By Gloria Partida
The moments that have spurred social justice movements the furthest through time, unfortunately, have come at the cost of a person of color’s (POC’s) body. All have been horrendous, but until the advent of a video camera in every pocket they have not been forced upon all to witness. I arrived in Los Angeles shortly after the killing of Ruben Salazar by L.A. county sheriffs. Ruben Salazar had been the first Latinix writer for the Los Angeles Times and a civil rights activist. His death electrified the Chicano movement in East L.A.
There was no way that you could grow up in the area and not be aware of the crushing issues of institutional racism. That was 50 years ago and 20 years after the inception of the civil rights movement. In that time the evidence for institutional racism has mounted. The injustice of racism has been laid out in scholarly writings, examined, and quantified. We can now point to policies and practices in everything from housing to healthcare that have been designed to oppress POC.
Frustratingly, solutions for what must be done to correct institutional racism have remained elusive. In part because racism is a dynamic and complex issue. The move from Jim Crow laws to microaggressions may seem like a huge improvement until you are sitting an emergency room getting subpar medical treatment because of your race.
As my colleagues and I moved towards responding to the call for change in policing spurred by the national outcry over the murder of George Floyd, we carefully examined what our community needed. We are not a high crime area. We do not have high populations of minorities or socially disadvantaged youth. This is not to say we have none, but we had little areas in our local community that we could shift resources into to reroute the path that led people to have negative 
outcomes with the police.
The formation of our new department is focused on the areas in our local community that are relevant in guiding our vulnerable populations to success and away from those negative police interactions. By coordinating access to housing, mental health, community resources, youth empowerment as well as decriminalizing poverty by refocusing code compliance we begin to address many of the social determinants that lead to those negative police interactions. I am especially keen on what the city can do to support youth. A simple change such as working with the school district to identify underserved youth to prioritize for our summer youth jobs would go a long way.
The objective may not be that we shrink our police budget immediately but rather that it does not need to grow to meet the rising issues of these social determinants. As with many long-term solutions an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The trick of course is applying the correct prevention. Which brings me back to the complexities of addressing institutional injustice.
In the many years of activism I have witnessed, or participated in, a common struggle is finding the handle. Often the answer is that there are many. Seldom does one solution address all issues. On the issue of policing, we have seen the ask for trainings in de-escalation and anti-bias to solve for disparities in police stops. It has been surprising to me lately to hear the opinion now that money for these trainings should be removed from the police budget because they haven’t made a difference.
I find this troubling, especially in light of the push for training in our school district for similar things and on the eve of the push for ethnic studies in our classrooms. In a conversation with a leader for Safe Black Spaces in Sacramento on this subject, they agreed that trainings may not land as they should with all that take them but having none is a step back be it in our police departments, classrooms, or boardrooms.
So, what can be done to fix disparities in stops? Part of what the new department will address is analytics which are critical in getting to the bottom of this issue.
It is also critical to ensure that the problem we are trying to solve for does not move from one department to another. It has always been my assertion that the disparities in stops we see in the police department are an extension of a wider issue. Some of this as mentioned above will be alleviated by the social service interventions. Some are tougher to tease out.
For instance, in a council meeting Darren mentioned that night patrols tend to have more scrutiny because more nefarious activity happens at night. It is also the time that more essential workers, which happen to be more POC, are on the road to get to night jobs. Disparities also trickle down from the fact that more POC are impoverished and have had more trauma, factors that often lead to crime.
The handles to get to a solution on this problem must be more than fixing police bias. Will a civilian task force really be less bias than police officers?
We may also ask, much do we want the police to prevent crime vs solve crime? Often a crime in action is tough to come upon and stop. Maybe we focus more on solving crime. This may require more electronic surveillance, which is unpopular. These are complicated conversations, but we must begin to explore them.
Lastly, I want to give my thanks to all that have advocated tirelessly for these changes, to the city staff that understood the importance of making this happen and our council for rising to the challenge. It makes me proud to live here and represent my community. The names of those that spurred these movements are well honored in your work.
Care to decode exactly what that means? I am asking the GP, not DG or commenters to speak for her.
It means that part of the problem with code enforcement is that people braking city codes are often lower income and by using police to enforce codes, you are in effect criminalizing code enforcement against poor people.
Yeah… and rich liberal lawyers like **** ***** who flouted State and Local Codes when it suited ‘their’ purposes… ostensibly ‘knowing better’…
And folk violating codes to sell / make drugs from a SF (zoning designation, not City) residence are “forced into it” (breaking state and local codes) to help them ‘earn’ $$$, lest they be poor people… just trying to make more income… no fault of their own… no impact to neighborhood/community that should not be tolerated… toleration and understanding are much more important… than social norms or the laws…
Tried to delete, but couldn’t… was concerned I would reveal “inconvenient truths” about code violations.
Uh oh, David how do you feel about that?
And what if electronic surveillance leads to more POC being charged than their population ratios in Davis?
