UnderCurrents Of The East Bay And Beyond

A TRADITION TO AMERICAN TORTURE

December 14 , 2007

Nothing seems quite so odd as the contention made by advocates on both sides of the “waterboarding” issue that the use of torture is against American tradition.

Which American tradition, one wonders.

We could review the tradition of torture inherent in the American system of plantation slavery, for example, or the later Deep South lynchings of African-Americans who were forced to confess to various crimes—rape and murder—by the application of lighted torches to various parts of their bodies, or the use of such instruments as the “jack” in American prisons in the 1920s as described, from first-hand observation, in the 1932 book I Am a Fugitive from a Georgia Chain Gang! by journalist and former prisoner Robert E. Burns: “The ‘jack’ is a relic of the ancient Spanish Inquisition—a medieval instrument of human torture. The three convicts sat on bench … [and] placed both hands and feet through holes specially arranged to receive them. … The Warden worked a long lever which locked the convicts’ hands and feet in the holes by means of the boards coming together on their ankles and wrists… The bench on which the convicts were sitting was pulled from under them. This left [them] hanging in midair by their ankles and wrists … Soon their bodies became taut and strained to the point of excruciating torture. There they hung in agony for one solid hour.” [Go to Complete Column]

A "SHHHH" MOMENT

December 7 , 2007

For some months there has been intense, local speculation concerning “what is Dellums doing?” which is a good thing, all things considered. We ought to be attentive of the people we place in public office, keeping their activities under a constant monitor. It’s how the gears and inner workings of democracy are greased.

Those who have been paying the closest attention will have noticed—despite all the constant hallooing about that Mr. Dellums has been doing nothing in response to Oakland’s crime and violence problems (one local blogger has nicknamed him “Mayor McNothing”)—he has in fact, been doing something, the outlines of which are just beginning to become manifest.

Mr. Dellums has been saying that he believes adopting a “community policing” makeover is the major step needed to attack crime and violence in Oakland. It is understandable why this position should attract little excitement in Oakland these days. “Community policing” has been Oakland police policy since City Council approved its adoption in 1996 (Resolution No. 72727, you can look it up), a time when Natalie Bayton, John Russo, Nate Miley, and Dezzie Woods-Jones were still on Council, and Elihu Harris was still mayor. Both Jerry Brown—when he was mayor of Oakland—and Robert Bobb—when he was City Manager—both were described as community policing advocates. Yet during those times, what was officially described as “community policing” went through radical swings in Oakland in purpose and approach, while crime and violence remained virtually consistent. [Go to Complete Column]

REVITALIZING OAKLAND'S UPTOWN-DOWNTOWN AREA ON AN AFFORDABLE BUDGET

November 30, 2007

Last summer, I happened to be walking with an out-of-town couple who had come, early, to a Paramount Theater concert and, with some time to kill, wanted to know if I knew of any good places in the downtown area to get something to eat. I did, actually. Several places. But Jack London Square seemed too far for them to walk and, with little city signage to help them along the way, I thought they might be mistrustful of any directions a strange local might give them that took them off Broadway to Old Oakland or Chinatown. They got a hot dog from one of the vendors who works outside the Paramount events, I think, and an opportunity was lost.

Two weeks ago, I wrote that the Dellums Administration should concentrate its retail development plans away from downtown and into the existing community commercial districts. By that suggestion, however, I did not mean to imply that downtown should be abandoned. The Jerry Brown 10K plan was designed to attract new residents into the downtown area so that retail would follow. I would suggest that while we are waiting for the retail, the Dellums Administration ought to adopt a different strategy: make the existing downtown attractive for both residents and visitors, to the point that there is a sufficient critical mass of shoppers and eaters and foot traffic to get the attention of the retail businesses that are so important to our tax needs.

And the key point is that such a plan will require far fewer city dollars than was used, say, to subsidize Forest City or the Fox renovation. What is needed to revitalize Oakland’s downtown is not so much money, after all, but rather a change of thought process, purpose and direction. [Go To Full Column]

November 23, 2007

Once, it is said, a basketball fan came up to Oakland native and Boston Celtic star Bill Russell and asked him what it was like to guard Wilt Chamberlain. Russell, so the story goes, gave the fan one of his famous quizzical looks, thought about it for a moment, and then asked back, “What’s your frame of reference?”

In many ways, during the recently-concluded debate over police 12 hour shifts in Oakland, I felt the same way. Like a spectator, without any frame of reference to judge the various arguments.

For those who haven’t followed, an arbitrator—they are always identified in the press as “impartial arbitrators” to differentiate them from the other kind, I suppose—ruled last week that the City of Oakland can institute 12 hour shifts. Oakland Police Chief Wayne Tucker wanted to institute the change to the 12 hour shifts, our powerful friends at the Oakland Police Officers Association (OPOA) police union opposed it, and when they couldn’t settle it during negotiations, they sent it to the impartial arbitrator, Charles Askin. [Go To Complete Column]

November 16, 2007

Development battle opponents are often depicted as pro-development on one side, anti-development on the other, but that’s almost always a mischaracterization. Just as it would be virtually impossible for someone to be in favor of all development, regardless of what that development happens to be, you never run into someone who is against any and all development. The questions for both sides always is: what type of development are we talking about? Where will it be located? And, probably most importantly, what portions of the community will it benefit?

When Jerry Brown was mayor of Oakland, bless his heart, he was wonderfully successful in casting all of the battles over his various development proposals as pro-development/anti-development, charging that anyone who stood in opposition to what he had put on the table was interested in a stagnating, moribund Oakland that would eventually sink back into the Lake Merritt tidepool and estuary marshlands from which it had been wrought. And so, rather successfully, Mr. Brown managed to avoid most public scrutiny over what exactly his proposals would do, and who they would do it to.

With the benefit of hindsight, now that the former mayor has left the building, we have begun to get a clearer picture. [Go To Complete Column]

November 9, 2007

Somebody’s going to have to help me out here, because I’m having a little difficulty understanding the current hue and cry in Oakland demanding more police. It’s not that I can’t see why some people might want more police. It’s just that I don’t understand who the people doing the most hueing and crying think is keeping the city from getting more police, and, therefore, I’m not sure exactly who the demand is being made to.

As often happens a history lesson, first, is in order.

Oakland has had three elections in recent years on the increase-the-police issue.

In November of 2002, then-Mayor Jerry Brown sponsored an advisory bond measure (FF) to, among other things, hire 100 more police officers, as well as three companion measures (GG, HH, and II) to pay for it. Oakland voters approved the 100 police increase 52.9 percent to 47.1 percent, but defeated the three tax measures by 12, 13, and 33 percentage points. But because of the confusing way the measures were written and the campaign for them was conducted, it is impossible to say now if Oakland voters fully understood they were defeating the hiring of the police by defeating the companion tax measures, and that they might have approved the entire package if it had been properly explained to them. [Go To Complete Column]

A couple of weeks ago, the Metropolitan Greater Oakland (MGO) Democratic Club held a journalists’ forum on the first 200 days of the administration of Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums.

During the discussion, one of the audience members asked Chronicle East Bay columnist Chip Johnson to give his opinion on whether the local media as a whole was treating Mr. Dellums somewhat more harshly than we had his predecessor, Jerry Brown.

Mr. Johnson, of course, has been the local journalist most consistently critical of Mr. Dellums. Most recently, the Chronicle columnist has taken off after the mayor on the crime and violence issue, most particularly over the number of police needed—or wanted—to curb Oakland’s crime problem. [Go To Complete Column]