Cop-Killing In Oakland For Fun And Profit

Everyone knows by now that a friendly neighborhood "ex"-con here in Oakland shot and killed three veteran police officers today.

The swat team did apparently track down and kill the responsible party -- a positive development, but too little too late for our city. I will not list the dead cretin's name, but suffice it to say that he will not be missed.

On behalf of the reasonable citizens of Oakland, let me extend thanks, condolences and outrage to our dead officers: Sgts. Erv Romans, Dan Sakai and Mark Dunakin. Let it be known that there are ordinary Oaklanders who will mourn these officers and would like to clean up the streets if only we had the leadership and direction to do so.



In a place like Oakland, there is no way to discuss this story without reference to the young man killed by a Bart police officer at the beginning of the year. No one will soon forget the public outrage and rioting which followed that slaying, which ironically saw the same actors playing opposite parts -- an ex-con killed by a cop.

Neither will we soon forget that the first response to today's incident by the residents of the eastern part of our fair city was to heckle the officers who arrived to investigate the murder of two of their bretheren.

And never mind the fact that the two shot officers had to wait for someone to call 911 and for an ambulance to come transport them to the hospital. What, do east Oaklanders not own cars? Is not a single one of them capable of scooping up a shot cop and racing to the hospital?

No, I suppose all we can expect from denizens of these neighborhoods is a phone call, if we're lucky, and then the predictable middle finger from the squalid street-corner dwellers whose only defining characteristic seems to be their contempt for society.

Honestly, I'm amazed at the decorum of the police department following this act of evil. It would be only natural, in my opinion, to strap on the jack-boots and start knocking down doors in the wake of this atrocity.

Were I an officer, I'd have brutality on my mind. I'd want to transform my holding cells into a mini Abu Ghraib.

But no one will act on such an impulse -- that much you can count on. Our public servants may be overpaid, in this blogger's opinion, but they are a professional bunch, and I know they will handle this situation with the decorum befitting their position.

The same cannot be said for our citizenry -- pock-marked as it is with robbers, theives, pimps and murderers. There will be no candlelight vigils for these fine policemen. John Burris will not lift even one of his bejewelled fingers to help right the wrong that has been committed here. No car windows will be broken, no tear-gas will be deployed.

Oakland will fail to mourn this tragedy, because this is exactly what our citizens expect. We expect our police officers to die. We construct rules and regulations which are nearly impossible to follow, and when an officer fails in his duty, we dust off our signboards and slogans and take to the streets.

So there you have it. This is our Oakland, a lawless Terrordome whose residents would rather pursue ridiculous Leftist ideology than save lives.

What should we do instead?

For a start, how about mourning these fine men in proper fashion. How about a focus on enforcement, not this ridiculous notion of "community" policing.

Our city should adopt a new policing slogan: "Not in my city." Policing, and the police department, should be expanded with a sole focus on eliminating troublemakers through rigorous enforcement of all the laws on the book. We need either to lock these people up or run them out of our city.

But most of all, we need not to stop this pointless activism aimed at proving the police are "brutal." If anything, this incident proves that they are not brutal enough.

When criminals in your city feel they can pull out a gun and murder three cops, you have a serious problem requiring serious action.

Something needs to change. Enough is enough.

Nirvana Realized: Oakland At 837 Cops

By now most readers have heard the news that the Oakland Police Department graduated a new class of cops, bringing the total staffing above the magic 800 number for the first time in recent history. At the same time, there's a fair bit of bellyaching that this accomplishment will not make a significant difference to the city.

There also is some discussion of how this feat serves as some sort of vindication for Mayor Dullums. Let me counter that assertion first and then move on to the question of what this will mean for Oakland residents.



Ron Dullums is the political equivalent of a fair-weather fan. The issue with him is not that he didn't manage to survive long enough to witness the promised increase in policing. It's that he did very little to support it -- and indeed opposed it -- until it became clear that it was the only alternative left.

But just as the president frequently gets credit for "running the economy," though he does nothing of the kind, Dullums has received some totally undeserved accolades here. Fair enough. Hopefully it makes him sleep better at night.

