Last night, KTVU did a segment on Measure BB. There is a clip of Jane Brunner handing out a flier to a little old lady and telling her that if the measure doesn’t pass, they’ll have to lay off another 100 police officers. http://www.ktvu.com/video/25532246/index.html
Scare tactics and fuzzy math. (Measure Y only funds 63 officers, so where does the 100 come from?)
I understand the propoponents' arguments. I really do. I’m not deaf and blind. People will say, oh, Oakland really needs the money, without the money, things will be so much worse. Even more cops will be laid off. Is that what you want?
No, that’s not what I want. Anybody who’s been paying attention to my battles knows that’s the exact opposite of what I want. But I don’t believe throwing money down the toilet is the answer. And that’s what Measure BB is.
First, Measure BB only gives around $9 million to the police. The rest goes to violence prevention and fire, which, quite honestly, are simply not my priorities. If it were up to me, all the money would go toward additional police. But I also know that Measure Y was a compromise in order to get the two-thirds vote, and some money needed to go to other causes.
BB supporters are claiming that it will “restore” the PSO “positions.” Notice that they don’t say we’ll actually get the beat officers back. Because we won’t, folks. Where do you think they’re going to come from? If we’re at 680 officers now, do you really think the City will redeploy 63 officers to Measure Y positions, and the regular force will be down at below 620? Or below 600 in a few months? I hardly think so. Do you think they’ll actually hire the laid off officers back? I sure hope so, but I’m not banking on it, and the City is not promising they’ll do that. In fact, they’re saying if X fails, and BB passes, it will just mean that they’ll have to lay off fewer officers. So in my mind, that’s a clear message that nobody’s getting hired back. And when you and I start complaining about, “where’s our PSO?” the answer will be the same as it was before my lawsuit and Charlie Pine’s lawsuit. “There’s no deadline in Measure Y for filling those positions, so go pound sand.”
The City is broke. I get that. They do need the money. So the question is, what to do? Some of you say, raise taxes. I say, hell no. And not because I hate paying taxes. Well, okay, I do hate paying taxes, but obviously not as much as our mayor, because I actually do pay taxes. And I voted for Measure Y back in 2004. But we were betrayed by Measure Y. The neighborhood beat officers weren’t hired until after two lawsuits had been filed, and after the City had raided Measure Y of $15 million. And then we got the full staffing for less than six months. $100 million for less than six months of the promised staffing? Sorry, that was not a good deal from my perspective. So I can’t agree to any more taxes until and unless the City makes all of that up to us.
The police union is not paying into its pension. It is the only union that has refused to do so. If they started contributing, that would put about $7 million of ongoing money back in the pot - only $2 million less than what the City is currently getting from Measure Y. I have no doubt that the City can find $2 million worth of cuts somewhere else, instead of through this “Measure Y” fix. Hand me a red pen and I’ll find it myself.
Next, you guys need to keep in mind that even without more layoffs, the City is engaging in a deliberate strategy of reducing the police force by over 50 officers a year, because it is refusing to schedule new academies. So this whole threat of more layoffs is a red herring. The City effectively laid off around 100 officers before they even got to that 80 officer layoff in July. And we're going to lose even more officers, formal layoffs or no formal layoffs, until and unless the City actually commits to budgeting for and scheduling sufficient academies to give this City the police force it needs - 925 officers, according to Chief Batts.
Finally, the $9 million a year that the police gets under Measure Y is, quite frankly, a drop in the bucket compared to the City’s real financial woes, that they still don’t even want to talk about. Because of the unfunded pension liabilities, the City is facing an additional $53 million bill next year. http://www.contracostatimes.com/daniel-borenstein/ci_15987580?nclick_check=1 Where is the money for that supposed to come from? More taxes still?
Measure BB is a band-aid on a gaping wound; it does nothing to solve the real financial crisis, and does nothing to guarantee additional officers on the street. If Don Perata is elected, he has committed to getting the officers back, and increasing the size of the police force. He has ruled out additional layoffs. If we reject Measure BB, there will be a new opportunity to negotiate with the union and get the 9% concession, and other necessary concessions, now, not years in the future. Vote for Don Perata and against Measure BB.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Who's Where On Measure BB?
