|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 15, 2021 10:59:39 GMT -8
And to spend the money instead on homeless outreach, safety ambassadors, and rider benefits like station cleaning. metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9962426&GUID=5DF13F12-296A-4D9B-AE92-E0D2625D9EC6Metro riders are being shot, stabbed, wounded, and killed and they recommend no police at all and instead to rely on local law enforcement response, which they state was the model prior to 2009. Where do they even get that? As long as I can remember metro has paid some combination of LAPD, LA County Sheriff, and LBPD for law enforcement services. I don't see how anyone could in good conscience put perceptions of safety and ideology ahead of protecting people. Metro's own survey showed broad support among all races and ethnicities for more security, not less. Only 1% of riders surveyed said that they wanted fewer police. metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9962421&GUID=8ECB2903-D62D-48A8-B766-A8DFE94C8B23
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Nov 18, 2021 17:51:34 GMT -8
And to spend the money instead on homeless outreach, safety ambassadors, and rider benefits like station cleaning. metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9962426&GUID=5DF13F12-296A-4D9B-AE92-E0D2625D9EC6Metro riders are being shot, stabbed, wounded, and killed and they recommend no police at all and instead to rely on local law enforcement response, which they state was the model prior to 2009. Where do they even get that? As long as I can remember metro has paid some combination of LAPD, LA County Sheriff, and LBPD for law enforcement services. I don't see how anyone could in good conscience put perceptions of safety and ideology ahead of protecting people. Metro's own survey showed broad support among all races and ethnicities for more security, not less. Only 1% of riders surveyed said that they wanted fewer police. metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9962421&GUID=8ECB2903-D62D-48A8-B766-A8DFE94C8B23Well you could look at it this way, in the years that the Sheriff’s contract has been in force, for the most part crime has gone up. Including the first murder on Metro which was a stabbing in 2011. If that’s not a failure of responsibility on behalf of the Sheriffs department, then I don’t know what is. Also, my interactions with the LA Sheriffs department have never been good and I can’t imagine how my interactions would go if I were a person of color. This is screaming for a change. One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again expecting a different result. We’re not going to get lower crime with the LA Sheriffs on duty.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 19, 2021 7:35:08 GMT -8
Well you could look at it this way, in the years that the Sheriff’s contract has been in force, for the most part crime has gone up. Including the first murder on Metro which was a stabbing in 2011. If that’s not a failure of responsibility on behalf of the Sheriffs department, then I don’t know what is. Also, my interactions with the LA Sheriffs department have never been good and I can’t imagine how my interactions would go if I were a person of color. This is screaming for a change. One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again expecting a different result. We’re not going to get lower crime with the LA Sheriffs on duty. I agree about the LASD. I don't want to get into specifics, but I'm glad that they were replaced by LAPD for most areas a few years ago. My interactions with LAPD since they took over have been pretty good. This isn't the LAPD of the 20+ years ago. They now look a lot more like the communities that they serve. Regarding past policing not eliminating crime, of course it didn't, but the crime tends to happen when they aren't around. To me that suggests that we need more, not fewer police.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 19, 2021 8:30:00 GMT -8
And to spend the money instead on homeless outreach, safety ambassadors, and rider benefits like station cleaning. metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9962426&GUID=5DF13F12-296A-4D9B-AE92-E0D2625D9EC6Metro riders are being shot, stabbed, wounded, and killed and they recommend no police at all and instead to rely on local law enforcement response, which they state was the model prior to 2009. Where do they even get that? As long as I can remember metro has paid some combination of LAPD, LA County Sheriff, and LBPD for law enforcement services. I don't see how anyone could in good conscience put perceptions of safety and ideology ahead of protecting people. Metro's own survey showed broad support among all races and ethnicities for more security, not less. Only 1% of riders surveyed said that they wanted fewer police. metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9962421&GUID=8ECB2903-D62D-48A8-B766-A8DFE94C8B23From the latest Operations Committee meeting, it seems the board is indicating they won’t fully support the recommendations from PSAC. Both Butts and Hahn basically said they support their mission but don’t agree with everything they are recommending. So I don’t think we’ll see police contracts fully zeroed out.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 19, 2021 19:19:35 GMT -8