But on to the issue of the 837 cops. I'll admit that the first thing I noticed when reading the announcement was these cops' starting salary: $70,000 per year. I'm sure that number ignores the cost of benefits and retirement, which typically adds about 50 percent to a civil servant's cost. So, these cops are cosing us about $100k per year each.

That's quite a price to pay for rookie cops, especially when you consider that New York pays its rookie cops just $36,000 a year.

Sit back and think about that for a moment. Our leaders are chortling that they managed to hire police by offering to pay them double what they would earn in NYC (which, incidentally, has a higher cost of living than the Bay Area).

And, what do you want to bet that Oakland is not rationally reserving money for these officers' retirement pay? Given what we've seen throughout California in recent months and years, I'd be pretty surprised to see anything reasonable on that front.

Still, I'm glad to see the number of police increase, and I continue to support any well-written proposition to increase them further -- provided it uses regressive taxation as did Measure Y.

Doing so is a true win-win for Oakland residents. First, spending money on police will decrease crime.

Now I know that Dullums likes to say things like, "We can't arrest our way out of this problem." I disagree. I think we can and should arrest people like crazy to get this problem under control.

If I were an anti-social element looking for a city to loot, I'd absolutely factor my chances of getting caught into my decisionmaking. As criminals learn that Oakland is serious about rounding up criminals, they will go elsewhere. It's simple self-preservation.

But that's just the start of it. By diverting tax money from liberal social programs to the police -- no matter how inefficiently it is done -- the city is sending out a clear message to the poor: Get Out.

The same goes for regressive parcel taxes which hit hardest those who can least afford them.

This is exactly what Oakland needs to do. Tax the poor and stop spending money to support them. Our city lies at the gateway to San Francisco. We have Bart stations which will whisk a business commuter to Market Street in under 15 minutes. What we need is an environment more conducive to getting those people to live here. That means keeping prices cheaper than San Francisco (we've got that covered, courtesy of the housing crash), and it means making the streets livable.

So, I applaud whatever forces have brought this about, and I hope to see more of the same. May our better-policed city flourish!

Why I Support Dellums' Tax Increase Plan

In his first meaningful action since becoming Oakland Mayor a year and a half ago, Ron Dellums has proposed a parcel tax to pay for new police officers. According to Oakbook, hiring 200 additional officers will cost homeowners $250 per year in parcel taxes.

My initial reaction to the proposal was my standard response to new taxation. I generally oppose new taxes on all levels, so this seemed like another in a long line of taxes I would oppose.

However, a friend encouraged me to think about the issue in more selfish terms. This makes sense to me. After all, the Leftists in control of the city constantly pursue their own ends with complete disregard for the welfare of others. And, while this approach violates the Golden Rule, it does follow the Silver Rule, which is almost as good: "Do unto others as they do unto you."

The first question is how the money will be spent. I think it's safe to assume that between 50 and 90 percent of the money will either be stolen for outside programs (think Measure Y) or go to bureaucracy. So, I'd anticipate a net increase of 20 to 100 police officers for my $250.

While this is probably still not enough to fully staff a police department for a city the size of Oakland, it should produce some direct benefits to me and my family. Violence should decline somewhat, and economic activity might increase as a consequence.

The critical second question is how much the proposal costs. To understand more about this question, I took a look at the Alameda County property tax website.

What I found was pretty interesting. Parcel taxes are well known to be regressive, since owners of small, inexpensive houses pay exactly the same dollar amount as those who own mansions.

I hadn't fully understood, however, the true dimensions of this regressiveness. Houses in Oakland cost anywhere from $100k to millions. The median house is in the $600k range. Without going too much into specifics, my house lies somewhat above the median of this range.

What I realized is that, as a percentage of my house value, this tax would have dramatically less impact for me than for poorer residents. This is great, as it means I am far more likely to recoup the cost of the tax than they are if the new police officers have some impact on property values.

So, from my own economic perspective, it makes sense to support the tax.