Clearly, Measure BB has some powerful backers. Of course, the big unions are supporting BB. They know which side their bread is buttered on. Same with the violence prevention non-profits, that get millions from Measure Y. And not surprisingly, most of the mayoral and council candidates support it too - it’ll make their jobs a lot easier if they have an extra $20 million of our money to play with. BB supporters have set up a fancy website (that doesn’t allow email inquiries) and sent out glossy fliers. But in the most recent poll figures that I’ve seen, voters don’t support it. (And we haven’t spent a dime.) And some important organizations that went through a formal or informal endorsement process ended up not supporting it either. The Measure Y Oversight Committee, the Alameda County Central Democratic Committee, and the Metropolitan Greater Oakland Democratic Club all officially decided to take no position on the measure.
Not that this stopped the Pro-BB folks from falsely claiming on their website that MGO has endorsed a “yes” vote. Why am I not surprised? Truth, integrity and accountability have never been the strong suit of any of these folks. And to make matters worse, we anti-BB folks contacted the person in charge of the Pro-BB folks (Jane Brunner) about the false endorsement, asking her to correct the website, and she’s done bupkiss. Again, can’t say I’m surprised.
Over the last week, KALW has been running a series covering the BB debate. You can find my abbreviated interview here. http://informant.kalwnews.org/2010/10/opinion-attorney-marleen-sacks-on-oaklands-public-safety-measures/. Local columnist Reverend Byron Williams also weighed in the issue here (coming down solidly anti-BB). http://informant.kalwnews.org/2010/10/opinion-rev-byron-williams-says-the-city-of-oakland-hasnt-been-frank-about-finances/. The pro-BB folks interviewed included Oakland non-profit director Esperanza Tervalon--Dumont http://informant.kalwnews.org/2010/10/opinionesperanza-tervalon-daumont-on-why-continuing-measure-y-parcel-tax-is-critical-to-public-safety/ and, of course, Council President Jane Brunner. http://informant.kalwnews.org/2010/10/opinion-oakland-city-council-president-jane-brunner-on-the-citys-economic-woes/
So I won’t respond to Ms. Tervalon-Dumont’s assertions because, frankly, she didn’t answer any of the questions. (On the other hand, I don’t know why the reporter posed those particular questions, because I wouldn’t have expected Ms. Tervalon-Dumont to have actually known the answers. In which case, she should have admitted she didn’t have the foggiest notion, but for whatever reason she chose not to do that, and just comes across as ignorant and evasive). But here‘s my reaction to Jane‘s interview:
Q: What has Measure Y done for Oakland?
Brunner: Measure Y has been terrific. So what it did is it hired 80 police officers.
Um, terrific? Wow. I’d love to be her waitress at Burger King. Maybe she’d leave me a 20% tip for the “terrific” service. Her standards are obviously pretty darn low. Moving along - hired 80 police officers? How could that possibly be? Only 63 are called for, and everybody agrees the funding was only there for quite a bit fewer than that. So how could 80 have been hired? Well, I did a public records request a while back seeking all documents supporting this claim, and not surprisingly, the City has none. So that’s a total lie. Moreover, Brunner doesn’t mention that we had the full complement of Measure Y officers for less than a year, and they’ve all been laid off now, so how terrific is that?
Q: How revolutionary was the measure when it passed?
Brunner: It was. Oakland tried before to get more money for police and it didn’t pass because people here really want to help do the prevention side. So this was a way to do 40 percent goes to prevention and 60 percent goes to police.
I agree it was revolutionary. I mean, every other city in the Bay Area had managed to pay for a full police force without a parcel tax. So demanding taxpayers pay extra, for a police force that everybody agreed was still way too small, sure was “revolutionary.”
Q: Why does the measure need to be fixed?
Brunner: We need a fix because, basically what it said was the city would guarantee there would be 739 officers. We did that when it was good economic times. We, the city could not afford that anymore.
Jane, be happy you weren’t under oath when you said that, because your lawyers have been claiming for years that Measure Y doesn’t actually require staffing of 739, but rather, merely “appropriation.” And if the “economic times” were so “good” back in 2004, why did you tell voters that the City was broke and didn’t have enough money for a full police force? As for now, you’re claiming the City can’t afford to even budget for 739 officers, how can you afford Kids First? How can you afford gold-plated pensions for City workers? Don’t tell me there wasn’t fat to cut out of the budget before police officers. Sorry, but I like Perata’s quote: If I can’t find 80 people to cut from the City payroll instead of police officers, fire me.
Q: There are some folks who are pretty disappointed with how the money has been spent.
