SFist: Saving Some Shoe Leather

Jeremy

Sun, 05 Nov 2006 03:15:59 -0800

Mirkarimi's plan requires hearings for the Board and the police to evaluate the effectiveness of the foot patrols after 6 months and 12 months. The Mayor's plan? Who knows. I assume it has the same lack of accountability and objective analysis that the SFPD always enjoys.

KWillets

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:55:43 -0800

No. Why do you ask?

Jeffrey W. Baker

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:12:23 -0800

KWillets: can you expand on who "we" are or what you do "7x24"?

h brown

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:01:11 -0800

Well, I think that we should go with the mayor's plan and a monthly hearing before the appropriate Board committee. I say this because if the supes' plan is passed and the cops ignore it, what are you gonna do? They can't exactly fire the police chief. And, the mayor won't support them. He'll be glad their plan was a failure. But, if you adopt the mayor's plan, he's responsible for it and he CAN fire the police chief. h.

KWillets

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 19:57:47 -0800

The cops are on duty 8 hours a day, we're on 7x24. I just checked my logs starting from the end of September, when the Lower Haight's foot patrols evaporated: 59 calls in less than a month, at least three 911. For that effort I get no salary or pension, and a tax bill at the end of the year. As Clausewitz said, "War is policy made manifest". The same goes for the police. Police do almost nothing without democratic control; that is one thing that makes a democracy. The community supports ending the constant onslaught of misdemeanor crimes, which often escalate to violence and gang activity. Community policing, supposedly the process of listening to community input to direct law enforcement strategy, is the stated policy of Newsom and the SFPD. When the Lower Haight Community Organization finally got enough clout to get foot patrols in our crime-plagued district, quality of life improved dramatically. When the patrols ended, quality of life decreased just as dramatically. Against this reality, the posturing of Newsom and the Police Union is little more than noise.

Mattymatt

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 18:36:58 -0800

Chuck, I don't think you need years of training to be able to tell that two shifts and a squad car is a bit of an overkill for directing traffic. Jeffrey's photo is only one example of how sometimes civil servants (not just cops) sometimes aren't deployed in a way that's totally efficient. Nobody's saying they can do a better job of policing than our cops do, since in fact they do a very good job. The argument is about whether their resources could be allocated differently, so they could do their job even better.

Chuck Foy

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 17:42:07 -0800

It never ceases to amaze me how a citizen who has never walked a beat, never been in a patrol car, or been involved in deadly force situations and have received their entire education on how to be a cop by watching TV, can do the job of a police officer better than the men and women who actually do the work. IF YOU really think you can do a better job, I am certain SFPD will take your application for employment and seriously consider putting your through the years of training, hard work, and personal sacrifice it takes to become a Police Officer. Right. Nuff said!

Jeffrey W. Baker

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 17:07:17 -0800

Here's how the SFPD wastes its manpower: http://flickr.com/photos/jwbee/274959001/ They assign two shifts of regular police, and a car, to direct traffic at this intersection, permanently. And then we are supposed to not laugh when they claim to lack resources. Hold the SFPD and the Mayor accountable.

Jeffrey W. Baker

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 17:00:40 -0800

This is how the SFPD currently wastes their manpower: http://flickr.com/photos/jwbee/274959001/ They claim they can't spare officers for foot patrols, but they can spare two shifts of squad cars to direct traffic, every weekday, for years on end. Demand accountability from the SFPD and the Mayor.

Jerry Jarvis

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:16:44 -0800

The Mayor only seems to get a fire lit up his bung hole on issues is when the supervisors try to do things that the Mayor lacks doing. Our supervisors here it from us. Big time. Have you ever tried talking to the Mayor and have him actually listen to you and follow up with neighborhood issues or do you get one of his staff and wonder what ever became of your issue? Only to be told to see your local supervisor? And then here later how the supervisor is meddling.

Mattymatt

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:25:25 -0800

I feel a little funny saying this, but h-brown's idea about monthly meetings to evaluate the program's effects actually sounds really good. What's been lacking from this foot-patrol conversation is any objective evidence that it would reduce crime. Periodic evaluations (made publicly available) would help us all figure out whether it's helping. But whether we should go with the Mayor's plan for now or Ross's more ambitious one is a hard question.

gregdewar

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 12:52:05 -0800

While I like seeing officers on the streets - heck when we had that one cop at Irving and 9th the trolls of Irving Street disappeared like rats - I wonder if it's fair to our police to send them out on these patrols if there's no real plan to actually fight crime. After reading about that story of the nuisance criminal who gets a revolving door at the jail, and the fact that the DA's office seems to have a hard time prosecuting crimes, what are the police supposed to do? They can arrest all they want but if the higher ups don't do their job, it's kinda pointless.

Adam

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 12:02:17 -0800

I suppose the irony is lost on many that a cornerstone of Rob Black's campaign is having Supes more involved in police business. Here's his puppetmaster very clearly saying that the Supes should not be so involved. Any bets on whether Newsom's claim of having his own plan and actually acting on it goes beyond the veto letter?

h brown

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 11:51:51 -0800

Campers, The Board should vote 11-0 to support the mayor's foot patrol plan with the caveat that they hold monthly hearings to determine whether it works, or whether it is necessary to go to the voters with the Mirkarimi plan and all of the modifications that will certainly be added in the hearings. That puts everything on the table. huh? h.

Jerry Jarvis

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 10:02:41 -0800

The People of San Francisco should be as out- raged as I am (well maybe not that deep) with Newsom's latest political folly on public safety. The folks that shop the Westend get assigned foot patrols. How about the folks who visit the Hyatt plaza. Why do their patrons get foot patrols and the folks at the Senneca don't? Why is their safety any more important than mine. I vote in this city. Maybe we need to consider a plan that melds the sheriffs department with the SFPD. This would make our public safety more responsible to the people who live here. After all we are one county and city.