Both of the above arguments are critical to my support for the tax. I categorically oppose taxes for schools and the fire department, because I believe they add little incremental value to my property value.

Paying more for schools, in particular, has proven to be utterly worthless. Oakland remains a complete laughingstock, as the delta between Oakland and Piedmont house values demonstrates.
But paying for cops is significantly more promising. And, as a percentage of house value, this tax costs me relatively little. So, I support it. If you're in the same boat as me, I suggest you support it as well.

Deborah Edgerly's Departure Imminent?

Several people have contacted me asking me to comment on the story circulating that Oakland City Administrator is in hot water over her an incident which took place on June 7 involving her relative. Please click the link to read more about the story.

You may have noticed that bloggers in general are taking great care in discussing this story.

This is for a very good reason. East Bay Conservative's endowment fund is insufficient to defend against legal action, and this seems like this the sort of situation where any untoward comments might bring on litigation.

Obviously, given the facts as presented, the story should be deeply concerning to all Oakland residents. Edgerly is the top non-elected official in the city, and her actions can have significant repercussions.

To be very clear, I urge my readers to read the latest information about this case. I also encourage you to express your viewpoints as openly as you feel comfortable. I am going to limit my comments out of fear of retaliation. I live in Oakland, and it's important I ensure no harm comes to me or my family.

It is commonplace to see commentary in today's society labeling Republicans and the Bush administration as "Fascists." What many Leftists don't know, however, is this commentary slices both directions.

The litigious climate, encouraged at all levels by governmental misdeeds, creates danger for all of us. And, just as bad, it stifles the exercise of free speech.

Never forget that nearly every large urban local government in the country is run by liberal Democrats. In each such case, the conservative voices are largely gagged and ignored.

Fear of lawsuits and other retribution has a powerful chilling effect on free speech. And, it is not solely, or even mostly, a tool of the conservatives.

For now, I shall remain an interested observer in the Edgerly matter. But I will withhold any judgment until clearcut information becomes available.

My Thoughts on Improving Oakland

The past couple days I've been considering the question I posed in the previous posting, about what Oakland can do to change the nature of its killing fields.

Incidentally, I'm surprised at the poor response to the question. I have statistics which tell me between 30 and 100 people read each post on my blog. For the most part, those who comment are on my side of the fence on these issues. But I know many of you must disagree with me. I'd like to hear from you!

In any event, I do think the fundamental problem facing Oakland is our leaders' notion that they can somehow "fix" what's wrong with our antisocial populations. Much as with the affordable housing debate, they take the position that these people have "nowhere else to go."

So, the solution is to make Oakland as friendly a spot as possible, offering any number of inducements and encouragements to get people to fly straight. In this regard, Oakland has chosen the "carrot" rather than the "stick."

This is not to suggest that there is no stick involved. I think most liberals would view the inevitable incarceration which awaits our antisocial bretheren as a strong stick, discouraging them from misbehaving. But if we have learned anything in the past 20 years, it is that sticking people in prisons does little. Many have grown to tolerate prison quite well, viewing it as a normal part of life.

I believe Oakland must change both its "carrot" and "stick" approaches to the problem. But first, we must accept that part of the solution is to encourage these people to leave our city. The simple fact that some have nowhere else to go may encourage them to change their ways. If not, perhaps they will go elsewhere, alleviating the depth of Oakland's burden.

On the "carrot" side of things, I have never fully understood why living in the most prosperous land on Earth is not a sufficient carrot for anyone. In many countries, thugs such as those in Oakland would have no food, or perhaps no hands and feet, or they might be dead to a firing squad. They might simply live in a country where there is no opportunity for work or advancement.

We must cut social spending on those who commit crimes. And I would suggest we should cut spending even on those who do not, as those are the people who feed the thugs by buying drugs and offering them shelter.

At the same time, I propose we use the "stick" of indifference and outcasting. We spend altogether too much time worrying about the needs and wants of this narrow set of hoodlums. Instead, we should enact statutes which prohibit even their most basic behaviors -- loitering on street corners, truancy, petty crime, etc. We should make no effort at rehabilitation. Instead, we should simply round them up, isolate them and show them the same indifference they show to society.