Brunner: Well, you know, technically, they are technically correct. That the chief of police took some money and didn’t just spend it on other things, didn’t just spend it on other programs. He took some of the Measure Y money because we had to hire new officers and he spent it on training new officers. But because you want problem solving officers to be seasoned, there was a rule that you had to have two years of being in the force to become what we call a PSO. So what he did is he took the money, trained the new officers, and they took the place of older officers. The older officers became the PSO. And I don’t want to get into it because there’s all these lawsuits. But technically you could say that it wasn’t exactly the way it was supposed to be….But technically, if you read the language, a judge ruled that it wasn’t quite supposed to happen that way.
Jane, if the City had actually used the money to hire new officers, and the veteran officers were placed into Measure Y positions in their stead, none of us would have ever known about it and there wouldn’t have been “all these lawsuits.” The reality is, the City used Measure Y funds to pay for non-Measure Y officers, and then never filled the Measure Y positions.
Q: What about what some say is a lack of oversight?
Brunner: No there’s auditing. And they know exactly where all the money comes from.
I got a laugh out of that one. The issue isn’t where the money is coming from. We all know that - it comes from US! The issue is - where is the money going TO?
Q: Was the city aware when it put out Measure Y that it was not enough money to fund what it promised?
Brunner: You know, I’m going to say that it was never made public, I had no idea. But I have learned since that there was one or two people who knew that Measure Y was not funding itself and they did not make that public. So they didn’t make it public to me when I was voting on it to put it on the ballot. I think that was unconscionable.
Well, Jane, the City auditor certified that the funds generated were sufficient to pay for the purposes, and that’s what it said in the Voter Information Pamphlet. I agree that it is unconscionable that voters are misled and lied to in the Voter Information Pamphlet. Fool us once, shame on us. Fool us twice, ain’t gonna happen - we ain’t gonna vote for BB, and you have only yourselves to blame.
Not that this stopped the Pro-BB folks from falsely claiming on their website that MGO has endorsed a “yes” vote. Why am I not surprised? Truth, integrity and accountability have never been the strong suit of any of these folks. And to make matters worse, we anti-BB folks contacted the person in charge of the Pro-BB folks (Jane Brunner) about the false endorsement, asking her to correct the website, and she’s done bupkiss. Again, can’t say I’m surprised.
Over the last week, KALW has been running a series covering the BB debate. You can find my abbreviated interview here. http://informant.kalwnews.org/2010/10/opinion-attorney-marleen-sacks-on-oaklands-public-safety-measures/. Local columnist Reverend Byron Williams also weighed in the issue here (coming down solidly anti-BB). http://informant.kalwnews.org/2010/10/opinion-rev-byron-williams-says-the-city-of-oakland-hasnt-been-frank-about-finances/. The pro-BB folks interviewed included Oakland non-profit director Esperanza Tervalon--Dumont http://informant.kalwnews.org/2010/10/opinionesperanza-tervalon-daumont-on-why-continuing-measure-y-parcel-tax-is-critical-to-public-safety/ and, of course, Council President Jane Brunner. http://informant.kalwnews.org/2010/10/opinion-oakland-city-council-president-jane-brunner-on-the-citys-economic-woes/
So I won’t respond to Ms. Tervalon-Dumont’s assertions because, frankly, she didn’t answer any of the questions. (On the other hand, I don’t know why the reporter posed those particular questions, because I wouldn’t have expected Ms. Tervalon-Dumont to have actually known the answers. In which case, she should have admitted she didn’t have the foggiest notion, but for whatever reason she chose not to do that, and just comes across as ignorant and evasive). But here‘s my reaction to Jane‘s interview:
Q: What has Measure Y done for Oakland?
Brunner: Measure Y has been terrific. So what it did is it hired 80 police officers.
Um, terrific? Wow. I’d love to be her waitress at Burger King. Maybe she’d leave me a 20% tip for the “terrific” service. Her standards are obviously pretty darn low. Moving along - hired 80 police officers? How could that possibly be? Only 63 are called for, and everybody agrees the funding was only there for quite a bit fewer than that. So how could 80 have been hired? Well, I did a public records request a while back seeking all documents supporting this claim, and not surprisingly, the City has none. So that’s a total lie. Moreover, Brunner doesn’t mention that we had the full complement of Measure Y officers for less than a year, and they’ve all been laid off now, so how terrific is that?
Q: How revolutionary was the measure when it passed?
Brunner: It was. Oakland tried before to get more money for police and it didn’t pass because people here really want to help do the prevention side. So this was a way to do 40 percent goes to prevention and 60 percent goes to police.
I agree it was revolutionary. I mean, every other city in the Bay Area had managed to pay for a full police force without a parcel tax. So demanding taxpayers pay extra, for a police force that everybody agreed was still way too small, sure was “revolutionary.”
