult ed, we currently have funding for it, and that still hasn't translated into a reasonable # of jobs.  Yes, Adult Ed can prepare people for the job market, and thus is RELATED TO economic development. But it in itself is not jobs or economic development.  

There are tons of things related to it, and an educated workforce is one of them. Safety is another, as Pat Kernighan stated.  And to have Community Policing, you have to support good officers.  Not just issue blanket, generalizations that all Officers are racist or, if they do happen to be caring individuals, you then counter by minimizing their own life-experiences growing up in the ghetto or poverty.

Copy hating all people who serve, even when they are minorities who grow up in the same unfortunate circumstances as youth who become criminals, is a bias.  And you should be ashamed of yourself for minimizing their life experiences just because they became Police Officers and tried to give back.

 

Oakland Local has become so biased in it's dismissal of even good Officers who grew up in the Ghetto & in Oakland, in espousing opinion over impartial information, and has gone so far to the left, that this liberal must forsake reading any more such a biased blog.

 

Too bad I enjoyed your Environment page, and I thought Eric's last "Analysis" struck the right balance of reporting facts, with his thoughts.

The council majority inadvertently set the Fruitvale injunctions to fail for the reason that two or three anti-GI speakers addressed as a flaw in this GI: if you only  target one gang, you create a power vacuum for the other gangs to fight over. The council went further then just stopping at one gang, by stopping at a small number of one gang's members.

Curious idea that an escrow disclosure of an injunction could possibly depress real estate values further in the affected parts of Fruitvale.   Considering how everyone in the US has heard about how dangerous Oakland is supposed to be,  such a disclosure would have as much effect as buyers, as the current seismic and flood zone disclosures make.  ie.  none,  unless the buyer is from the East Coast.   If the GI's are effective, values would increase if publicity was done. If not effective, harder to say, but i'd guess no effect.

Segal, Jr. declared that the last year's 12pct drop in North Oakland housing prices was proof of the negative effect of the GI.   When East Oakland probably dropped much more than 12 pct,  one could conclude that if the GI is effective, it will help housing values.  But in fact, no one knows, not Segal, not me, not Brooks/Nadel, and not a couple of realitors. 

As  far as job creating bang for the buck of Adult Ed vs GI?  I'd say we need both, but that's not a choice because the Adult Ed can only be funded by OUSD.

Comparing the job effects of Adult Ed vs Job training programs,  I'd bet that Adult Ed is much more effective. But Adult Ed doesn't get candidates elected to office the way other Programs do.

Call it the perception of high crime as Brooks does, or reality as Kernighn does, makes no never mind to the many potential employers who rule out Oakland for Emeryville, San Leandro, Berkeley, and Hayward. 

All the adult Ed, K-12 improvement, job training isn't going to overcome that crime perception/reality.

We're not going to be given hundreds of millions of bucks to find out if i'm wrong because all the money the Feds save by cutting back on military etc. will go to paying for baby boomer medicare, social security, and national debt.

We had high crime here before the Iraq adventure and we'll have high crime after. Cool that Nancy will go and march for her goals, but we're essentiall stuck with the fiscal hand we've got.

  Waiting for anti-violence programs to work won't come soon enough for the un and underpemployed residents and the empty City coffers.  We need some quick, short term improvements, combine them with mid and long term solutions to reduce unemplyoment and increase City tax revenues.

 

-len raphael, temescal

 

 

I thought Eric's last "Analysis" struck the right balance of reporting facts, with his thoughts.

thanks. i actually tried not to give too many of my thoughts, i.e. opinion, as i do feel that facts are important when you're reporting on an issue. it's also important to give balance, because there are valid points on both sides. most of my analysis is based on facts actually -- the opinion part of it comes from being nuanced in the topic. but its the facts which lead you to a conclusion -- not rhetoric. it's interesting because with all this rhetoric that's been tossed around, i do feel like one side has consistently been dishonest with what they've been putting forth (ahem). in other words the facts just don't support what certain people are saying. me personally, i don't accept rhetoric at face value. it's gotta be supported by solid facts.

i don't want OL to become a bleeding heart space, but that happens sometimes because people are so passionate about their causes. those opinions are uncovered by mainstream media, so what are you gonna do?

i will say that i do have respect for OPD, because their job isn't easy. they get a lot of flack, some of it deserved, but there are instances where they do their job, period. i'd like to tell their stories too, along with other stories, and hopefully, we'll see even more balance in the future, giving viewers/readers a more complete picture of what actually goes down in Oakland and illustrating why these topics are so complex.

