Cutting the Seattle Police Budget in Half is Both Reckless and Irresponsible
Seattle has the potential to be one of the great cities of the world, with a stunning physical location, a diverse and creative workforce, home to one of the world's great universities, and the birthplace of important and innovative businesses that have improved the lives of billions across the planet.
But this potential is being seriously threatened today, and the future of Seattle's current and future citizens undermined, by political leadership that is determined to take extraordinarily reckless and uninformed steps based on perceived political expediency.
No better example exists than the intention by a majority of the Seattle City Council to defund Seattle's Police Department by half. Let's consider the actual facts and real numbers.
The beginning of this movement to defund the police began with the tragic and criminal death of George Floyd on May 25th in Minneapolis. The Minneapolis police involved in this murder should feel the full weight of the law.
The Seattle police department has had its own issues, including poor handling of the 1999 WTO protests/riots (where there were no deaths or serious injuries) and the death of Indian woodcutter John Williams in 2010. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice begin an investigation of the Seattle police department's use of force, and in 2012 the city and Department of Justice completed a settlement agreement that called for improved oversight, training and reporting. Under this agreement, major reforms have already been made, including de-escalation and crisis intervention training, implicit bias training, and force review boards. Furthermore, major gains have been made in recruiting underrepresented groups into the Seattle police force.
A reasonable conclusion from the DOJ and other investigations is that although there have been isolated incidents, the Seattle Police Department is one of the best and most forward-leaning in the nation, led by an able police chief, Carmen Best, a long-time member of the force with local roots. So where does this mindless reduction by 50% come from? Is even the current staffing sufficient to ensure safety in a quickly growing city?
Let's consider an analog. There has been several incidents of criminal behavior by a very few nurses, including a recent one in which a nurse murdered a number of patients by injection. As a result, should we defund all nurses by 50%? A few doctors have done the same thing or sexually molested their patients. Should we defund doctors by 50%? During the COVID crisis, a number of medical experts and epidemiologists stated that masks were useless, something we now know is not true and probably led to thousands of deaths. Should we defund such medical personnel by 50%?
The answer to all these questions is clearly no. Those guilty of criminal behavior (George Floyd's killers, murdering nurses, molesting doctors) should feel the full brunt of lawful justice, such as long prison terms (I don't believe in the death penalty). Where mistakes are made or systems are broken, organizations, recruitment, procedures, and training must be improved. You correct and fix without destroying essential services, and public safety and police are essential services.
Considering that the defunding of the police started with the Floyd murder on May 25th, what did our city leaders think about the Seattle police officer staffing before that date?
Well it turns out that our City Council, the mayor and most everyone else was in agreement before May 25th on this subject: that the Seattle Police department was understaffed and actions were needed to INCREASE the sworn officer cohort in our city.
By any reasonable measure, our rapidly growing city needed more officers, particularly with large number of retirements occurring during the past several years. Mayor Durkan not only noted the importance of recruitment of additional police but found funds for this purpose:
And most city council members were vocal about supporting more police before May 25th. Councilmember Strauss stated: we need more police. So said council members Herbold, Gonzalez and Lewis. Councilmember Mosqueta, now a major advocate of defunding Seattle police, supported expansion only a year ago.
So the question you must ask: why did these Seattle leaders change their positions 180 degrees after May 25th? Did the shift make any sense?
You know the answer, of course not. The Seattle City Council is playing politics and taking actions that will hurt every citizen of our city, and especially the most vulnerable. The lack of sufficient police has already had negative effects on the safety of Seattle's citizens. Defunding will only make things worse.
You want proof? No problem. Consider what the lack of sufficient police officers has meant during the past several years.
Let's start with 911 response time to level 2 or urgent calls:
From 2010 to 2019, the response time to such 911 calls doubled from 9 to 18 minutes (see below). Think about what that means. Twice the time to respond to threats of violence. On Capitol Hill, served by the embattled east precinct, the response time has tripled.
And with inadequate numbers of police, far fewer are watching our roads, providing tickets for speeding, dangerous maneuvers, or poorly maintained vehicles.
With a reduction in police monitoring, traffic tickets were down 43% between 2015 and 2019. And fatal or serious accidents have rose substantially during the same period, as illustrated by the collision rate normalized for traffic volume from Seattle's Department of Transportation.
