Brunner's Excellent Evasion

Councilmember Jane Brunner, working with insider developer Phil Tagami, proposes to hire "at-risk" youth in a so-called Oakland Ambassadors program. They would give people arriving and departing at BART stations a greater sense of security in crime-ridden Oakland.

According to Brunner's policy paper, six aides would work at each of the eight BART stations in Oakland, from "dusk to 8 p.m." for a total of 22 hours a week. It is not clear whether they would also be paid for two more hours of training in "job soft skills," which we guess is a bureaucrat's nice phrase for advising participants to tuck in their shirt before a job interview, for example.

At about $11 per hour, the aides' wages would total $600,000. Each team would also have a supervisor. No doubt City Hall would charge additional management and overhead costs to the program.

The aides would "walk with people who exit from BART stations; maintain a visible presence on the streets; give directions when needed; call proper authorities to collect trash and dangerous objects on the street; report threatening or violent behavior to law enforcement personnel; and keep a watchful eye on citizen safety and property." (Brunner's "Report And Recommendation For The Oakland Ambassadors Program," May 22, 2007. All quotations from this document.)

Brunner insists the aides must avoid confrontation. Instead, they would radio the understaffed police department. Brunner's proposal does nothing to increase police resources.

Brunner's policy paper says the aides will be "at-risk youth," giving them a job and educational opportunity. Brunner has lined up Covenant House, Youth UpRising and similar agencies to select and train the aides (ages 18 to 24) – no doubt for a price.

Covenant House works with troubled young people. However, faced with skeptical questions from constituents, Brunner insisted in a May 25 email reply that the youth "will receive a background check to ensure that they have no history of drugs or violent activity. We do not want to undermine the credibility of the program, and we want our Ambassadors to have the skills and personality to be helpful, courteous and even potentially to be able to de-escalate tense situations." Her policy paper does not repeat these assurances.

People up to age 24 who are "at risk" but have no history of drugs or violence – Brunner is either misleading constituents or navigating a very narrow channel. The basic problem here is that Brunner believes in a so-called "two-pronged approach to improving public safety: providing real alternatives to criminal activity to our young people and young adults, and providing traditional law enforcement services." Yes, as a country we must educate children well (it helps if you do not run your school district into bankruptcy) and have real jobs for them. The mistake is to think that nickel-and-dime gimmicks at the level of municipal government can accomplish this huge national social agenda. Brunner is repeating the same ideology contained in the failed Measure Y, the so-called balanced approach that has left us with fewer police and ill-advised grants to out-of-control agencies.

Obviously, an Ambassadors program would not make a significant contribution to restoring public safety in Oakland. On the other hand, does it do any harm?

Brunner's proposal has two notable shortcomings. First, why does a councilmember pour staff hours into the policy development and the consultations necessary to start such a small program? Oakland has only half a police department, comparing per population with most major cities. The City needs to commit to a police force of at least 1,100 officers, versus the 700-some we have today, adopting a solid plan to get them.

Not one councilmember admits to the full scope of Oakland's public safety problem. At most, the city council is content to bring the police force up to a maximum of 802 officers. Oh, not this year, not next year, but maybe five or six years after we began paying Measure Y taxes just to get this inadequate number of police.

While the council evades the citywide crisis in public safety, it gave the first go-ahead to Brunner's plan at a June 5 session.

Brunner's policy paper repeats an infamous line when she says she wants to "address both real crime and perceptions of crime." Hey, if you feel safe (even though you are not) until the day you are robbed, you were spared a great deal of preliminary apprehension. Surely that counts for something.

Second, an Ambassadors program would need financing. Brunner's solution looms as typical City Hall extortion. She will be "conducting preliminary meetings within the eight business districts," whose members pay an assessment on top of regular taxes. Why does she want to talk with the Business Improvement Districts? Because they would pay 50 percent of the costs of an Ambassadors program. "Local businesses must be educated on the program ... and asked to contribute funds in order to accomplish these goals." The councilmember who brought a litter tax to food service stores is after still more money from small merchants.

Youth aides would serve eight BART stations

A city without police to patrol thousands of unsafe blocks

Readers' Comments

I have never dreamed of the need of "tarring and feathering" until George W. Bush stole the White House – or our moving to Oakland, California.

Oakland City Council woman Jane "Chaos" Brunner asks me to be ashamed of being a social worker. I know lots of elderly people in this city, and none of them would be insane enough to, literally and figuratively, hand over the keys of their lives.

My opinion: Force Brunner (and the entire Oakland City Council) out of office forever, and require them to literally follow the repeated mandates of the Oakland taxpayers for an increased police force. Require Brunner to become an Oakland cop and make it mandatory that she spend 90 percent of her income on reparations to those Oakland citizens who have been forced to endure the raping and pillaging from entitled at-risk Oakland youth.

What an amazing difference in the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the Oakland City Council. From the surface, one represents sophistication – the other represents being blind, deaf, dumb and dumber.

Hire more Oakland Police!

---

Who is going to run background checks on the "at-risk youth" helping people find their cars in the parking lot? This is a dumb publicity grab. Staff the police adequately and stop wracking up overtime bills like there is no oversight. Oh wait, there apparently isn't any......

– Mike Spencer