@Geraldo I'm sorry to break to you but that won't stop Nortenos from bringing fear with your friends. The gang injunction doesn't stop from people communicate electronically. So people could call, facebook, and chat on Call of Duty planning a murder. The gang injunction is set up with the false notion that people hang out on corners and neighborhood all day. Not really the case.

@Max You should never let the cops in Oakland think that whatever they are doing is making you safe. Your right, Measure Y was used the right way and the crime rate still went up. The reason why they didn't work is that there is no really such things as gangs. People get their knowledge of gangs from the media who don't understand or watch Colors and Boyz N the Hood. Not everybody is a gang member and most of the people who listed in these gang injunction are causing the least amount of trouble. As a resident living in North Oakland nothing has changed. Two of my friends got killed in the gang injunction. People are still shooting in the gang injunction. They are many people with guns and evil thoughts who the cops never their names. 

There should be more programs but hill folks thinks that we should have more police. People who murder don't care if there are 1000 cops or one. People who murder think they going to get away with it. This problem can't and will not be solved with cops. If that was case violence would have stopped in the 1800's when cops were first started in the United States. America is a violent society in general but somehow the cops always focused on the black neighborhoods. What about those white militia who blow buildings? And these gang injunctions would force gangs to operate outside of the area so in North Oakland we would expect more violence in Rockridge and Emeryville. So when a murder happens in those areas would expand the injunction in those neighborhoods? No. Because the property values will drop. So my question is how come the gang injunction doesn't expand into the Rockridge, you know where Claremont and Oakland Tech is? 

@Geraldo I'm sorry to break to you but that won't stop Nortenos from bringing fear with your friends. The gang injunction doesn't stop from people communicate electronically. So people could call, facebook, and chat on Call of Duty planning a murder. The gang injunction is set up with the false notion that people hang out on corners and neighborhood all day. Not really the case.

@Max You should never let the cops in Oakland think that whatever they are doing is making you safe. Your right, Measure Y was used the right way and the crime rate still went up. The reason why they didn't work is that there is no really such things as gangs. People get their knowledge of gangs from the media who don't understand or watch Colors and Boyz N the Hood. Not everybody is a gang member and most of the people who listed in these gang injunction are causing the least amount of trouble. As a resident living in North Oakland nothing has changed. Two of my friends got killed in the gang injunction. People are still shooting in the gang injunction. They are many people with guns and evil thoughts who the cops never their names. 

There should be more programs but hill folks thinks that we should have more police. People who murder don't care if there are 1000 cops or one. People who murder think they going to get away with it. This problem can't and will not be solved with cops. If that was case violence would have stopped in the 1800's when cops were first started in the United States. America is a violent society in general but somehow the cops always focused on the black neighborhoods. What about those white militia who blow buildings? And these gang injunctions would force gangs to operate outside of the area so in North Oakland we would expect more violence in Rockridge and Emeryville. So when a murder happens in those areas would expand the injunction in those neighborhoods? No. Because the property values will drop. So my question is how come the gang injunction doesn't expand into the Rockridge, you know where Claremont and Oakland Tech is? 

Here's another fun story:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18102233

One of the 40 named in the Fruitvale injunction just got arrested for trying to sell an AK-47 to an undercover officer posing as a gang member.

Most houses in Oakland are wood framed.  Here is a video of what an AK-47 can do to a concrete wall.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8ileQ2l_rM



As for the fact that the injunction didn't end all crime in North Oakland: It was not supposed to accomplish that.  It was supposed to prevent the 15 people on the list from committing crimes in North Oakland.  And it did exactly that.  

