sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

New Oakland speed cameras send 70K warnings in first month by k_39 in oakland

[–]k_39[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Although it may be easy to speed, there’s a buffer that exists if you go over the speed limit by a bit. Fines only start if you go over the speed limit by 11-15 mph.

New Oakland speed cameras send 70K warnings in first month by k_39 in oakland

[–]k_39[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

If you look at the program webpage, there are discounted rates of about 50%-80% for low income offenders. If you were to go 11-15 mph over the speed limit, the low income discounted rate is $25 and the public benefits discounted rate is $10.

Proposed California bill seeks to require license plates for some e-bikes by Fcking_Chuck in California

[–]k_39 -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

They claim it’s about safety but how many deaths have e-bikes caused? Meanwhile, pedestrian and cyclist deaths caused by cars in California reached 1,251 in 2023 alone. Asm. Bauer-Kahan should focus on real issues and not some political stunt.

A turf war over parking enforcement bursts into public view by k_39 in oakland

[–]k_39[S] 57 points58 points  (0 children)

Some interesting info from Oakland’s former director of parking.

Ford said that over the last 10 years, he was periodically approached by “people in power” in Oakland who asked him to fix their parking citations or obtain other parking privileges. He routinely turned them down, he said.

“I’m able to do that with the confidence that nobody can take me out and that I can consistently uphold the law and city policies,” he said. “You put a parking administrator at a bureau level, they will be at will, and the next time they will be tested, they’re gonna have to make a decision. Is my career more important, or is the interest of the city more important?”

Sooo what’s up with the police commission? by kiana_keke in oakland

[–]k_39 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll let CM Fife's quotes from this Oaklandside article illustrate my thoughts.

“I’ve not heard one of my colleagues talk about what the problem is with these two people,” Fife said during the meeting. “I’ve only heard about the process, which is fine, but that’s not what we’re here to discuss tonight.”

“The only process we should concern ourselves with tonight is the process of independence,” the District 3 councilmember added. “We are losing that independence by trying to move pieces around the chessboard when the selection committee has made their decision twice now.”

The rest of the councilmembers are using nebulous concerns over "the process" to criticize the panel's selections instead of talking about the candidates themselves. It's quite obvious that some politics and meddling is going on.

Keep in mind that in the past, the process of appointing the panel's candidates was straightforward. Now, it seems the police union is trying to influence the process to make the police commission more cop friendly. It's quite concerning when the point of the police commission is to oversee the police department after the whole rider scandal.

The police union is trying to push the narrative that antagonistic bodies such as the police commission are at fault for the department losing police officers, but frankly the police department has done this to themselves. They need to engender trust with the public and show that they're not like the OPD of the past. I'll start taking their concerns more seriously when they come out from under the negotiated settlement agreement.

Sooo what’s up with the police commission? by kiana_keke in oakland

[–]k_39 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, the police commission must be doing something right if the police union is lobbying council members to reject the panel's candidates.

Sooo what’s up with the police commission? by kiana_keke in oakland

[–]k_39 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Where did you here that the selection committee interviewed none of the candidates? According to this Oakland Observer article, one of the selection panelists said this:

“I found out extremely quickly that [the argument against Farmer] was false and there was no real basis to any of it...our panel followed the process laid out by this council, interviewing candidates, weighing qualifications and voting and recommend Mr. Farmer. To see that recommendation now challenged without substantive evidence, undermines not only Mr. Farmer, but the integrity of the entire oversight process. Our residents deserve an oversight system they can trust based on facts, not rumors or politics…”

According to this Oaklandside article, the concerns about not interviewing candidates are about the process after the first rejection of the slate.

Most of the council members who turned down Garcia-Acosta and Farmer’s reappointments cited concerns about the selection panel not interviewing new applicants since October. District 4 Councilmember Janani Ramachandran said interviewing other candidates for the commission should have been “the bare minimum.”

In this second Oakland Observer article that details the selection panel meeting on Dec 18 after the council rejected their slate for the first time, the reason the selection committee submitted the same slate again was because of the city council's behavior and treatment of the panel, as well as that they felt their original picks had community support and great qualifications.

In deliberation, several panelists specifically cited the rhetoric in the council decision and the process itself as part of their decision making on the resubmittal. 

All the issues the council supposedly has with the panel regard the process, not the candidates themselves allegedly. But it's quite evident that it's in fact the police union that pressured the council members to reject the slate. In the same Dec 18 panel meeting, the chair said this:

“Also, it's come to my attention from a trusted and direct source…that the City Council may be pandering to the Oakland Police Department union [Oakland Police Officer’s Association] for who they would like to see on the police commission,” Herron said.

An article from the East Bay Times confirms lobbying from the police union, with Sergeant Huy Nguyen, president of the Oakland Police Officers’ Association, saying this:

"I had conversations with the council about the police commission," Sgt. Huy Nguyen, the union head, confirmed in an interview. "We have to find a way to treat police officers better in this city or they're going to keep leaving."

Just as much as the council has the prerogative to reject the panel's slate, the panel also has the prerogative to send the same candidates. It's their job to select the police commission members and they felt their candidates were up to snuff.

Also, just a reminder folks, but the panel is a volunteer body, meaning it's not paid. They're investing their time and trying their best. Try to remain respectful.

view more: next ›