Q: Why does the measure need to be fixed?
Brunner: We need a fix because, basically what it said was the city would guarantee there would be 739 officers. We did that when it was good economic times. We, the city could not afford that anymore.
Jane, be happy you weren’t under oath when you said that, because your lawyers have been claiming for years that Measure Y doesn’t actually require staffing of 739, but rather, merely “appropriation.” And if the “economic times” were so “good” back in 2004, why did you tell voters that the City was broke and didn’t have enough money for a full police force? As for now, you’re claiming the City can’t afford to even budget for 739 officers, how can you afford Kids First? How can you afford gold-plated pensions for City workers? Don’t tell me there wasn’t fat to cut out of the budget before police officers. Sorry, but I like Perata’s quote: If I can’t find 80 people to cut from the City payroll instead of police officers, fire me.
Q: There are some folks who are pretty disappointed with how the money has been spent.
Brunner: Well, you know, technically, they are technically correct. That the chief of police took some money and didn’t just spend it on other things, didn’t just spend it on other programs. He took some of the Measure Y money because we had to hire new officers and he spent it on training new officers. But because you want problem solving officers to be seasoned, there was a rule that you had to have two years of being in the force to become what we call a PSO. So what he did is he took the money, trained the new officers, and they took the place of older officers. The older officers became the PSO. And I don’t want to get into it because there’s all these lawsuits. But technically you could say that it wasn’t exactly the way it was supposed to be….But technically, if you read the language, a judge ruled that it wasn’t quite supposed to happen that way.
Jane, if the City had actually used the money to hire new officers, and the veteran officers were placed into Measure Y positions in their stead, none of us would have ever known about it and there wouldn’t have been “all these lawsuits.” The reality is, the City used Measure Y funds to pay for non-Measure Y officers, and then never filled the Measure Y positions.
Q: What about what some say is a lack of oversight?
Brunner: No there’s auditing. And they know exactly where all the money comes from.
I got a laugh out of that one. The issue isn’t where the money is coming from. We all know that - it comes from US! The issue is - where is the money going TO?
Q: Was the city aware when it put out Measure Y that it was not enough money to fund what it promised?
Brunner: You know, I’m going to say that it was never made public, I had no idea. But I have learned since that there was one or two people who knew that Measure Y was not funding itself and they did not make that public. So they didn’t make it public to me when I was voting on it to put it on the ballot. I think that was unconscionable.
Well, Jane, the City auditor certified that the funds generated were sufficient to pay for the purposes, and that’s what it said in the Voter Information Pamphlet. I agree that it is unconscionable that voters are misled and lied to in the Voter Information Pamphlet. Fool us once, shame on us. Fool us twice, ain’t gonna happen - we ain’t gonna vote for BB, and you have only yourselves to blame.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Oakland On The Road to Bell?
I love the story of Bell, California. It really highlights the depths of corruption to which city leaders can sink, without anybody noticing. Thanks to the L.A. Times and information they ultimately obtained through public records, however, we have now learned about the exorbitant salaries, pensions, and other shenanigans going on in Bell.
Is Oakland so different? Well, we do have our local newspaper group that publishes public employee salaries annually, which I think helps deter and expose similar issues from happening here. But the newspapers had to go all the way to the California Supreme Court to get access to that information. Fortunately, they had the money to spend for that legal battle. Your average citizen submitting public records requests to Oakland doesn’t have those sorts of resources. And Oakland takes full advantage, let me tell you. Hopefully, that will stop soon.
As I have mentioned in previous posts, I submitted a complaint to the Public Ethics Commission more than a year ago, regarding the City’s abysmal record at producing timely and comprehensive responses to my public records requests. I have also since filed a lawsuit. Have I seen any improvements since then? No. I recently submitted requests to both Jean Quan and Jane Brunner. Both ignored for over 10 days, until I hounded them. (The law requires a response within 10 days). Quan produced documents; Brunner did not. Claimed she didn’t have any, which of course, I don’t believe. Meanwhile, other Oakland folks have contacted me from time to time to share their own, similar experiences. One guy submitted a request to Desley Brooks, for her calendars. She refused to produce them. The City Attorney then sent this guy an email informing him that they would not represent Ms. Brooks in her refusal to produce the records. I interpreted that to mean that they knew there was no legal justification for her refusal, and were throwing her to the wolves. So another complaint with the PEC was filed.