That's what a narrowly tailored injunction is meant to do. Insisting that it cure everything is ridiculous. Nobody ever claimed that it would cure everything. It's just one technique for law enforcement to use to fight crime. And law enforcement is one of several ways in which the city should fight crime. Nobody ever said that cops were going to solve everything by themselves.

Measure Y and Measure OO, on the other hand, were touted to the public as things that would reduce violence city wide.  That has not happened.  

Batts and Russo made modest claims about the injunctions and they have so far delivered.  Quan and Kakishiba made grand claims about Measure Y and Measure OO and have not delivered.

And Leon, did you really say there is no such thing as gangs?  Eric, do you agree with that?  Pamela, do you agree with that? I find it astonishing that anyone would say that. 35 out of 40 of the people named in the Fruitvale injunction have themselves said, on the record, that they are members of the Nortenos gang!

___________________________

Lastly, @eric, regarding "remarkably civil" vs. "yelling radicals", to clarify, I was making a comparison when I said "remarkably civil".  The public safety meeting included speakers calling Larry Reid an uncle tom, making prison rape jokes about Ignacio de la Fuente's son, and screaming that the real gang was OPD.  

By comparison, Tuesday night was civil, but it was still a lot of yelling radicals.  Michael Siegel, however, to his credit, repeatedly became frustrated with people who shouted out and interupted, and at more than one point demanded that his own allies be respectful.  On the whole, the attitude was less hostile than previously.  But it was still ugly.

 

Livegreen:

So it's back to the "you're either with us or agin us" argument, huh?

I never said that all police are racist or bad nor would I. I have defended the high salaries that Oakland's officers receive because we know the job is much harder and scarier here than in, Orinda, or many other places. We were in competition with other towns and had to offer more. Now taxpayers complain that we pay too much (the issue of the retirement deal is separate and needs to be resolved so that more officers don't need to lose their jobs.)!

If you go to my blog and read the article "What the Pundits Missed" you'll see that I have postulated some of the problems faced by the chief, any chief, given the recalcitrance of the union leaders to lead change, that is toward real community policing. (If I move into a neighborhood, do I feel better knowing there are injunctions against folks living there or that the officers walk the beat, come to meetings, know the good and bad guys and are aware of what is going on in my neighborhood?)

I'm not a realtor and I agree that we don't really know the effects of the GI on values, but we should consider that factor. Is it not okay to consider all sides if you don't want to be called a name?!

BTW, if someone on the list gets arrested, then regular policing works. Doesn't it mean that, rather than that you need to throw more stuff at the wall?

As to Adult Ed. Don't know the $ figures exactly now but we did serve 14,000 students and now serve about a 1,000 and it will be many fewer soon. As to economic development, if you give say, a tax benefit to a business to come to Oakland but many Oaklanders are not employable in that business, shouldn't that be a serious enough issue to address? I contend that the loss of AE is creating a "lost generation" of Oaklanders who will not be educated enough to get a good job or start a business-that can then get a tax break.

Back to OPD:I have witnessed police officers demanding free speech rights in two incidents in the last couple of years, that we wouldn't have had without them, but we were a group of White middle calls folk. I work with OPD and find them helpful.

But, a big but, almost all of my students had very bad experiences with them, that is, police doing illegal stuff. I believe that if you give someone the power over life and death, you better monitor them carefully. Any of us could get out of control with that power, and we won't even realize it until it happens.

The main reason I wrote this piece is that I expected more reasoned and rational policy discussions from the public officials involved than I heard the other night. I tried to write a rational and reasoned piece, please respond to what I actually wrote.

