Violence is a Losing Attitude
[June 1, 2008]

“Speak Until Justice Wakes”  J. Alfred Smith Sr.

“There is an immensity of violence in Oakland.”

            A teacher walks into a classroom in a major urban city.  The students are approached with an attitude; actually, they are approached with different attitudes.  The teacher’s appraisal of needs will determine the success of his students, and his stereotypes will fail them.

            The attitude in Oakland has been a losing attitude.  Violence is expected, anticipated, and taken for granted as the way of life.  There is a sense of normalcy about violence in Oakland.  There is complacency, resignation, frustration and even futility about ever being able to do anything about violence in Oakland.  We are lost in anarchy of violence.  We are losing ground to violence every day.  We think our efforts are sufficient, skimming the surface as flotsam in a storm sea.  Violence is normal, and being victims is our fault.  There is inertia in losing attitudes.

            We try, we rationalize, we spin wheels, we spend, we commiserate... and ultimately we leave Oakland because of the violence. 

            Why?  Oakland has the best weather in the United States.  Anything grows here; flowers bloom, trees reach for the sky, and vegetable gardens have pleasure in our soils.  Oakland has miles of pleasant waterways, scenic hills, clear skies, and the geography of a jewel.  Oakland has color everywhere; it is a palette for endless expression.  Magnificent energy is all around us, in the artisans and craftspeople who prefer working and living here, in the mixing bowl of cultures, languages, and precious differences, in the farmers' markets, in the stores and restaurants, and in the chase of promises for all who come to Oakland.

            Oakland has no problem attracting new citizens, or in building new places for new people to live.  According to the U.S. Census, 23.5% of Oakland housing units were moved into within the past year [2006].  About 54% of Oakland residents moved into a new home or apartment within the past five years.  We increased the number of housing units from 157,508 to 164,043 from 2000 to 2006.  Yet in that same time period, we lost 22,228 people... from 399,484 to 377,256.  Assuming for argument sake, that 25% of new residents merely transferred from one Oakland home to another within five years, which leaves us to consider that we welcomed about 162,000 new residents from out of town over six years.  That also means we lost about 184,000 people who wanted to "get out" of Oakland.  At that pace, Oakland can expect to attract 27,000 people and lose 30,000 people each year.

            It wouldn't take much of an assumption to skip a comprehensive survey and speculate that most people leave because of the violence, not because they want to leave.  Those most eager to leave are likely to be those with kids growing old enough to experience violence in our schools, and when independence is sufficient to wander farther from home into street violence.  Others who leave are those who experienced first hand a car theft or burglary, and those sorts of property crimes that require constant attention.  Those who experience violent crimes, and hear first-hand of others suffering the effects of violence, are scared and wishful for the ability to depart Oakland.

            Therefore, the situation is relatively simple.  Oakland is a wonderful place to live, and it would be the first choice for so many reasons, except that violence is an overwhelming reality that denies the choice. Oakland is bullied by violence, and bullies exist because they are tolerated.  If Oakland could attract 30% more people and retain 80% of those who move here, we would have over 650,000 people in ten years.  We should be thinking about the 110,000 more housing units that we need.  But first, let's do something about the reality of violence.

            There are those who talk about the "perception" of violence, and therefore we need to work on "feeling" safer.  I don't think so.  We need to acknowledge the reality of violence because the perception is so easily rationalized under the covers of temporary comfort.  There are those who say Oakland is just naturally a violent place, we've always been violent, and it always will be.  That's not true.  In 1960, 13% of all serious Part 1 Crimes reported were violent in nature.  In 2004, 19% were violent.  Today, this year, 28% are violent.  Let's look at cities that are our most immediate neighbors.  San Francisco is at 15%, Richmond is at 18%, Berkeley is at 6%, Concord is at 9%, Hayward is at 12%, Alameda is 10%, Albany is 6%, Emeryville is 10%, San Leandro is 13%, and Piedmont is 6%.  Throw in San Jose at 13% and Fremont at 10% because they generally match some of the recent demographic migration patterns.  In other words, the context of our crimes is more violent. We can't suffer the reality of violence any better by sugar coating its perception. 

            Race and ethnicity as causality coefficients of crime expectation are understandably avoided in the interests of political correctness.  There is no doubt of an increase in Latino gang violence in Oakland, but since San Jose has many more Spanish speaking new immigrants and many more Latino gangs in operation, and this essay can only be brief, let's hold this for another essay.  Asian gangs and violence are also of understandable concern in Oakland, but again, I'll skip that topic for now.  If I am to advocate confronting reality head on, and acknowledge the body of research and commentary, then I should mention the African American experience and criminality in Oakland.  Anecdotally, African Americans have long been proportionally over-victimized and overly responsible for violent crimes in Oakland.  When Mayor Dellums says that young men of color have been "ground up as glass" we have witnessed it.  Specifically, with respect to young African Americans, they are indeed disenfranchised by their teachers, cops, policy makers, symbolically by themselves, and by lingering societal stereotypes.  This is a larger problem that must indeed be addressed.

            However, in Oakland there is no valid excuse to blame a Black urban sub-cultural experience as being the culprit for our Paradigm Escalation of Violent Crime.  Oakland has lost 19% of its overall population between 10 and 34 from 2000 to 2006.  Oakland has become 3% more white and 20% less Black, by population, in that time period.  Further, anyone who knows Oakland can opine that many African Americans have moved from the more violent "flatlands" to the lesser-crime hills.  In other words, everything being equal with respect to expectations that the violence increase is to be experienced because of stereotypical expectations is simply wrong.  Oakland should be expecting, with any statistical calculus, a dramatic reduction in violent crimes if that were true.  This is not to say that Blacks are not still being overly victimized or disproportionately criminal, but rather, if they are, that we have lost an opportunity.  Richmond has roughly the same ratio of whites and African Americans as Oakland, and had the same generally demographic (social and economic) propensities for violent crimes, and yet Richmond's violent crime rate went down -7.5%, to 11.87 per thousand, by the end of 2006 from 2004.  Oakland's went up during the same period almost 50% to 19.05 per thousand (22.02 today).  Yes, violent crimes are still too much an African American experience, and we have lost ground in addressing it, but we cannot look to stereotypical assumptions.