Meanwhile, at the last PEC meeting, they acknowledged that there appeared to be a systemic problem with the City failing to comply with the Public Records Act, and ordered a full hearing of the matter. Hallelujah! Finally - there will be some light shining on the multiple abuses that have been going on for years. One of the commission members requested that the hearing take place before the end of the year (when the term of several members expires). While the Executive Director seems determined to drag things out as long as possible, hopefully we’ll have the hearing sooner rather than later. Anybody with a sob story to tell should be invited, so let me know if you have something to contribute.
I wish we had investigative journalists like they do at the L.A. Times. There are so many scandals and abuses here in Oakland that don’t get due coverage. Like blatant and systematic violations of the Public Records Act. Like the fact that there is no proper monitoring of employees other public officials having to file conflict of interest statements. Like the fact that budgets involving tens of millions of dollars are overseen by children. Like the fact that we have a billion dollar budget and the City can’t find the money to pay for even a minimum number of police officers. But let’s hope that exposing the public records abuses, and paving the way for better access, will keep Oakland from becoming another Bell.
Is Oakland so different? Well, we do have our local newspaper group that publishes public employee salaries annually, which I think helps deter and expose similar issues from happening here. But the newspapers had to go all the way to the California Supreme Court to get access to that information. Fortunately, they had the money to spend for that legal battle. Your average citizen submitting public records requests to Oakland doesn’t have those sorts of resources. And Oakland takes full advantage, let me tell you. Hopefully, that will stop soon.
As I have mentioned in previous posts, I submitted a complaint to the Public Ethics Commission more than a year ago, regarding the City’s abysmal record at producing timely and comprehensive responses to my public records requests. I have also since filed a lawsuit. Have I seen any improvements since then? No. I recently submitted requests to both Jean Quan and Jane Brunner. Both ignored for over 10 days, until I hounded them. (The law requires a response within 10 days). Quan produced documents; Brunner did not. Claimed she didn’t have any, which of course, I don’t believe. Meanwhile, other Oakland folks have contacted me from time to time to share their own, similar experiences. One guy submitted a request to Desley Brooks, for her calendars. She refused to produce them. The City Attorney then sent this guy an email informing him that they would not represent Ms. Brooks in her refusal to produce the records. I interpreted that to mean that they knew there was no legal justification for her refusal, and were throwing her to the wolves. So another complaint with the PEC was filed.
Meanwhile, at the last PEC meeting, they acknowledged that there appeared to be a systemic problem with the City failing to comply with the Public Records Act, and ordered a full hearing of the matter. Hallelujah! Finally - there will be some light shining on the multiple abuses that have been going on for years. One of the commission members requested that the hearing take place before the end of the year (when the term of several members expires). While the Executive Director seems determined to drag things out as long as possible, hopefully we’ll have the hearing sooner rather than later. Anybody with a sob story to tell should be invited, so let me know if you have something to contribute.
I wish we had investigative journalists like they do at the L.A. Times. There are so many scandals and abuses here in Oakland that don’t get due coverage. Like blatant and systematic violations of the Public Records Act. Like the fact that there is no proper monitoring of employees other public officials having to file conflict of interest statements. Like the fact that budgets involving tens of millions of dollars are overseen by children. Like the fact that we have a billion dollar budget and the City can’t find the money to pay for even a minimum number of police officers. But let’s hope that exposing the public records abuses, and paving the way for better access, will keep Oakland from becoming another Bell.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Jean Quan Can't Do Math Or Comply With The Public Records Act
Are these the qualities we need or want in a mayor? I think not. But given that this is the same person who led the school district into bankruptcy, and is well on her way to dragging the City down the same road, you probably should not be surprised.
As you may be aware, Jean Quan is campaigning all over town bragging about her successes with Measure Y, and how, as a result, crime is "down 40% in the last three years." Well, I had reason to doubt that claim, so I sent her a public records request two weeks ago, seeking all documents supporting that claim. More than 10 days went by, with no response, so I sent a follow-up email yesterday, reminding her that there is a pending lawsuit and PEC complaint on this issue. Here is the response I got today:
"The information on the decrease in crime came from the Oakland Police Department’s Part 1 Crime Report, which can be found at http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/OPD/s/Statistics/index.htm. This information is the same as the FBI Part 1 Crime Statistics.
Councilmember Quan was specifically looking at the Oakland Police Weekly Crime Report’s Total Part One Crimes, for her annual information, which shows a decrease of 10 and 14 percent for the previous two years. For this year, she has employed different numbers which are dependent on the statistics for a given month regarding year to date totals. Thus, earlier this year the Chief noted a 34 percent decrease, while last month the figure was a decrease of 16 percent and there is a 15 percent decrease this month."