"And Leon, did you really say there is no such thing as gangs?  Eric, do you agree with that?"

uh, no. gangs are not the tooth fairy. but defining who and who isn't a gang member is pretty subjective. it's been interesting to observe the court proceedings and see that essentially one person has been tasked with this responsibility -- with apparently no oversight.

i'm not in the market for an AK-47. i'm also not going to define the actions of an entire group based on the actions of one individual. i do think its worth noting that all the arrests which have happened have taken place under existing statutes.

and max, painting the tone of Tuesday's hearing as a bunch of radical extremists yelling epithets at Council members is something i would expect of someone who doesn't want to listen to the reasonable arguments over policy which took place. again, your initial response was quite different from what you wrote a day later. what changed in that time frame?

 

 

"For a police officer or most of us, the average 28-year-old looks like an 18-year-old and will be treated accordingly."

The above statement is sufficient evidence to me that you lack a clear understanding of the gang injunction. Before you expand the definition of youth, first find out what police departments are suppose to do when they implement gang injunctions. There are documented procedures to ensure that cops know that there is a gang injunction in place and who is affected. This is addressed daily at line-up.

There are a handful of researchers who study these gang injunctions. Most of their work is funded by department of justice grants. The study will not cost the city anything.

The gang injunction is not a policy issue. No one has studied the gang injunction impact on real estate values. Crime statistics are readily available and buyers ask about crime. It makes more sense that crime affects value and the gang injunction may only change the value on the margin. But if you follow the arguments of the anti-gang injunction individuals, the gang injunction may signal that the city is taking steps to address the crime issue. This may promote investment and stimulate demand for the area.

The first time I read this community voice column I was deeply bothered by the tone. It struck me as one commenter wrote bleeding heart liberalism and very little consideration of the facts. I was ready to discontinue my subscription, which was really sad because I thought one of Eric's more recent pieces was balanced. I am less upset but it would be nice if the community voice writers considered facts.

 

 

monica, gang injunctions are absolutely a policy issue, in this case, with policy being directed by the city attorney and OPD, not the city council. that's a fact.

one of the "handful" of researchers who studies gang injunctions is UC Berkeley law professor Dr. Barry Krisberg, who has looked at injunctions in more than 13 California cities. in nearly all cases, Krisberg found that a) gang injunctions don't work; b) gang injunctions don't work, and c) gang injunctions don't work.

i'm paraphrasing.

what he actually found was that they dont provide a long-term remedy to crime, have little to no effect on violent crime, tend to displace crime into another area, and are usually pursued in areas which then undergo gentrification or are adjacent to areas which are already gentrified.

this is one of the nation's top criminologists and perhaps the foremost expert on gangs in the entire country saying this, not a bleeding heart radical extremist or a youth activist sipping civil rights Kool-Aid.

lastly, there is a difference between a CV contributor and a reporter. Reporters have to consider facts objectively, regardless of their personal views. Community Voices, OTOH, are just that--community voices. by definition, these are opinion pieces.

I don't get mad at journalists when they write something i don't agree with, and you shouldn't get upset with non-journalists for the same reason. for the sake of argument, a few days ago, OL ran an opinion piece advocating for the injunctions by Len Raphael. That was also a CV piece. It did not look at facts objectively, and actually misstated quite a few facts. But Len is just as entitled to his opinion as Pamela, or Max, or you are.

My suggestion, though, is if you are so concerned about facts, you should try including more of them in your comments.

 

I respect your right to hold a different view on whether gang injunctions are a policy issue.

From what I have found, Krisberg has offered a lot of opinion and very little, to be exact, nothing in the way of actual scientific evidence on the efficacy of gang injunctions.

I do not understand why you feel to be everyone's daddy, but I think if you re-read my comment you will find that upon second and third reading I was upset. As for facts, everything I have stated is factual. What you want me to do is supply the actual reports. But if you google gang injunction, efficacy you will probably find most of my sources.

OL did not run an Opinion Piece by Len Raphael advocating gang injunctions. Len Raphael posted a comment which was basically in response to your call for individuals to show up and what to do when they show up. Susan as per her post copied it as separate item to give it its own space.  Len concluded his comment with anti-gang injunction people to do the opposite. 

Again, you must think I am Bobo the Clown.    