There is clearly not enough police in the University District, where attacks, gun violence, and robberies seem to be daily affairs in the same locations (and sent to University folks via email). And there are many other crime hot spot locations around the city with similar problems. They require more attention, not less.
Beyond response, the presence of police acts a crime deterrent and provides a sense of safety to the population--for ALL members of our community.
If these numbers aren't sufficiently compelling, the protests/riots of the past month show what happens when police withdraw from a portion of the city. Specifically, the Seattle police were forced to abandon a major section of Capitol Hill (known as CHOP or CHAZ). As a result, two young men died, several were injured, and a huge number of crimes (robbery, rape, destruction of property) occurred. When police withdraw from an area, chaos reigns.
The absence of police presence creates a vacuum, and vacuums get filled. Either by those intent on violence and crime or by outside forces, such as the Federal officers that have been sent to Portland. Is this what the Seattle City Council wants?
And such lawlessness has profoundly damaged the national and international reputation of our city. Seattle has received daily attention from around the world as a city in chaos, an example of failed governance, of how not to respond in a time of crisis.
When police are sparse and when 911 calls are delayed, who suffers the most? It is not those in our higher income communities, but rather those in our minority-majority and low-income neighborhoods. The calls to defund the police, if effected, would preferentially hurt the very people that our council members wish to assist and protect.
To illustrate, here are the locations of violent crime in Seattle in 2019 from Seattle SPD crime dashboard. Downtown, Capitol Hill, Northgate, and areas away from the water are the hotspots. Folks living in the darker blue areas will be the most affected by a crippled Seattle police force.
Now, most of the defunding advocates push the meaningless phrase "re-imagining policing. " Meaningless because they rarely provide explicit policies and concrete changes. Meaningless because they don't describe how they will keep Seattle citizens safe. Sort of a progressive version of "Make American Great Again." And you know how well that worked out.
There is certainly room for enhancement in improving policing and security for Seattle's citizens, but this will take MORE resources not less. Maintain the current sworn police force--they are the bulwark of public safety--and take on ADDITIONAL staff to deal with non-violent, non-confrontational issues (e.g. fender benders, homeless folks in trouble). Provide improved training for dealing with confrontations and street protests. FINALLY, deal with the out of control homeless problem, which means getting them all off the streets. Clearly, the status quo in homeless policy is an abject failure. The large numbers of mentally ill and drug addicted homeless people are associated with crime and physical assaults, and it is inhumane and unethical to leave them on the streets in any case. A great city does not allow this.
But this potential is being seriously threatened today, and the future of Seattle's current and future citizens undermined, by political leadership that is determined to take extraordinarily reckless and uninformed steps based on perceived political expediency.
No better example exists than the intention by a majority of the Seattle City Council to defund Seattle's Police Department by half. Let's consider the actual facts and real numbers.
The beginning of this movement to defund the police began with the tragic and criminal death of George Floyd on May 25th in Minneapolis. The Minneapolis police involved in this murder should feel the full weight of the law.
The Seattle police department has had its own issues, including poor handling of the 1999 WTO protests/riots (where there were no deaths or serious injuries) and the death of Indian woodcutter John Williams in 2010. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice begin an investigation of the Seattle police department's use of force, and in 2012 the city and Department of Justice completed a settlement agreement that called for improved oversight, training and reporting. Under this agreement, major reforms have already been made, including de-escalation and crisis intervention training, implicit bias training, and force review boards. Furthermore, major gains have been made in recruiting underrepresented groups into the Seattle police force.
A reasonable conclusion from the DOJ and other investigations is that although there have been isolated incidents, the Seattle Police Department is one of the best and most forward-leaning in the nation, led by an able police chief, Carmen Best, a long-time member of the force with local roots. So where does this mindless reduction by 50% come from? Is even the current staffing sufficient to ensure safety in a quickly growing city?
The answer to all these questions is clearly no. Those guilty of criminal behavior (George Floyd's killers, murdering nurses, molesting doctors) should feel the full brunt of lawful justice, such as long prison terms (I don't believe in the death penalty). Where mistakes are made or systems are broken, organizations, recruitment, procedures, and training must be improved. You correct and fix without destroying essential services, and public safety and police are essential services.
Considering that the defunding of the police started with the Floyd murder on May 25th, what did our city leaders think about the Seattle police officer staffing before that date?
Well it turns out that our City Council, the mayor and most everyone else was in agreement before May 25th on this subject: that the Seattle Police department was understaffed and actions were needed to INCREASE the sworn officer cohort in our city.
