A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute, edited by Brian C. Anderson.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Oakland Cop-Out « Back to Story
Showing 12 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
I'd be more sympathetic to anonymous' claims if he weren't anonymous. But, then, cops don't want to be responsible for their actions and their unions make prosecution and reform impossible. That's what brings about the corruption of police forces. Since cops cover for each others' corruptions, cops can't be trusted by citizens. That leaves only a blunderbuss: smack the whole police force with Federal action and rebuild.
How many cops would Oakland have if the retirement age was raised to 56? 57? Do I hear 58?
Does the union prevent the retirement age from being raised?
A city is just a piece of land, and in our United States we can still leave if the politicians, judges et als make it impossible to live there. In how many places has this happened? Look at the population wealth and population statistics on Oakland - this is not a place where people are seeking to move.
It has become like so many cities in America - instead of being a center of prosperity as a city should be, it is a net drain on the area around it, which supports the terrible policies adopted by politicians. We have the same situation here in New Jersey with Newark and other cities - the cities don't create wealth, they take it from everywhere else.
Oakland's probelms are inherently political - once Democrats take firm control, they simply destroy - the so called problems with the cities is one of who is in charge not anything else. The public unions are used as a front to channel tax money to Democratic Party coffers, the Democratic politicians in return give the unions whatever benefits they are seeking, democrats appoint judges that approve of whatever Democrats do, no matter how corrupt, (and sometimes invest corrupt schemes like that which happened after the NJ Supreme Court adopted the Abbott decision in New Jersey) the Democrats enact dependence policies that destroy the families of the poor by not providing money if the father is in the home, lack of a father discourages the children from achieving, and criminalizes the community, resulting in the need for more municipal services, non-government organizations with the usual Democratic the poverty pushers; the Democrats, because they dole out the money get all the votes, and since they have a revolving door with media, they never get called on anything. Those wealthy enough stay around but on the outskirts, and they are the "good rich" anyway, and thus get their share of the pie.
But as the neighborhood falls apart, people leave, and Democrats seek to have those people replaced by importing others from overseas or south of the border. The new residents vote Democratic since they don't know any better and haven't figured things out yet. Better still for Democrats, many come from third world countries so no matter how bad it gets it is still better than, or just like, home. And these people have no connection with traditional American traditions which are, in any event, an anathema to Democrats. (I think I used that right).
So the rich get richer, those in government get paid off, those in the party get rich too, and the whole country gets eaten a bit at a time, and those smack in the middle of all this, or simply those of good will flee, although soon there won't be any place left to run to.
And so it goes, and so it is going. California, once the crown jewel of America has been killed by the Democratic party - it is dead, a lost cause.
However, one thing to keep in mind, and this is critically important:
- no matter how bad it gets, no matter how poor the people become, no matter how bad crime becomes, no matter that children don't get educated, no matter how many people leave, no matter how bad it gets, the people who live in California and elsewhere under Democratic control will never, ever look to Republicans as the way to deal with their problems. And that isn't the fault of Democrats, that is squarely the fault of the Republican leadership, which only knows how to lose elections, and are helpless - and hapless - when it comes to the destruction of the country by Democrats.
Think George W. Bush, and Karl Rove the simple minded idiots, spending money like there was no tomorrow not responding at all when Bush was systematically being eviscerated by the Democratic media, which was busy creating the conditions for an Obama takeover.
Meanwhile, in NYC, the morally preening nitwits at the NYCLU are crowing with triumph at forcing the NYPD to stop doing most of its stop and frisk searches of hoodlums in the projects.
The NYCLU gang should be forced to LIVE in those buildings. The law-abiding residents are DESPERATE to have tough policing. But the lefties really Do coddle criminals, don't they?
The Blue Centurions are no more. Just what the anarchists want.
The pensions are a large question, but 20- 25 years is a long time of shift work in situations when you can be killed or wounded. I have a UK friend who has been a Police Officer for 21 years and now gets a pension at 42. The job cost him his marriage, couselling still on-going after five years in pedophile rings work. He was divorced a little after the raid where they found a poor five year old girl - easy job. His ex-wife a Police Officer left the Police did an administration course (one year) and is a supervisor of a team of four in a private hospital about the same wage as her role as a Police Officer confronting drunks, druggies and general scum. I think that we get what we pay for, a well funded and well run police force costs money, like a well run and funded army. Don't pay for the army chances are you lose the war, same for the police. Take a look at the streets the police are not winning in most areas. Tax is not a crime at a modest rate, it pays for a civilised society and sometimes a civilised society needs well paid hard men to keep it civilised. What is better cleaned up streets or more Chinese imports in consumer land and a bigger deficit?
Amazing example of factless complaining. For example, the murder count shrank 18 percent in Los Angeles and major crime fell 8.6 percent in the city in 2009. The 314 homicides in Los Angeles were the fewest since 1967. 2010 fell to 297 homicides.
Federally mandated changes in 2001-2009 were accompanied by substantial improvements to citizen safety. Massive changes from the peak bad year 1993, when the Los Angeles murder rate was 3 times higher.
On what planet does this Officer Dunphy live ??? Everything in L.A. related to crime got better 2001-2009 -- a few hours tidying up police paperwork notwithstanding. His judgment of what is important to ordinary citizens is observed in the absence.
They caught a small group of officers at a single station...but does anyone who knows LA or any big city PD believe that that was the extent of the problem?
As a professor of Criminal Justice, a retired state police captain, once said to me, "The only result of the war on drugs has been the thorough going corruption of all our police forces."
Oakland has probably passed the point of no return. Hopefully other California cities will learn from this continuing failure. As a Bay Area resident, I'll believe it when I see it. California is in a steady decline, and I don't see how things are likely to change anytime soon. People have been leaving the state in droves -- and taking their money with them. The well-intentioned-but-naiive Liberals are running the state down the tubes.
I am a retired Sgt of an neighbouring agency + live and work nearby Oakland. the politicians and citizens have what they deserve. all refuse to staff OPD sufficiently and berate the officers that try to do the job required. Unfortunately for us neighbors, we suffer the fallout.
Very good but scary article. Glad to see that "Jack" is still alive and kicking. I have missed him.
The article looks at symptoms: what are the causes?
Who was mayor of Oakland from 2001-2010? (Hint: is he California's governor now?).
How big were the raises to its unionized work force during that period?
What percentage of its budget does the City spend on salaries and benefits?
Does Oakland require its employees to contribute anything to their defined benefit pensions?
Has the number of Oakland citizens gone up or down since 2001?
What about the ratio of citizens to city employees?
What is the ratio of citizens who work in Oakland versus those who receive benefits? Is it higher or lower than other cities?
Why does it have a sales tax of between 8.75% and 9% when most of the state is 7.7%?
Did Mayor Quan's embrace of the Occupy Movement assist or retard job creation?
Did the Los Angeles Times, the SF Chronicle or any other paper spend any time in the last election for Governor reporting to the voters, how Oakland was administered in 2001-2010?
With Judge Henderson ready to dictate increased costs and fees to run the city as he thinks it ought to be run, will it be more or less expensive to do business there? To own a house there?