Full paragraph: “We may also ask, much do we want the police to prevent crime vs solve crime? Often a crime in action is tough to come upon and stop. Maybe we focus more on solving crime. This may require more electronic surveillance, which is unpopular. These are complicated conversations, but we must begin to explore them.”
I don’t think electronic surveillance by the government is a viable path forward.
Well the mayor says “This may require more electronic surveillance”.
David, will you be okay with that if it is part of the solution?
I will oppose it
Well that’s your right but you’re just one person out of 70,000 or so.
You asked me my opinion
You get subpar treatment if you don’t have any money, and/or live in a high-crime area. You also don’t have access to things like grocery stores.
Interesting theory upon which to base the addition of positions and costs (which have nothing to do with police work), and in a safe, relatively well-off town. How will you know if it does, in fact, prevent a need to grow the police department? Has it been growing, recently?
What if you don’t like the answer?
What if it shows “racial disparity” regarding criminal activity?
Sounds like the federal money could have been put to better-use in other communities. So unless the supply is unlimited, that means another city won’t have access to those funds.
I’d suggest that the “next step” for the city is figuring out how they’re going to pay for the recurring costs, after the federal money runs out.
“I’d suggest that the “next step” for the city is figuring out how they’re going to pay for the recurring costs, after the federal money runs out.”
You’re really really concerned about this.
I’d suggest that the mayor and the rest of the council should be really, really concerned about this. And should have at least a “plan” to fund it.
Everyone should be concerned with the costs involved, after all it’s the citizen’s money, either federal or local.
Did you watch the council meeting?
Mike Webb: “There is funding the budget that has been used as a placeholder for these programs in the two year budget should the council choose to do so.”
The police budget is about $22 million.
Community Development is about $7.5 million.
Administrative Services is about $25 million.
This proposal entails about $434,000 in new costs. The rest is largely reorganization.
My guess is that the city’s finance officer could suggest ways to readily cover this from existing revenues at some future point. It is likely that state and federal funds will continue to be available in the next couple of years at least.
I disagree… we need to see it “play out”… THEN look at cost-effectiveness, achievement of demonstrable results… and reward, or punish, those who made, or supported the decisions made… called “accountability”… if it fails, will that be made ‘transparent’? Am thinking, NOT… likely excuses, spin, etc. If it succeeds, rest assured it will be ‘touted’, and kudos to all who supported/enacted… time will tell (maybe, depending on who does the ‘telling’…)
I understand that 400K sounds like a lot of money, but in the scheme of the budget, it is really not. They can get it in a lot of ways from restructuring to retirement without adding a new funding stream. They can get it by not filling two other positions that are retired. They can get it through various grants, which I think they are pursuing. As Bill points out, they can see how it works and potentially realize cost savings elsewhere. Moreover, they don’t have to figure this out now. They have to figure it out when they do the 2023 budget.
$434,000 and likely rising, over the years. Yeah, what’s a half-million dollars/year between friends.
Also, does that include retirement and medical plan coverage? What about other “indirect” costs associated with the positions? Are they working out of their own garage, for example?
We already know “how it works”. $434,000 cost (and rising) that’s unaccounted for. The same way it always works.
Are you stating that they’re “just now” looking for ways to cut (other) costs? And after they already decided to incur even more costs?
In any case, I’m glad to hear that the city isn’t already facing fiscal challenges. I must have been dreaming, in regard to all of the articles stating that some development would pave all the roads, bike paths, etc.
And that “life is declining” in Davis, as a result of lack of funding.
Strange, how adding more costs is (now) not a problem.
That’s o.k., I’m sure we’ll forget by the time you run your next “the sky is falling” article, in support of some development.
If I read through your post, you’re actual argument is that we shouldn’t have done these changes, correct?
On a related note, do you think that having a respite center, more housing specifically for homeless people, and now a homeless coordinator (or whatever the position is called) results in more homeless people (and associated costs and impacts) for a given locale, or less?
Is there going to be a “before-and-after” count of homeless people in Davis, to measure that implied goal?
“On a related note, do you think that having a respite center, more housing specifically for homeless people, and now a homeless coordinator (or whatever the position is called) results in more homeless people (and associated costs and impacts) for a given locale, or less?”
Studies say no.
Studies have likely been conducted by activists, and probably have the same amount of reliable, unbiased data and substance as the paper I flush down the toilet each morning.
Have they looked at San Francisco, for example?
Point in time studies are not done by activists.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11721460/why-do-these-4-myths-about-homelessness-persist
Took me about a second to determine this had nothing to do with my question, and had other problems regarding the method to ensure reliability of the data that it did provide.
As soon as I see “self-reported”, I pretty much stop reading “data” as fact.
You took statistics in college, right?
By the way, some might view KQED itself as “activist”.
It took me one second to read your response to understand that you don’t understand what point in time studies are.
