There are a lot of statistics being cited lately, I would like address a few:

Right now, the issue for more police is not funding, but trying to recruit and fill 100 officers already budgeted for, getting enough training officers for police academies, and getting them trained. The city has run 4 academies in the last half year and will run at least 3 more. We start with hundreds of applicants and after screening, training (a one year process), etc. only a few dozen graduates per academy. The Council is asking the chief to do everything he can to expedite the process and asked him for a report for the upcoming council meeting. I believe the Chronicle said SF has about 100 vacancies also, and from reading other newspapers on line there is an increasing shortage of qualified police candidates.

As a matter of history, the council imposed a hiring freeze of nearly three years on the police department. Quan says there is a problem of recruiting, but she neglects to tell you that the councilmembers created the problem.

Furthermore, councilmembers including Quan insisted that Measure Y would provide 802 police. Did they know when they campaigned in Fall 2004 that it would take years at best to reach 802? If they knew, they misrepresented what we would get for our Measure Y taxes. If they did not know, they are incompetent to be legislators and to offer proposals like Measure Y.

The police training academies are in crisis. They begin only two-thirds full. They suffer dropout rates of up to 47%. Who wants to join a decimated police force? This is a crisis, and Quan's soothing assurances only testify that the councilmembers are unwilling to face the crisis.

People often cite the ratio of police officers to citizens...you will note they usually cite Eastern cities. In California with many major cities, the impact of Prop 13, the lack of state funding, etc. generally means that the ratio of police per 10K citizens is lower here. This US Dept of Justice Report looks at ratios around the country: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub
/pdf/lema001a.pdf

Of the 91 cities in California with more than 100 police officers, only 8 cities had a higher ratio than us. Those 8 included high income cities like Beverly Hills and San Francisco which is also a county so it includes some functions done by county sheriffs.

Quan overlooks the amount of crime to be dealt with. Among the ten largest California cities, Oakland is way above all others in the ratio of violent crime that each police officer must confront. Oakland has more crime and fewer officers. Sure, Beverly Hills can provide lots of police. The problem is that Oakland simply does not have enough police for the amount of crime, disruption, and disrespect that two percent of Oakland's population inflicts on the other 98 percent.

Quan's reference to San Francisco's sheriffs is phony. San Francisco has almost twice the population of Oakland but has three times as many police. Sheriff staffing is not included in this damning comparison.

Many big cities, especially if they are the state's biggest or only big metro area get additional state and federal funding. Police wages and benefits are also a factor; another DOJ report shows another interesting comparison on the cost of police officers. In Boston the total cost is cited in 2000 as $94K/officer and in Oakland $179K/officer. This is probably why the Boston police were picketing the hotel I stayed in last year where the negotiations were going on. It also partly explains our lower ratio.

Cost-of-living and other economic differences between California and Boston, for example, have existed for years. But all over Oakland, people are rising up against an increasing lack of simple peace, against increasing lawlessness. The City has managed to let the police force shrink even after passing Measure Y. And if the compensation package for Oakland police is so big, why can't the City hire?

There have been certain allegations about Measure Y made on this and other listserv's, some of them are just wrong. A lawsuit representing some of these arguments against the city on Measure Y was just dismissed by the courts. If want to know about Measure Y, I also suggest you look at the city website which also gives the actual text of the measure and monthly updates on the police recruitment and other programs that will be funded by the measure.

The text of Measure Y has been on this website all along. We welcome people to read it.

As for the lawsuit, the City filed papers declaring that Measure Y does not require one additional officer! The City filed papers declaring that all the City must do is write a budget line, but it need not actually spend the money and deliver the officers! When push came to shove, the same councilmembers who insisted that Measure Y means 802 police had their attorneys declare the opposite. The lawsuit exposed the total hypocrisy and duplicity of the council.

Almost a year and a half after Measure Y passed, and more than a year after Quan and council began collecting Measure Y taxes, Quan is still dangling a carrot in front of us: things "will be" funded by the measure. Councilmembers always have an excuse, always have hope for the future. No. The City just does not produce results. We have been paying enough money for years. The time for public safety is Now!