In many ways, this mirrors the "broken windows" methodology employed in New York. This strategy is effective because it does not cater to the criminal element. It simply removes those who mean harm and moves on.

Our stick should not be "community policing." It should be nearly the exact opposite.

The goal is to improve our city and to end the killing. Nearly everything we have done to date has only served to exacerbate the problem. I believe this is because, at core, we want to humanize and "help" the offenders.

This must stop. It is time to treat them in the same manner they treat society. It's time to run these people out of town, one way or another.

Dellums: Oakland's Property Taxes Too Low

Every time someone makes the argument we should lay off Mayor Dellums, he gives us yet another reason to keep our tin-foil hats squarely in place. This time, it's his proposal to raise property taxes yet again to hire more police.

Sounds like a great plan, considering how well Measure Y has worked out to date. It's ironic that I ran across this article today, considering just last night I was perusing the "Taxpayer Action Tools" at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association site. In particular, I was reading the section about stopping government from illegally spending money it collects and the section about repealing parcel taxes.

In reality, I read these articles just for fun. Several years ago I stopped seriously expecting the voters in Oakland to block any property tax increases. Oakland is the perfect municipality for tax initiatives, because so few of the voters own their own homes. Bolstered by rent control, renters figure the tax increases are irrelevant to them, so they vote yes. Just another argument for Prop 98.

Incidentally, if you support 98 like I do, you can waste some of the "No" campaign's money. Just go to Google and type in the search term "proposition 98 california" (without the quotes). You'll see an ad for the "No" campaign. Click it. This costs them money.

I realize that politicians float tax increases all the time, but I suspect this one may gather steam, considering the bloodbath taking place in the Oakland's killing fields these days.

The only real defense we have against such a measure is to vigorously oppose it in the early stages. Pop the trial balloon, if you will.

Anyway, Dellums came up with a real gem of a quote when discussing a proposal to raise the number of officers to 1075. Here it is:

At the end of the day, what gets cut are the city services that many Oakland residents rely upon.... We have to look at other alternatives that give our residents an opportunity that is obtainable and sustainable...."

What I love about this quote is that it clearly demonstrates that Dellums doesn't consider policing to be a "city service" that we "rely upon." That's a sentiment that should warm the cockles of your heart.

I wonder if Dellums has ever taken a drive through West Oakland as the sun sets. Maybe if he had, he'd pay more attention to policing.

Oakland's Better Half

I know this probably makes me a blog-poseur, but my favorite city in the east bay is Piedmont. Few urban areas in the country boast the sort of exclave relationship shared by Oakland and Piedmont.

Piedmont is great because it puts the lie to pretty much every Leftist preconceptions that people like to throw around. Combine Piedmont and Montclair, and you have the perfect case-in-point.

Let's look at some of the facts. Piedmont schools boast one of the lowest suspension rates in the area. Oakland claims its is 7 percent, which seems relatively low until you look at some of the individual schools. One Oakland charter school suspended 150% of its students this year (however you do that).

And, I have it on good authority from a couple teacher friends that Oakland purposely keeps its suspension rate low by discouraging school administrators from handing out suspensions. They're willing to "live with" a moderate hum of violence, so long as it doesn't get too bad.

Leftists will give you all kinds of justifications for this disparity. Geography obviously isn't to blame, nor are pollution and all the other ills that go along with a person's physical location.

The next target is usually racism. After all, Piedmont is largely white and Asian. Unfortunately for this argument, if you take a look at the state API reports for Thornhill elementary in Oakland, you'll find that the black kids there do very, very well. Their average test scores aren't much lower than those in Piedmont.

That's odd. How can a black student do well in a society riddled by institutional racism?

But I digress. One look at the latest homicide map will tell you there is a great divide running through our area. It goes down along the 580 freeway, and east along the 24 to the county line.

Everyone knows this line exists, but no one likes to talk about it. When I bring it up, people recoil in shock. When I ask why Oakland has no quality high schools while Piedmont High sends laundry lists of students to top colleges each year, they usually dub me evil and move on.