Police Chief Carmen Best
By any reasonable measure, our rapidly growing city needed more officers, particularly with large number of retirements occurring during the past several years. Mayor Durkan not only noted the importance of recruitment of additional police but found funds for this purpose:
And most city council members were vocal about supporting more police before May 25th. Councilmember Strauss stated: we need more police. So said council members Herbold, Gonzalez and Lewis. Councilmember Mosqueta, now a major advocate of defunding Seattle police, supported expansion only a year ago.
So the question you must ask: why did these Seattle leaders change their positions 180 degrees after May 25th? Did the shift make any sense?
You know the answer, of course not. The Seattle City Council is playing politics and taking actions that will hurt every citizen of our city, and especially the most vulnerable. The lack of sufficient police has already had negative effects on the safety of Seattle's citizens. Defunding will only make things worse.
You want proof? No problem. Consider what the lack of sufficient police officers has meant during the past several years.
Let's start with 911 response time to level 2 or urgent calls:
From 2010 to 2019, the response time to such 911 calls doubled from 9 to 18 minutes (see below). Think about what that means. Twice the time to respond to threats of violence. On Capitol Hill, served by the embattled east precinct, the response time has tripled.
And with inadequate numbers of police, far fewer are watching our roads, providing tickets for speeding, dangerous maneuvers, or poorly maintained vehicles.
With a reduction in police monitoring, traffic tickets were down 43% between 2015 and 2019. And fatal or serious accidents have rose substantially during the same period, as illustrated by the collision rate normalized for traffic volume from Seattle's Department of Transportation.
There is clearly not enough police in the University District, where attacks, gun violence, and robberies seem to be daily affairs in the same locations (and sent to University folks via email). And there are many other crime hot spot locations around the city with similar problems. They require more attention, not less.
Beyond response, the presence of police acts a crime deterrent and provides a sense of safety to the population--for ALL members of our community.
If these numbers aren't sufficiently compelling, the protests/riots of the past month show what happens when police withdraw from a portion of the city. Specifically, the Seattle police were forced to abandon a major section of Capitol Hill (known as CHOP or CHAZ). As a result, two young men died, several were injured, and a huge number of crimes (robbery, rape, destruction of property) occurred. When police withdraw from an area, chaos reigns.
The absence of police presence creates a vacuum, and vacuums get filled. Either by those intent on violence and crime or by outside forces, such as the Federal officers that have been sent to Portland. Is this what the Seattle City Council wants?
And such lawlessness has profoundly damaged the national and international reputation of our city. Seattle has received daily attention from around the world as a city in chaos, an example of failed governance, of how not to respond in a time of crisis.
When police are sparse and when 911 calls are delayed, who suffers the most? It is not those in our higher income communities, but rather those in our minority-majority and low-income neighborhoods. The calls to defund the police, if effected, would preferentially hurt the very people that our council members wish to assist and protect.
To illustrate, here are the locations of violent crime in Seattle in 2019 from Seattle SPD crime dashboard. Downtown, Capitol Hill, Northgate, and areas away from the water are the hotspots. Folks living in the darker blue areas will be the most affected by a crippled Seattle police force.
Now, most of the defunding advocates push the meaningless phrase "re-imagining policing. " Meaningless because they rarely provide explicit policies and concrete changes. Meaningless because they don't describe how they will keep Seattle citizens safe. Sort of a progressive version of "Make American Great Again." And you know how well that worked out.
There is certainly room for enhancement in improving policing and security for Seattle's citizens, but this will take MORE resources not less. Maintain the current sworn police force--they are the bulwark of public safety--and take on ADDITIONAL staff to deal with non-violent, non-confrontational issues (e.g. fender benders, homeless folks in trouble). Provide improved training for dealing with confrontations and street protests. FINALLY, deal with the out of control homeless problem, which means getting them all off the streets. Clearly, the status quo in homeless policy is an abject failure. The large numbers of mentally ill and drug addicted homeless people are associated with crime and physical assaults, and it is inhumane and unethical to leave them on the streets in any case. A great city does not allow this.
In summary, Seattle council members that are calling for defunding the police are pushing a "solution" that will only make matters worse. What will it take before Seattle voters elect leaders with a coherent, rational, fact-based approach to governance? Because without such leadership, the future of the city is not promising.
Comments
Post a Comment