            The point is that too many people are offering tempting opinions as to why violent crimes are up.  Projecting such crimes as being due amorphously to poverty, ethnicity, better/worse reporting, or any other popular, but unsubstantiated, reasoning is why we’re spinning wheels.  Worse, there is a prevalence of acceptance that associates Oakland and Violent Crimes with normalcy, inevitability, helplessness, and other pessimistic and cynical attitudes.  It is no wonder that in such a cauldron of ignorance that the only solutions come in the form of “more money” and “more cops.” 

            Our attitude was wrong, is wrong, and will continue to be wrong unless we grasp reality and deal directly with it.

1.  There is an immensity of violence in Oakland.  We simply must admit to the crisis condition as being intolerable, unnecessary, and to a large extent our fault... and that we won't accept it as normal any longer.  We can do much about it if we confront the violence, make much more efficient our efforts, and coordinate those efficiencies into a City-wide expectation of dramatic improvement.  There have been many noble and notable efforts, albeit fragmented, costly, and competitive.  We need to "get it together."

2.  We must set about to change City government.  I wrote about this in greater detail previously, but as regards violence, our provincial and parochial system is pleased if violence in a particular Council District goes down, even at the expense of it going up in another.  We are officially listed as a Mayor/Council form of government, and neither has true power so we have a weak government.   In the past we have rotated from a strong City Manager to a strong City Council, to the latest efforts at a strong Mayor.  What we need is a "Strong Government" that protects the interests of neighborhoods while enhancing the growth, viability and attractiveness of our entire City.  Fiefdoms come and go, but a bicameral democracy with an executive, who together have expanded (greater) authorities and power, restrained by checks and balances such as veto and impeachment powers, can propel Oakland into ambition and inspiration. 

3.  In the meantime, the Mayor can take the helm and steer the ship.  He is a unique person in a propitious moment.  He has the entire City staff, effectively, as his own.  His most critical appointments may well be the Public Safety Director and the Police Chief.  There should be clear job descriptions that avoid having these people vying for the same pedals.  The Police Chief has responsibility for the peace keeping apparatus that keeps our streets and neighborhoods safe through the deployment of Police resources.  The Public Safety Director has the responsibility for coordinating all the disparate efforts, governmental and private, into a meaningful grid for public safety.

4.  There must be an immediate alert sounded that we have suffered greatly in the grips of violence.  This is not to be a panic, but rather a barn-raising.  There is no greater American attribute than to offer help in need, to work together as never before during dire circumstances, and to accomplish great things at the worst adversity.  Everyone, young and old, every color and background, should join the parade for the revival of Oakland.  We need to take ownership of our City, to show we care, and to see a greater Oakland.  Yes, cops should go to violent crime hot spots, but so should the parade.

5.  The most pressing change we must make immediately is to get our Police Department working.  It is seriously broken.  It is too misled, too costly, too inefficient, too under-motivated, too under-appreciated, too misunderstood, and too misunderstanding.  Thank you Wayne Tucker for all your efforts, but now we must move on and much differently.  We must connect with the neighborhoods with real co-ownership, not just talk circles and change the furniture to raise perceptions.  The Mayor, the City Administrator, the Public Safety Director, an Assistant Chief, NSA Monitors or Judge, and well-meaning activists  should not bark a cacophony of orders to our thin blue line.  We must have a single leader and manager, the Police Chief, who knows the problems and how to make the connections, and has the confidence of those in the bleachers.  If we had 70% of our Officers directly on the streets and in the neighborhoods, instead of less than half that, then we could go to work.  Full “Response” and “Investigations,” not more "headquarters," must be the hallmarks of OPD's commitment to making Oakland safe.  Creativity, motivation, and efficiency can/must be the energy-engine to replace our languishing OPD.  Excuses are the energy-drain of a losing attitude.

6.  When Ignacio De La Fuente said during his campaign that he would work 24/7 he was demonstrating his commitment.  We all need to commit some of our time toward improving Oakland.  We can have a vast volunteer apparatus with the energy to get things done, to build a better Oakland.  The strongest force we have is the family.  Black, White, Brown, Yellow, Rainbow, or any color in the human race, we all know the power of the family.  Oakland can be a family, having a sense of commitment to share the best of what we have, and provide for who have the least.  No one dares mess with our family, and we won't tolerate violence.

7.  We need to translate politics into action.  Our Council Members are in a tough spot.  They spend many days, hours, and brain cells running the hamster wheel at full speed.  Let's quit wasting time telling them what we don't want and what we can't do.  Let's insist that they have an eye on our collective vision, a hand on our pocketbook, and otherwise support their efforts.  They are the trusted members of our family who take care of our present needs while planning for our future.  Choose them carefully.

8.  Let's get to know each other.  Only strangers could let Oakland become so violent. There is no greater spirit than being together.  It’s a wonderful thing to have Rockridge, Laurel, Fruitvale, and people West, East and North, all looking out for those in their own neighborhoods.  However, none will gain at the expense of others in Oakland.  All of Oakland must be rise to greatness as a City for the neighborhoods to thrive.

9.  Let's set our sights much higher.  Let's take some chances.  Let's dare to make, and allow, some mistakes.

ronoz