So I referred to the source documents she cited, and found that they contained totally different numbers. The "summary of Part 1 Crime Offenses" for 2008 lists a total of 29,394. But according to a January, 2010 press release from OPD, the total was 31,917. The total for 2007 was 31,489. Regardless of the actual totals for 2008, they were either flat with 2007, or slightly up. They certainly did not go down in any significant amount, according to any of the data cited.
Turning to the January, 2010 press release, it shows a total of 28,867 Part 1 crimes for 2009, down 10% from 2008. Okay, so serious crime did go down in 2009. By 10%. Now, let's turn to 2010. Keep in mind that the police publicly announced a few months ago that due to layoffs, they'd no longer respond to certain crimes, and reports had to made on-line. That will certainly help crime statistics, won't it? Even assuming that people will still report Part 1 crimes (the most serious crimes), Quan's numbers still don't add up. According to the most recent "weekly crime report," (available on the OPD website) Part 1 crimes are down 15% this year, to date. So where is that 40% drop she's claiming coming from?
Even looking at the "YTD" figures for this week's crime report for Part 1 crimes, it shows that in 2008, this time of year, we were at 22,011 total part 1 crimes. Now we're at 17,325. Okay, that's quite a nice drop. But not nearly 40%! In order to be a 40% drop, the number of Part 1 crimes to date would need to be 13,206. Instead, we're looking at a 20% drop in crime over two years, not a 40% drop over three. Of course, if you're Jean Quan, a few misplaced zeros or decimal points don't seem to matter. Nor does missing the deadline for responding to public records requests. Which is just one of the dozens of reasons her name will appear nowhere on my IRV ballot sheet.
As you may be aware, Jean Quan is campaigning all over town bragging about her successes with Measure Y, and how, as a result, crime is "down 40% in the last three years." Well, I had reason to doubt that claim, so I sent her a public records request two weeks ago, seeking all documents supporting that claim. More than 10 days went by, with no response, so I sent a follow-up email yesterday, reminding her that there is a pending lawsuit and PEC complaint on this issue. Here is the response I got today:
"The information on the decrease in crime came from the Oakland Police Department’s Part 1 Crime Report, which can be found at http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/OPD/s/Statistics/index.htm. This information is the same as the FBI Part 1 Crime Statistics.
Councilmember Quan was specifically looking at the Oakland Police Weekly Crime Report’s Total Part One Crimes, for her annual information, which shows a decrease of 10 and 14 percent for the previous two years. For this year, she has employed different numbers which are dependent on the statistics for a given month regarding year to date totals. Thus, earlier this year the Chief noted a 34 percent decrease, while last month the figure was a decrease of 16 percent and there is a 15 percent decrease this month."
So I referred to the source documents she cited, and found that they contained totally different numbers. The "summary of Part 1 Crime Offenses" for 2008 lists a total of 29,394. But according to a January, 2010 press release from OPD, the total was 31,917. The total for 2007 was 31,489. Regardless of the actual totals for 2008, they were either flat with 2007, or slightly up. They certainly did not go down in any significant amount, according to any of the data cited.
Turning to the January, 2010 press release, it shows a total of 28,867 Part 1 crimes for 2009, down 10% from 2008. Okay, so serious crime did go down in 2009. By 10%. Now, let's turn to 2010. Keep in mind that the police publicly announced a few months ago that due to layoffs, they'd no longer respond to certain crimes, and reports had to made on-line. That will certainly help crime statistics, won't it? Even assuming that people will still report Part 1 crimes (the most serious crimes), Quan's numbers still don't add up. According to the most recent "weekly crime report," (available on the OPD website) Part 1 crimes are down 15% this year, to date. So where is that 40% drop she's claiming coming from?
Even looking at the "YTD" figures for this week's crime report for Part 1 crimes, it shows that in 2008, this time of year, we were at 22,011 total part 1 crimes. Now we're at 17,325. Okay, that's quite a nice drop. But not nearly 40%! In order to be a 40% drop, the number of Part 1 crimes to date would need to be 13,206. Instead, we're looking at a 20% drop in crime over two years, not a 40% drop over three. Of course, if you're Jean Quan, a few misplaced zeros or decimal points don't seem to matter. Nor does missing the deadline for responding to public records requests. Which is just one of the dozens of reasons her name will appear nowhere on my IRV ballot sheet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
