The Advocate

A recent article from Shaila Dewan at the NY Times lays out some compelling complexities of nuance around policing, reimagining public safety, and the true costs of both. Rather than summarize, I have embedded the poignant points below. For the TL;DR version, the basic finding is that sometimes police can potentially help a little bit, but the costs are far more than the cheaper and greater gains from funding communities instead of more cops, and it's better from a moral and ethical standpoint. "With shootings and homicides surging in many cities, calls to redirect money to policing are rising. But evidence that hiring more officers is the best way to reduce crime is mixed: Beefing up a police force can help, but the effects are modest and far from certain. Those who study the question say any declines in crime have to be weighed against the downsides of adding more police officers, including negative interactions with the public, police violence and further erosion of public

There has been a lot of discussion about public safety in our city. From frenzied posts on social media of package theft caught on camera to gun violence and gun seizures to homeless encampments to substance addiction problems to police brutality, it is clear that we are all grappling with this in some way. Yet, it's unclear what most San Leandrans actually think about this, even as a number of people allege to speak on behalf of the city as a whole. Indeed, there have been unscientific Nextdoor polls as well as incomplete city surveys that have been used for exactly that purpose, despite missing critical information needed from using best practices in social science. I think it's time we correct this deficiency. There is currently a research project from CSU East Bay aiming to do just this. Here's the pertinent information: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdvgKXq5lNgMYqp-i_0W9Xh5V6_YIssB5l0NDTUZS3m6U3kwA/viewform "Data collected from this confidential survey