Greetings all,

I am too tempted to refrain from making a few comments.  Especially with Len calling me "Junior"!

1.  I think Pamela has an important insight when she gets at the definition of "youth."  It is true that no named defendants are under 18.  But it is also true that the majority of the defendants are in the 18-25 range, and they are certainly young people.  Several are community college students and one is an OUSD high school student.  They are young people, their peers are youth, they are a part of youth culture, and an attack on them will inevitably ripple throughout the community.

2.  I agree with Max and others who say that May 17 was a victory for the Stop the Injunctions Coalition.  There are multiple aspects of this: (1) no new injunctions; (2) no new defendants; (3) evaluation and review of the two proposed injunctions; and (4) more broadly, Council awareness of the opposition.  No one from the City seems too excited to continue with this policy, inclusive of Chief Batts.

3.  Regarding the idea that injunction opponents are a "small but vocal minority."  First of all, I think this doesn't give sufficient credit to a coalition that was able to bring 300 people to a City Council meeting -- filling the entire gallery and overflowing into the lobby -- and present numerous diverse detailed speeches.  And these are not, of course, the only opponents.  I would acknowledge that we are still a minority of the total population, but I would suggest that the "majority" does not really know much about injunctions, what they are, what they do, how effective they are, etc.  Which is why it is so important for the City Council to monitor this process.  Prior to May 17, essentially we had two leaders -- one elected (Russo), one appointed (Batts) -- who were making policy on behalf of the City.  Now the Council has ratified existing efforts, to an extent, and has taken responsibility for monitoring and evaluating their impact.

4.  Regarding Len's comment: I agree, none of us know what impact the injunctions will ultimately have on property sales, required disclosures, retail sales, etc.  Our position (and what I said on May 17) is that we don't know, but that this may be one way the injunction leads to negative community impacts.  If you agree that this is an unknown, and that there is the possibility that the injunctions will depress sales and as a result City tax income, shouldn't we study further before proceeding with the gang injunction program?  Especially when there is not evidence that the injunctions will actually produce positive community outcomes?

5.  Finally, the $64 million question is, and has always been, if not injunctions, what solution?  My hope is that the people who have stepped up on both sides of this issue can develop a collective strategy to improve public safety.  Oakland has already set in motion Measure Y and related efforts, and those programs were frustrated by the high profile gang injunction efforts (for example, some of the defendants in the Fruitvale had participated in "call-in" programs with Measure Y, but then found themselves named in the injunction two months later).  If the idea of the gang injunction is to "target individuals," then the same approach could work from the social service end.  Sure, some of the 40 defendants will not be reached by a City-funded prevention/intervention program.  But many of them are already moving in positive directions, working full-time, taking college classes, participating in drug treatment, removing tattoos -- and instead of spending thousands of dollars in lawyer and police time to put them on a court order, I am convinced that spending less money in job training and social services would help them solidify their positions as positive contibuting members of the City.   

Personally, I will no longer be a part of the legal case, as the Council decision to approve the Fruitvale injunction efforts leaves me "conflicted out" because I work in a law office with Jane Brunner.  I intend to stay involved with my former clients, however, and continue to support those who are working hard to develop themselves and their communities.

Ok that's it for now.

With respect,
Michael Siegel

monica, for the record: a) i'm not your "daddy" and b) i don't think you're "bobo the clown." glad we could get that cleared up.

as for Len's op-ed, the origin of it is irrelevant. by "giving it its own space," Susan was indeed running it as a piece--it got front page placement and is now searchable. glad we could get that cleared up too.

The origin does matter since you hold writers to a different standard than those who comment.

If Oakland local does not have editorials, how can it have an "op-ed?"

The comment deserved it own space and I am glad Susan saw fit to do so. But outside of stating his opinion up front, all Len did was to tell both sides how to complete the speaker card. It was more like a public service announcement. I am glad we could clear that up.

Leon, I agree with  you  that a gang injunction mandatory disclosure for Crocker Highlands, Rockridge, Montclair,  Temescal etc would hurt resale values there.

