Oakland Neighbors Crowdfunding Private Security
techpresident.com
techpresident.com
When I left Oakland in 2009, I was throwing away one of the free, local papers when something caught my eye. It was a short article stating that the Oakland PD truancy rate was, I believe, 37%. So, a significant portion of Oakland PD don't show up for their shifts. Perhaps there is a legitimate reason for this. Unfortunately, every time I try to dig up this statistic, I just get results regarding student truancy efforts by Oakland PD.
Also, in 2008, Oakland PD blew $15,000 on, I believe, Screamin' Eagle exhausts for their police Harleys. After complaints of hearing loss, they took the pipes back off, then spent $1,200 on a 'study' to test whether they increased safety (they didn't), caused hearing damage (they do), and complied with noise standards (they blatantly violate Federal noise laws, and OPD doesn't care). The article I'm looking at is unclear as to whether or not the $15k was in addition to the initial cost of $500 per bike, from before the hearing complaints, removal, study, and re-installation.
I miss a lot of things about Oakland, but Oakland PD's antics are not among them. I don't blame people one bit for wanting private security.
According to an independent arbitrator last November, the
daily absentee rate for the Oakland police department was
more than 40 percent. [...] Oakland's rate is at least
twice as high as comparable departments.
Michael Rains, attorney for the Oakland Police Officers
Association, did talk to us. He attributes many past
absences to Oakland's high injury rate and current and
future ones to a new 12-hour work schedule.
Perhaps someone that knows more about OPD could chime in:
0. Can't slackers be fired?
1. Is there a recruitment problem that constrains 0.?
2. Is leadership failing to motivate and/or inspire morale?
3. How many OPD regular officers live in Oakland? (I would wager it's very high or very low.)
Postscript: I love Oakland, both its gems and its warts. It's hard to find good music in the Bay Area, especially live blues.
Probably ~90% live outside the city: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/the-high-costs-of-outs...
Detroit passed a fatwa requiring police to live within the city a while back, I'm not sure it solved anything.
Surely you've missed finding out about JJ's…or you live on the opposite side of the bay from them.
Long, long ago, in a valley far, far away, people would drive from Berkeley to Sunnyvale (or the opposite trip) to meet their friends for dinner. (Midweek, even!) Traffic wasn't nearly as bad then.
It was very common throughout the city and other regions to find co-ops form around businesses, farmers, home owners, etc. who would pool their money together and hire a private security force.
At our second office, it was the entire main street of shopholders with some of the offices chipping in to hire a dozen fulltime security guards to patrol the street, check cars, etc.
It worked reasonably well. You get to know the guards really well, they get to know the area well, and they were much more effective in responding to incidents than the police or other local authorities (in an earlier incident a man was once stabbed right infront of me, I called the ambulance and waited with him for an hour, he died and his body was eventually picked up later that night).
There were also times it failed. In one incident the guards caught three people trying to jump a fence, they used a disabled toilet in one of the stores as a makeshift prison cell and beat the three 'suspects' up and kept them in there for 24 hours. I can't describe how much blood there was on the floor and walls, but the three were eventually released (I was told they 'have to' do this so that other potential thieves go elsewhere, and that the police wouldn't do anything)
At first I was uneasy with the thought of having private security, but because of the failing of government to provide basic safety I ended up only every moving to areas that had a similar setup.
Residents resorting to self-funded policing is a sign that something is very, very wrong with government administration. I never thought i'd see this play out in a major American city.
For over a hundred years ranchers in Texas have had an industry association with it's own private deputized investigators for cow theft. Look how many downtown areas now have "Ambassadors" that are just private security patrolling. In many states there are some form of "Improvement Districts" that allows a neighborhood to self-tax and pay for private security or extra police patrols. Where I live, in Atlanta, almost every neighborhood you'd want to live in employs off-duty police to patrol.
And of course, every government agency from federal to local you can think of has their own police force to protect their property. FBI Police, CIA Police, National Zoo Police, Mint Police, Federal Reserve Police, (insert state here) Capitol Police, University Police, School District Police, Park Police, Hospital Police, Convention Center Police... It goes on.
The US is a huge country without a nationalized police force. Since the beginning those that could afford (or legislate) more security/policing have done so. The more directly a security force works for their clients, the more responsive they can be. This is why many cities were and are incorporated, to provide a higher level of police than counties/states were providing. It's why the FBI has it's own police vs relying on local PD. As the standard of living for everyone in the US rises, so will the amount of people hiring private security and police, it's no longer the domain of just the rich and powerful.