Another possible explanation for this boundary is a wealth gap. One certainly exists, but a look at census data and Zillow will tell you that poverty extends far further to the north and south than do Oakland's killing fields. Berkeley and San Leandro in particular are far safer cities.

This is the mystery of Oakland, brought to light by the shining success story at its center. Why is Oakland so terrible?

I don't pretend to have the solutions. But I suspect the problem is fundamental and systemic. It is probably not a problem that can be solved by adding a few more police to the force.

In my opinion, the fundamental problem in Oakland is it has been overrun with Leftists who view it as a perfect testbed for their theories. Rather than making the city an uncomfortable place for those antisocial people around us, Leftists view them as a constant.

In so doing, they create for themselves the opportunity (they would say "obligation") to save these people. If I'm right about this, this approach has made Oakland a magnet for such people. As such, literally nothing our government does will help.

And, while I appreciate the kudos being bestowed on our leaders for the recent moves toward a fully staffed police department, I suspect it's just more action in the wrong direction.

I'd be interested in others' thoughts on this. It's a serious discussion, and one which is next-to-impossible to have with Leftists. This type of talk is grounds for immediate ostracism.

In the meantime, I remain glad I live in Oakland's "safe zone." Not in Piedmont, but close enough to know what we're missing.

Oh How I Love Seeing Measure Y 'Raided'

In case you hadn't heard, Oakland's City Council voted to spend $7.7M of Measure Y funds for recruiting and training as many as 75 new police officers this year.

There's a lot of hullabaloo out there about how this is a violation of the public trust because Measure Y funds were supposed to pay for "problem solving officers," not training new officers. Frankly, I have trouble understanding these complaints, and I find them a bit hypocritical.

Now, I'm the last one to say that I expect the City of Oakland to spend its money wisely. I view my $88 annual "violence prevention tax" the same way I view the $80 tax for the world's crummiest library system and the $197 I pay for the world's worst school system. On a bad day, I view these as straight extortion. On a good day, it's the admission fee for watching an entertaining albeit horribly self destructive spectacle.

When Measure Y passed, I expected them to figure out some way to divert 100% of the money to "administrative costs" and social programs. There's a pretty standard way the city does this, and others have reported extensively about these practices.

I don't live in the "kill zone" of Oakland, as one friend calls it. So in some respects, I don't really care whether Measure Y sends money to police officers or to social programs. But I feel pretty certain that the silent majority of non-criminals/non-activists/non-lawyers who do live in the "zone" care very deeply. They want more police.

Larry Reid says he doubts 803 officers is achievable in 2008. Maya Dillard Smith worries that Measure Y money may supplant the general police budget. V Smoothe wants to make sure Measure Y money is repaid if a recruited officer doesn't join the force.

What's with all the complaining? Is adding 30 or 50 officers such a disaster, if we don't reach the magic 803 number this year? And, while I share the concern about government fiscal responsibility, do we really have any illusions that Oakland will somehow not spend every penny it takes in one year?

Personally, the only reason I thought Measure Y wasn't a total disaster was the thought that maybe some of the money might incrementally raise the city's police budget. I know the city is corrupt; I know the police union is corrupt; I know everyone's on the take. But in a city where pretty much any measure (except the one for a new central library--we don't like books apparently) passes with 75% of the vote, you take what you can get. I assume measures will pass. I assume my taxes will always rise. I look for the bright spots where I can find them.

So I say good for you Ron Dellums. Good for you for taking a more conservative position and pushing for more police. And good for you for trying to find the cash to make it happen. I hope this works out, and I hope we get more cops.

And to those who oppose this move, I ask you what you think the money should be spent on instead? Because the choice is not between spending it on this or issuing refunds. I'm not sitting by my mailbox waiting for that $88 to show up. I know better. I'd rather spend the money to maybe get a few cops, however poor the process, than on Nancy Nadel's next wacky "violence prevention" scheme.

Enough of those. Let's get some more cops and bust some heads.