That's not the same as concluding that's the reason there aren't gaing injunctions proposed for those areas.

I know many home owners in the modest section of North Oakland within that Gang Injunction. At least one, is a card carrying member of the ACLU. Not a one of them has suggested that their equity dropped because of the injunctions. They only express relief that for whatever reasons, the frequency of gunfire has  decreased.

Also agree with you that an injunction limited to physical contact will not be as effective as one that covered electronic communication. I doubt that was an oversight by Russo but respect for Federal statutes on electronic eavesdropping. Will have to suggest a change in Federal law to our resident Senator Boxer :)

Pamela, any time you need support for Adult Ed, I'll make time. Tragedy that millions of Federal dollars get spent on so called job training programs for jobs that don't exist here, but OUSD had to shutter Adult Ed. Cutting Measure Y and devoting a chunk to Adult Ed would be a much better use of that money.

Michael, flat out there is no way any "study" or econmetric model could predict the effect of a GI disclosure on an area's real estate values.  I suppose one could run opinon polls and interviews of prospective buyers, but so loosey goosey to be unreliable.

"Study's" of policy decisions done retrocatively at best give statistical correlations, but not causality. 

If the council were so worried about affecting real esate values, they wouldn't have adopted Kaplan's proposal last year to require signs on foreclosed houses broadcasting that fact by giving name of the bank owner to file complaints. I'll bet that did depress values. Can I design a study to prove that? No.

It was quaint to hear the alleged gang member complain that he was named even though he had participated in Measure Y programs.  I don't know his facts, but he seemed to have the impression that attending Measure Y programs was like showing up at your probation officer's scheduled meetings.

I don't understand why you  assume Measure Y, job training, and social services are effective unless proven otherwise. If you were half as skeptical about the claims made for many of those programs as you are of the GI claims, and turned some of your energy into organizing support for evaluating and eliminating the ineffective ones, you'd be making huge contribution to the poor residents of this city by freeing up big bucks that under Measure Y must go to youth programming. 

Or how about educating some of the clearly smart kids at that CC meeting about the crushing retirement obligations that our officials have burdened the future taxpayers with. Our elected officials are gearing up to refi their way out of the problem until they can collect retirement benefits a few years.

The kids got worked up over several hundred to maybe a mill. What would that say to over a Billion?

From talking to volunteers at some of the programs that don't get Measure Y funding, it appears that it's more a matter of which officials like you, than how effective/efficient your program is that determines your funding.

Read some of those Measure Y evaluations. Bad social science goobledy gook.

(and i thought it was the Segalista tag that would get your goat :).

 

-len raphael, temescal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@Michael,

I'm still not hearing any suggested strategies from the anti-injunction folks that involve supression. It always seems to be centered on ways to be nice to people who've been mean to people in order to get them to be nicer.

I simply don't believe that's the only way. On a much less menacing level, I was a hell of a pain in the ass to authority figures when I was younger, and sometimes kindness and intervention worked, but quite often, punishment and unpleasant consequences kept me in line too. 

At the same time, the lack of coordination between call-ins and injunctions is certainly a point worthy of consideration.  I do think we need a comprehensive strategy, and it needs to be coordinated tightly.  Ralph Cooke, who's working with Make Oakland Better Now, cited DOJ studies and recomendations. They call for intervention, prevention AND supression.

_________________________________

The one thing I definitely got out of this is that while the foot soldiers in this controversy had a tendency to go a little off the deep end with the rhetoric, there were people leading both sides who, over time, decided to tone it down a bit.

In particular, there was a moment on Tuesday when Michael turned around and told someone who was clearly on his side to stop hollering. The dude was interupting the proceedings with ideological outbursts. I want to note that moment as something that I will remember as an illustration of the fact that some of us actually want to see a real debate go on without the typical rancor.

I'd love to find time to have a civilized debate between several people who have very disparate visions of public safety policy.  I'm thinking something much broader and more conceptual than just gang injunctions.  Not for a while. I have a lot on my plate. But in time. Maybe at election time?