Suddenly, I'm walking past armed guards in the lobby.
This was not a "security" related company. Just an old-line business suffering under the changes brought by technology and too long under reactionary management.
But this new management was paranoid that someone was going to come in and shoot them up.
I'll differ with jmccree in that I don't see this as the result of rising prosperity. Rather, I see it as the result of rising inequality.
The rich are all the more able to pay for this and to force it through, when the masses -- including those from whom they hire their security -- are worse off. They can more easily afford the wages, and they more easily -- through their influence -- control the political implications.
As for the trend in the U.S., which also is occurring in e.g. fire fighting support and other areas. Many would argue it's another sign that, beneath the GDP totals, the U.S. is no longer a first world country. Piece by piece, link by link in an increasingly severed social contract.
I have a friend who just got back from San Francisco (not Oakland, admittedly), and I specifically asked him about bums and filth in SF, because I've seen that mentioned previously on HN. He said that he saw a few bums, but as soon as they jay-walked the cops were all over them, courteously, but firmly, pulling them back onto the sidewalk; and asking them to move on when they were loitering. He was astonished -contrast this with cities like Johannesburg where bums, beggars and vagrants occupy intersections with impunity.
I don't want to belittle the Oakland problem, but I do think some perspective is required, and it's a bit of a stretch to say that conditions are approaching those in South Africa.
But, once again, to put things in perspective, anywhere in South Africa today, routinely giving rides to strangers is regarded as suicidal-the idea of Casual Car Pooling would be regarded as insane. And the robbers would probably NOT have been apprehended by the police, as they have been in Oakland.
Another anecdote that could put things in perspective: in 2009, my sister-in-law, who was a student, was abducted from a petrol station in a nicer part of Johannesburg, by an knife-weilding vagrant, driven around, threatened with rape, and taken to an ATM to withdraw cash, before the vagrant left her car. There was a camera at the petrol station, and at the ATM. The cops came (I insisted that she call the cops, she didn't even want to bother). The police did nothing after taking her statement- they were supposed to send a sketch artist, but he never pitched. The idea of going to look at the CCTV footage probably never entered the cops' minds. I'm sure the criminal still hangs around in the same area. There was obviously no media coverage of the story - such things are too routine. The bank did station a full-time security guard at the ATM after I contacted them.
I am merely pointing out that comparing the situation described in OP to what's happened in South Africa is overly alarmist. And the idea that rent-a-cops are a new phenomenon in the US is also not accurate.
I hope this doesn't make me sound like a cruel person. I realize sensitivity to this kind of stuff is different depending where you are in the world. But, why do you consider this a failure? I understand it isn't as "civilized, humanitarian, feel-good" as the western-world's perceived standards, but this is absolutely how it's done in areas without reliable police enforcement. Until a stable & reliable law-enforcement can be set up, I honestly believe significant beatings for would-be thieves is the best deterrent for crime. Especially for 3rd-world countries; less things truly fall into complete chaos.
Furthermore, beating people like savages is not an acceptable punishment even if they were.
It seems to me like you've never been accused of a crime you didn't actually commit.
The idea here is that it's better to let 10 guilty people go free than erroneously punish one innocent.
I shouldn't have to explain this.
That idea is awesome. Nay, it is the lynchpin of a successful society. And it is all namby-pamby, Gandhi-an truth-and-justice until you have to live and survive in situations where crimes happen with impunity and go unpunished due to systemic apathy of the law-enforcers.
You can spew principles all day from your basement, but they mean naught until you have walked in the shoes of those you criticize.
I shouldn't have to explain that.
I'm not talking about apathy, I'm talking about justice. If systemic apathy is the problem, then they won't be beating them, either. It's a straw man argument.
Also, you're using weasel words. They're not "perceived standards", it's simply uncivilized, animalistic behavior.
It is unacceptable, regardless of circumstance.
Weasely hogwash from someone who clearly has no idea of ground reality.
Otherwise, I agree with your highfalutin talk, um-hmm.
So, other than the rape it's about the same as American law enforcement. ;) I'm sorry, I'm just joking.... _kinda_.