Well you could look at it this way, in the years that the Sheriff’s contract has been in force, for the most part crime has gone up. Including the first murder on Metro which was a stabbing in 2011. If that’s not a failure of responsibility on behalf of the Sheriffs department, then I don’t know what is. Also, my interactions with the LA Sheriffs department have never been good and I can’t imagine how my interactions would go if I were a person of color. This is screaming for a change. One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again expecting a different result. We’re not going to get lower crime with the LA Sheriffs on duty. I agree about the LASD. I don't want to get into specifics, but I'm glad that they were replaced by LAPD for most areas a few years ago. My interactions with LAPD since they took over have been pretty good. This isn't the LAPD of the 20+ years ago. They now look a lot more like the communities that they serve. Regarding past policing not eliminating crime, of course it didn't, but the crime tends to happen when they aren't around. To me that suggests that we need more, not fewer police. I always thought we needed undercover cops riding. Not sure if they ever have. I am in agreement that LASD has not been great in patrolling Metro. I guess LAPD is a little better. I have my doubts that the current Metro Board knows what they are doing here and are not just out to get the Sherriff and police. There is too much lawlessness on Metro as is and I have my doubts these transit ambassadors won’t just turn their backs when they see something dangerous since they won’t be armed.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 20, 2021 13:49:16 GMT -8
From the latest Operations Committee meeting, it seems the board is indicating they won’t fully support the recommendations from PSAC. Both Butts and Hahn basically said they support their mission but don’t agree with everything they are recommending. So I don’t think we’ll see police contracts fully zeroed out. I'm watching now and both the board (Bonin in particular) and metro correctly pointed out that if they followed PSAC's recommendation and didn't extend the policing contract that it would leave metro with almost no policing since the things that would be replacing police (transit ambassadors, additional outreach, etc) are not yet in place. And I agree that they won't be eliminating police entirely, but even metro's presentation for reimagined policing (I don't see it on the agenda) showed police as a much smaller component and even proposed potentially eliminating police from metro property and having them just respond. In Bonin's own words and echoed by others, the board is committed to providing riders the "feeling" of safety. Not actual safety, but feeling safe. The majority of transit riders (overwhelmingly non-white) support more police and security, yet the board and metro are preparing to potentially eliminate police from metro property because a much smaller percentage of riders indicate that they will feel safer with less police. They are focused on the "feeling" of safety and not actual safety. It's in direct contrast to how our elected officials are approaching everyone's "feelings" about the pandemic and CDC solutions. Maybe the pandemic has taught us that it doesn't make sense to be quite so concerned about "feelings" when safety is concerned and decisions should instead be based on real safety.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 21, 2021 21:40:19 GMT -8
Another murder on the Green (C) Line at Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station today with the shooter also getting shot by Sheriff deputies. Just a few days after the politicos dedicated the Rosa Parks Willowbrook Station too.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 22, 2021 16:02:33 GMT -8
I'm watching now and both the board (Bonin in particular) and metro correctly pointed out that if they followed PSAC's recommendation and didn't extend the policing contract that it would leave metro with almost no policing since the things that would be replacing police (transit ambassadors, additional outreach, etc) are not yet in place. And I agree that they won't be eliminating police entirely, but even metro's presentation for reimagined policing (I don't see it on the agenda) showed police as a much smaller component and even proposed potentially eliminating police from metro property and having them just respond. In Bonin's own words and echoed by others, the board is committed to providing riders the "feeling" of safety. Not actual safety, but feeling safe. The majority of transit riders (overwhelmingly non-white) support more police and security, yet the board and metro are preparing to potentially eliminate police from metro property because a much smaller percentage of riders indicate that they will feel safer with less police. They are focused on the "feeling" of safety and not actual safety. It's in direct contrast to how our elected officials are approaching everyone's "feelings" about the pandemic and CDC solutions. Maybe the pandemic has taught us that it doesn't make sense to be quite so concerned about "feelings" when safety is concerned and decisions should instead be based on real safety. I still haven't finished watching but I'm blown away by Janice Hahn making an issue of the vaccine requirements and how problematic it is that the LASD sheriff saying that he won't enforce it. It's the exact example that I gave (before seeing her talk) about the