Michael, both the CC and the residents would have been much more impressed if your side had motivated a broad age cross section of Fruitvale residents to attend the meeting. Whether it's Latino high school students, or twenty something bike riding white mass transit advocates, everyone knows it's much easier to get people without full time jobs, relationships, families to turn out for CC meetings.

And I would guess that the opinion of the over 30 Latino community is much more nuanced than that of the under 20 group. Worried about immigration aspects yes, worried about grandkids and kids getting swept up in the court system yes.  

 

But also very worried about shootings and shakedowns and  that there are few decent jobs in Oakland.

 

-len

 

 

 

What I don’t understand is we hired an excellent Chief, African American, who grew up in the ghetto, believes in the benefit of mentoring and social programs (the very type his political opponents support), has done massive outreach to EVERY community in Oakland, and is 10x better than the last Chief we had. We get this top notch Chief, and what do the Mayor, and City Council do? Micromanage and undercut him at every turn. What’s the point of having a Chief, a good one at that, if anti-police Politicians won’t listen to him, and feel they know better? Lets admit it: Our Mayor, Desley Brooks, Rebecca Kaplan and Nancy Nadel will ALWAYS criticize OPD no matter who is in charge. They do not believe in Police or a functioning Police Dept.

The paragraphs that show while typing disappear when posted. If there's anything u can do about this that would b great. Thanks...

talking it over with a 29 year old friend who belonged to one of the oakland latino gangs when he was a teenager. moved out of oakland years ago but still has plenty of family in east oakland.

his impression is that a lot of older latino's are anti GI because they're worried that that their nephews, kids, and grandkids will get swept up and deported, put in jail etc. And they know some cops are racist aholes.

he thinks its more peer group pressure, rather than fear of retaliation from gangs, that keeps the substantial number of older latinos who do support the GI from publicly supporting the GI.    they don't want to be seen as disloyal to to latinos.

when i explained the mechanics of the GI to him, his reaction was that

a. dumb idea to restrict it to one area and 20 or so members for the reasons i gave above. He said that while that one gang was currently the dominant one in that area, members of other gangs often come into that area because it's the economic, shoping, restaurant center of East Oakland.   Weaken one gang, others will expand.

b. needs to have stronger protections for named members to get off the list when they turn their lives around without paying big bucks in legal fees.  a lot of younger kids, like him, got into gangs, but want to get out in their early twenties.

c. the defense attorneys could have done the unthinkable and negotiated some changes like the above and agreed on the evaluation methods and scope. That would served the community better but not their clients.

 

-len raphael, temescal

Livegreen, we will look into that ASAP. What browser are you using?

len, a few things:

agree on a) and b). c) isn't completely fair as the defense attorneys were given the chance to come up with an alternate proposal just ten days ago, it was previously not an option.

i think there's some naivete in your "friend's" reaction. i also think there's a difference between supporting the GIs as proposed and being against gang violence in the fruitvale, but wanting to see a solution which doesn't promote the police-industrial complex at the expense of community-based efforts. also, there's a long history of police oppression of latinos dating back many generations which has to be factored in. so on one hand what you characterize as "disloyalty to Latinos" may also be mistrust of police.

you put the onus on the defense to come up with the"unthinkable" but isn't it true that the prosecution could have done the "unthinkable" as well and come up with an injunction which wasn't inherently flawed?

Eric, The problem is anti-police and anti-Chief Batts activists aren't factoring in that these aren't yesterday's Police. The Chief as an inner city youth and a minority. The previous Captain covering Area 2 (the Fruitvale is in) GREW UP in the Fruitvale (he's now in charge of Internal Affairs), and is also a minority. The current Captain grew up in Area 2 in a neighborhood near the Fruitvale, and is also a minority. These are all good cops who care about minority kids and safety issues for all it's citizens. They grew up with many of the same challenges. Yet repeatedly the anti-injunction activists ignore these differences from the past because it doesn't fit their own biases and slogans. And their leaders r willing to constantly undermine this Chief and these Captains. Also, I find it interesting that anti-injunction activists aren't willing to shine any light on themselves. They ignore those who actually ARE gang members, who actually have been convicted of crimes (in most cases against other minorities in their own community), and lump them in with those who are innocent. To not distinguish is both disingenuous and dishonest. Including to their own community.