To be serious though, I think a community has more power over a hired private security group than the community has power over first-world law enforcement. If the people of Oakland felt there was more negative than positive with the security group being around, they can just stop paying them[1]. To stop the Oakland PD, is a bit more complicated. I also believe the Oakland community would get to know the security-enforcers a bit more if they directly hire them. Perhaps even become friends; then maybe members of the community would join in at which point the line between the defenders & defendees would blur. The community would feel stronger. That feeling, even if not really true, of enpowerment I think counters feelings of hopelessness and could be the beginning of real change in troubled parts of Oakland. Or, I could be very wrong. The private-security-group could try to enforce, get completely gunned down and quit and the whole experiment fails....
1. They really need to make sure they find the right people though. Hiring the wrong people, then firing them can make things worse than when it started. I think it's important that whoever they hire work closely with community members and befriended.
(Not that it makes it right, of course)
As someone who grew up in Detroit, I never thought it would take this long to happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZJ1w9-Umcw
One section shows a situation similar to that which you described, in which the private security guards beat a suspected criminal to discourage repeat behaviour. Interestingly, the most brutal of the private security guards later falls foul of a mob of citizens, and must be protected/arrested by the real police (there's a chance I'm confusing this with another Theroux documentary).
Remember that the costs to security companies of trying to increase crime rates would be born by whoever lobbies to reduce police effectiveness, whereas the benefits would be shared by every security company. Industries form associations to get around these problems, but you can only really do that if you can claim with a straight face that you're acting in the public interest. But while "We need to be tough on crime" and "I'm helping to keep criminals behind bars" are two statements that are easy to publicly resolve "We shouldn't waste so much money on police" and "You should give me money to protect you" make the speaker look like a hypocrite.
I'm sure that security companies lobby in various ways to get legal exemptions to weapons laws, let their employees detain people more easily, etc. Just probably not in ways that would increase crime.
"But Rydell was always glad to have him on shift, because he was as determinedly nonviolent a rentacop as you were likely to find. And he probably wasn't even crazy. Both of which were definite pluses for Rydell. As Hernandez was fond of pointing out, SoCal had stricter regulations for who could or couldn't be a hairdresser. Like Rydell, a lot of IntenSecure's response people were former police officers of some kind, some were even ex-LAPD, and if the company's rules about not carrying personal weapons on duty were any indication, his co-workers were expected to turn up packing all manner of hardware. There were metal detectors on the staff-room doors and Hernandez usually had a drawer full of push-daggers, nunchuks, stunguns, knucks, boot-knives, and whatever else the detectors had picked up. Like Friday morning at a South Miami high school."
-- Virtual Light, Willam Gibson, 1993
It should be noted that standing police forces are a relatively new concept. Rome had one at the end, but that was became quite corrupt.
s/ libertarian dystopia here we come /s
Well, minus the Silk Road raid.
Why?!
Why should security become the responsibility of private people? That's pretty sick.
You are paying taxes to receive this service. But your "representatives" prefer to provide "security" to everybody but their own citizens, it seems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
The solution is to protest and vote!
I suspect that they may have looked into that solution, and found it wanting. Hiring their own security gives them far more control. They know where their money is going, and they can adjust things, as needed.
This doesn't end the problem of continuing to be taxed, of course. That's a much harder nut to crack.
What do you wanna bet this guy would scream to high heaven if the city wanted to tax him an extra $82 a year to fund more patrolmen?
The problem is that all isn't equal. Krish no doubt knows, just as you do if you'd think about it, that there is no possibility of paying $82 in taxes to obtain that level of extra patrolling. The local government is dysfunctional, their cost structure bloated, the political process broken. Keep in mind, Oakland has some of the highest local taxes in America; in a very real sense Kirsh is already paying that $82 per household (and more besides) yet not getting the patrolling he wants. What would adding another $82 do? Would it fund 12 hours of patrolling, five days a week? If you know ANYTHING about the cost structure of modern police departments in general, or Oakland in particular, the notion is absurd. The city of Oakland is not capable of providing what Kirsh and his fellows want.
It's like looking at someone buying a second hand Acer laptop $200 off Craigslist, and muttering that you bet he would refuse to pay $300 for new Macbook Retina. He almost certainly would not refuse that, but we'll never know, because that deal is certainly not on offer.
Yes, people at some point might have griped about "an extra $82" in taxes, but they are way beyond that point now. OPD isn't patrolling the hills, property crimes are rarely followed up on, etc.
Snark all you want, but there are people with families living there that are at their wits end.
America's affordable housing policy is high crime and shit schools. There's nowhere to move to.
There are also extenuating circumstances- OPD is its own worst enemy.
No unions, no pensions, no politics, blah blah.