Public Safety Summit Sends Mixed Messages (Opinion)
Acting Chief Howard Jordan outside the summt, photo by Howard Dyckoff
by Jayden Donahue, Stop the Injunctions Coalition, Critical Resistance
(Note: An OL reporter covered Saturday's summit; this is an opinion piece by members of a group attending. As always everyone is welcome to share their views; email editor@oaklandlocal.com)
A crowd heavily weighted with Oakland City Staff and OPD attended Mayor Quan’s Public Safety Summit at Laney College today. Though Quan mentioned a strategy to combat violence that would involve everyone from city workers to police to residents, her clearest messages promoted law enforcement: concentrating beat officers in targeted areas and rehiring OPD officers. Similarly, the mid-morning workshops and police-oriented introductions appeared to be thinly veiled attempts to raise support for recently flagging attempts by the City to push gang injunctions, anti-loitering laws, and youth curfews. Quan presented a 10-year decline in homicide numbers, raising questions as to why statistics so similar to last year’s are being represented as dramatic spikes. The count of 70 homicides quoted by Quan did not include homicides by police, which number around 20 this year. No substantial resources addressing the needs of people directly impacted by Oakland’s high rates of policing, arrest and incarceration patterns were suggested during the summit. Even while pledging employment security for Oakland Police, Quan called for Oaklanders to reach into their own pockets to privately fund social programs such as community centers.
During break out sessions on topics such as youth curfews and loitering as well as “call ins,” community members raised serious concerns about the enforcement of these measures, especially since the Oakland Police Department is still under a negotiated settlement agreement resulting from the Riders scandal. Captain Ersie Joyner responded to these concerns by commenting that while training is in place for officers, holding them accountable for what they do on beats and patrols is nearly impossible. “I can stand up here and tell them how things should be done, and they can smile and nod, but it might be a completely different story when they get in their patrol cars.” In addition, Measure Y supporters and volunteers voiced concerns that the temporary North Oakland and Fruitvale injunctions had actually interfered with the restorative justice focus of Measure Y, noting that many times those on the call in lists were the same as those named on the injunctions. “The opportunities presented to the guys who are called amount to little more than a song and dance,” said Tony Marks-Block, an educator who attended the break out group on call ins, “When is the city going to realize that investing in jobs and education are what is going to turn Oakland around?”
Truancy, absenteeism, and school closures were also discussed during the summit. With at least 5 local schools including Santa Fe elementary school in North Oakland at risk of closure, the City offered no plans to make getting to school an achievable reality for youth when local schools close and simply getting to school becomes more of a challenge. “We came out to the Public Safety Summit because we felt that this was an opportunity for community members to have a dialogue with city officials and the OPD about solutions that will make Oakland stronger,” said Jess Heaney, a resident of North Oakland, “What we found is that they want to steam-roll through more resources for police despite continued opposition from Oakland residents. The summit was a continuation of a disappointing run for the Mayor and OPD.”
- Isaac Ontiveros's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Environment
Food
Daily Image
Recent comments
Development
Identity
Arts & Education
Join Our Mailing List
Sign up for Oakland freebies, discounts & exclusive stories 2X a month.
Pro bono web design grant provided by TechScouts
"The count of 70 homicides quoted by Quan did not include homicides by police, which number around 20 this year."
Is that true? What's the source of that information? Does Oakland Local do fact checking?
I kind of think that we would have heard about it by now if there had been 20 lethal police shootings this year.
There are two different statistics on homicides that I've seen. One says there have been 87. The other says 94. Sanjiv Handa of the East Bay News Service tells me that the discrepancy is because the higher number is all reported homicides, and the lower one accounts for later rulings by the coroner, as well as justifiable homicides determined later.
Oakland Local should check Mr. Ontiveros' claim that 20 people have been killed by OPD this year. If it's true, it's a big story that isn't getting any coverage.
If it isn't true, we've got to wonder how it managed to get posted under the Oakland Local masthead, and we've got to wonder how often things like this happen.
Max, normally, op/ed pieces are not fact-checked, since they are the author's opinion. (that number does seem higher than what i've heard, though). btw, this practice includes opinion pieces by city council members as well as community members, and is not particular to oakland local, but more representative of all media. i would think you would know this already. guess not.
I believe the Bay Citizen reported the number of officer involved homicides not long ago. If I recall correctly the number is around 7. (Set up a Google alert for Oakland) I suspect no one is up in arms about Quan's math, is due to the fact that it is Quan's math, which we all know leaves something to be desired.
Not reasonable to expect OL to fact check op-ed pieces. I doubt if the NYT's even does that.
It is reasonable to display a more prominent warning to readers that not only are op-ed pieces strictly the opinion of the writer, but also that the contents have not been fact checked.
-len raphael, temescal
len, what you're suggesting is implied by the term op/ed. it's a reasonable assumption that no op/ed pieces are fact-checked by editorial staff, since the opinions expressed are solely the province of the writer. this goes for your contributions, as well as that of critical resistance staffers.
however, to single one media outlet out for a commonly accepted practice among all media outlets doesn't seem particularly reasonable--or fair--to me.
how about a prominent warning that some people may disagree with the opinions expressed, and, if so, are welcome to check the facts themselves--while citing sources for said facts--in the comments section?
i'd like to see this applied to all claims made by any public figure, especially one running for office, or attempting to sway public opinion on a hot-button issue.
Len: good idea re: "It is reasonable to display a more prominent warning to readers that not only are op-ed pieces strictly the opinion of the writer, but also that the contents have not been fact checked."
Len: good idea re: "It is reasonable to display a more prominent warning to readers that not only are op-ed pieces strictly the opinion of the writer, but also that the contents have not been fact checked."
Len: good idea re: "It is reasonable to display a more prominent warning to readers that not only are op-ed pieces strictly the opinion of the writer, but also that the contents have not been fact checked."
Len: good idea re: "It is reasonable to display a more prominent warning to readers that not only are op-ed pieces strictly the opinion of the writer, but also that the contents have not been fact checked."
Eric:
It's true that most outlets don't fact check op-eds.
It's also true that most outlets won't allow a guest op-ed contributor to come back and write again if the first op-ed has demonstrably untrue "facts" in it.
max, there's a difference between one bad stat and a swiss cheese op/ed.