difference between the "feeling" of safety and actual safety. If they were truly concerned with rider safety they would base the public safety contract - whatever that looks like - on what they think will keep riders most safe. Instead they are committed in their own words to providing every rider with the "feeling of safety". If they approached the pandemic with the same thought process, they would validate those that are worried about the vaccine by saying that their feelings are just as important and they won't make them get the vaccine. In reality they know that getting the vaccine makes everyone safer. Too bad they can't separate "feelings" when discussing rider safety. Also want to point out that Jaqueline Dupont-Walker mentioned her academic thesis and relevant subject knowledge to encourage the consideration of using untrained people with similar life experiences (previous drug addiction, homelessness, bad interactions with police, incarceration, etc) to be part of public safety. So now the same woman that once advocated letting armed, violent people onto the system (following the police shooting at 7th/metro when a disturbed person pulled a knife on security and attacked police she said that the public might have been better served to let him board the train) wants to send untrained, unarmed people to deal with potentially armed and disturbed people. The fact that no one calls her out on such BS shows how useless the board is. They almost never openly disagree. That's impolite I guess.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 23, 2021 14:08:23 GMT -8
I'm all for more visible presence of LAPD on Metro trains. As long as they focus on public safety like getting mentally disturbed people off the train and deterring harassment and theft.
I was not a huge fan of LASD when they patrol the Metro trains. they were mostly interested in doing fare enforcement - checking people's TAP card harassing kids with skateboards and stupid crap like that. Those kind of "law enforcement" doesn't endear yourself to the community. Getting crazy and dangerous people off the train does.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 28, 2021 8:01:53 GMT -8
I rode the B line to Universal on Christmas Day with family and have just a few comments about the trip and especially security.
There appeared to be a 2-person security team or a 2-person LAPD presence at every station on every platform. I don't recall ever seeing that before. I didn't see any security on either train that I rode. They didn't appear to be enforcing any conduct codes and my guess have been told to only respond to certain crimes of behaviors. I say this because there was a person screaming on the 7th/metro platform that did not appear to be attempting to ride a train and they ignored him and riders mostly avoided that end of the platform. At MacArthur Park a person was also screaming while doors were open and then ran along side the train banging on it as we pulled away. He did not appear to want to ride a train either.
Our train car had a number of people that were on drugs, mentally unstable or maybe both. It was raining off and on, so they may have been unhoused people seeking shelter. Either way it seemed much more than normal. There was a person with items spread all over one end of the car and he appeared to be smoking something at high temperature and was barely functioning or able to sit-up. Immediately in front of us a man talked to himself about being a superhero. His superhero name was "fireman" and kept lighting his mini butane torch lighter while threatening to start a fire.
The trip was surreal and was like being inside a traveling drug camp. I used to say homeless shelter, but that's unfair because homeless shelters have rules and behavior expectations. Maybe this wasn't typical, but despite the increased security I can't see anyone riding public transportation setup in this manner unless they have absolutely no other choice. It's where I was afraid that we were headed, only much worse than I imagined.
Sorry for the rant, but we spend lots of times discussing planning and advocacy and thought that I'd inject a dose of reality. Unless something changes, residents and visitors aren't going to be riding all of the new trains. We do have a societal problem, but metro needs to focus on being a transit agency that provides a good service to riders. They are so far from that right now, that it's hard to see any change with the people that got us here (the board).
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 30, 2021 15:22:13 GMT -8
Mentally ill people living on our streets (and therefore the Metro system) is a much larger problem so it is unfortunate. But I do get the sense that Metro Board just doesn't want to deal with it because there isn't a lot of political upside to be gained by keeping homeless and the mentally ill out of the train and buses. Most LA County voters (which is more white and older than the population at large) don't take public transit so safety of the system is not a burning political issue. Solving it means actively evicting homeless and mentally ill people from train and buses will actually invite scrutiny from political activists that just want to score points so it is no-win situation. Just ignoring it means no scrutiny from busy body activists and the people that use the system are largely disenfranchised anyway so they can't compliant.
|
|