Susan, Thanks. Safari on either my Mac or Iphone...

livegreen, i disagree.in a complicated situation, anytime you say the problem is just one thing, you're going to be wrong, 100% of the time.

i dont think your view is very objective, and you seem to be in denial of a few facts regarding the police, namely that lack of accountability and internal dysfunction are pre-existing conditions which need to be resolved/remedied before the book can be closed on "yesterday." the injunctions were announced before Batts was even a member of the department, for one thing.

for another, if you are going to talk about being disingenuous and dishonest, are you holding the alleged gang members to a higher standard than city officials and employees of city departments, some of whom--i won't name names--have outright lied at council meetings and court hearings? is it disinginuous for a city council member to be so moved by the words spoken by the activists to applaud and later speak of being "inspired" by what they said, and then vote on behalf of people who didn't even attend the meeting?

i think the anti-injunction activists have shed a lot of light, both on themselves and where they are coming from.i know exactly where Isaac Ontiveros, George Galvis, Sagnitche Salazar, and Cesar Cruz stand. one problem is that the city attorney's office and OPD don't want to work directly with them, because it would weaken their stance that punitive measures are the way to go.

in actuality, you seem to be the one who is lumping people together; you probably couldn't even name any of these people other than michael siegel, who is not their leader, by any means. the activists have been up front about the agenda they are pursuing and what's behind it. can the other side say the same?

 

Eric,  You've successfully ignored the improvements OPD has made, while deciding to concentrate ONLY on where they still have improvement to be made.  I show how many officers are either minorities &/or have deep connections to Oakland, and you ignore that too.

 

Chief Batts and some of the same PD Officers I've mentioned above have acknowledged (as I do) that improvements (NSA & other) need to be continued.

 

Yet you will let none of those facts get in your way of your anti-Police view.  You will never like the Police, even as they are increasingly made up of and commanded by both minorities and citizens who grow up in Oakland.  The Police are just a bunch of racists.  It must be nice living in your simplistic world.

yo livegreen, guess what? i'm also ignoring the fact that your arguments are completely circular. also only 18% of OPD lives in Oakland. that's not good enough. sorry.

to me, Geraldo makes the best argument for the injunctions i've yet heard. he had me until he got here: "If we can break the cycle of younger people being brought into the life' by making it harder for the gang to operate, then the injunctions are a good thing."

the problem with that is a) it's assumptive--that's a big 'if'; and b) it's pointless to have an injunction against one Latino gang if you also don't have one against the two other Latino gangs. and even if you had an injunction against all three gangs, then MS-13 would just move in, or maybe Latin Kings.it's about balance of power.

where Geraldo is on point, however is stating that the key is breaking the cycle and stopping the recruitment of younger members. unfortunately, the leadership of all of these gangs is within the prison structure, so suppression resulting in incarceration just makes the gangs more organized. and even if we move all the Nortenos out of the Fruitvale--and their families too, which is the end result of what Livegreen is advocating for--aren't we just creating a power vaccuum, making the turf open territory for Surenos and Border Brothers?

we already know there will be no new injunctions until the two in place now are studied. if a Norteno-free FV results in increased BB and Sureno activity, which it most liekly will, then obviously the experiment will have been a failure, if the end result was supposed to reduce violent crime. more injunctions, then, surely can't be the answer if an increase in violent crime is the result. continuing failed policies as a result of failed policy is completely backwards thinking. it's not sustainable, but it is circular.

however, we, as a community, have the power to say, like George Jetson, "Jane, stop this crazy thing!" or maybe Pat, Larry, Libby, and Nacho, to be perfectly plain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A state appeals court has upheld an Alameda County Superior Court judge's injunction