More Than a Number: Point-in-Time Counts Are Crucial Data
Each year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires Continuum of Care (CoC) organizations to count the number of people experiencing homelessness in the geographic area that they serve through the Point-in-Time (PIT) count.
https://www.samhsa.gov/homelessness-programs-resources/hpr-resources/point-time-counts-are-crucial-data
I’m pretty sure that I understand the limitations of studies and surveys as well as you do.
Doxxing?
Do you mean 2022-2023 or 2023-2024 budget? Has been a 2-year budget for awhile… or, is there something else going on??
BTW, I support the two fiscal year budget… saves a lot of un-needed staff costs of time and effort… more ‘real’… and there is still flexibility when ‘stuff happens’…
No they now do two year budgets so it’s 2023-24 and 24-25, hence 2023-25.
If I was on a council (anywhere), I would not add positions that are intended to be permanent without knowing exactly what they’re intended to accomplish, how that might be determined, and how it will be fully funded in the future.
One might then conclude that cities wouldn’t be facing fiscal challenges, if “I” was in charge.
Of course, one can always cut other services for which there’s already a demonstrated need, instead (such as “The Claw”). 🙂
Though they might take care of that by eliminating trees and going with solar panels, instead.
We are closer to “Soylent Green”, each and every passing day. As I recall, you can “view” nature on the screen in that movie.
Or, roll the dice and believe what developers tell you the next time, regarding (fill-in-the-blank name of development) saving the day for everyone else.
I think we’ve already seen what choices cities consistently make. Evidence is already there, in the form of fiscal projections.
I gave you four ways to fund it without raising existing expenditures. It’s not that hard a lift.
I’m not the one who has to “find ways” to fund it, after deciding to incur the costs.
Though I suspect it will ultimately lead to the usual, subsequent squawking in the future regarding “fiscal challenges” in which no one (then) seems to have any idea how it occurred.
It’s apparently a complete and total mystery, by that point.
Five comment rule being belatedly applied here.
>> Care to decode exactly what that means? I am asking the GP, not DG or commenters to speak for her.
FIRSTLY . . . What part of “I am asking the GP, not DG or commenters to speak for her” don’t you understand? Are you the self-anointed mayoral Jen Psaki?
SECONDLY . . . Hazawhatzit? Seriously? This is the same flawed thinking as ‘don’t enforce traffic laws using police because they might not be equally enforced’. Anduyukka, OK . . . I really don’t know what ‘codes’ we are referring to here. We’ve already established (see J comment previous day) that the police can still enforce code having to do with homeless camps and that the new code position is a coordinating position. The only other code I can come up with is signs that don’t meet City code – but I don’t know much about ‘codes’. What are these codes that when enforced inflict un-equally on the poor? I am asking seriously because I have no idea.
We used to have public officials come on here and answer questions, but remember how Robb Davis was treated by Ron and others? No one wants to come on here anymore.
The face meaning to me is design and enforce code against those who are taking advantages of others out of choice, but not on those who are already disadvantaged and trying to survive out of necessity.
For example: Stealing a candy bar from a store.
Criminal stealing can be defined not by the value of the item stolen, but by whether the stealer did so out of necessity.
Wrong code: laws against stealing below $x are not enforcible.
Hospitalian code: any person who provides a necessary help to another person is automatically reimbursed.
Property crimes of any amount is enforcible if the neighborhood can demonstrated that the stealer does not have a necessity to steal. For example, there could be a public phone nearby that anyone in need could call for help (and be transported to a safe location by social service and get what they need there), or that the neighborhood has a record of directly helping those who cried for help.
It is a crime to steal anything if a person merely assumes others won’t help unless they steal. For stealing to be exempted, the stealer must demonstrate they have an immediate need and no one responded within reasonable time.
Blogs are never an effective means to thoughtfully discuss vital public and social issues. Instead, we see pronouncements, preachings, and deliberately provocative and questionable assertions designed for only one purpose–Click Bait. Bolg moderators create this climate, then occasionally condemn it, such as right now.
While the majority of subscribers are well-intentioned and seek the opportunity to listen and then comment, to do so comes at great risk. They become lurkers, then grow tired of the monotonous rhetoric and move on to more productive efforts like volunteering at a homeless shelter or cleaning up a public right-of-way.
No matter what one says, nor matter how profound or creative the remarks may be, you can be certain that a certain tiny percentage will predictably attack the notion. This tiny percentage of subscribers find perverse pleasure in being contrarians, they spend several hours daily pounding on a computer keyboard with remarks that are consistently negative, sarcastic, distorted, and self-indulgent. Such persons must be tortured souls who seek pleasure in degrading others. They should be pitied and then ignored. Active bloggers can never ignore it seems.
In a traditional public meeting where public officials make public comments, they do so with nowhere the same risk and embarrassment of the ridicule and disdain seen in blogs like this one. Other persons in a public meeting will not allow it, they will hiss or murmur in protest.
“No one wants to come on here anymore.” Golly, I wonder why?
Ron does not remember saying anything bad thing about Robb Davis personally (or anyone else), since it never happened. Ron does not actually know Robb Davis on a personal level (though he has seen him, and spoken before him at council meetings).