In the fall of 2012, Wall Street Journal’s Julia Angwin reported on license plate-tracking technologies (license plate readers /LPRs), the use of the information gathered, and how long it stays in various databases.  One of the people she interviewed was Mike Katz-Lacabe in San Leandro, California.   “In 2010, Mr. Katz-Lacabe filed a California Public Records Act request for his data from the local police. He received a report containing 112 images of his vehicles dating to 2008.”

Angwin also interviewed San Leandro Police Chief Sandra Spagnoli, who told her the department plans to retain the photos indefinitely.  And in some rare circumstances at least, police have  used their LPRs illegitimately.  In 1998, according to surveyofone.com, a Washington, D.C. police lieutenant plead guilty to extortion after looking up the plates of vehicles near a gay bar and blackmailing the vehicle owners.

Origins of LPRs

But it was not police departments that first used the technology over wide regions.  It was repo guys, the automobile repossession agents who locate and tow cars that are being repossessed for non-payment of car loans.  Repossession agents have used their LPRs to photograph vehicles in cities and areas that still don’t have any public entity LPRs .  Solutions Today Final Notice & Recovery LLC tows an average 15 vehicles most nights covering the Maryland and Washington, D.C. region.

Most repossession agents’ upload their LPR photos to one of the national private databases. Vigilant Solutions has more than 700 million vehicle photos, license plates with location, time, and date in its national private LPR data base.  On its website it explains, “The National Vehicle Location Service (NVLS) is Vigilant’s National LPR Data Repository.  NVLS aggregates ANPR / ALPR data from various sources – law enforcement agencies, private systems for asset recovery and access control, and others.”

In the 1960’s LPRs began being used by police.  To photograph drivers violating red lights, cameras were installed at some intersections.  Using the resulting photos, the police issued tickets to the car’s owner and collected significant fines.  More recently, LPRs have been effective at locating and towing abandoned stolen cars and booting cars with multiple unpaid parking tickets.

Piedmonters have been assured by Police Chief Rikki Goede in public meetings presenting the LPR program that vehicle photos and data will only be retained for one year and that it will only be available to law enforcement agencies.

On June 3 the City Council will consider a contract with 3M Company to purchase 39 Automated License Plate Reader cameras for installation at 15 sites in Piedmont. Citizens have expressed varying opinions about the proposal:

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Councillors:

 

Thank you for so promptly attending to the fundamental issue of placing License Plate Readers at various entrances to Piedmont, which we are very much in support of.

As residents who live very close to the Oakland/Piedmont border, as well as to Scenic avenue (which has seen much crime activity lately) we urge that you consider placing a License Plate reader at the entrance to Piedmont from Blair/Harbord Avenue.

This will act as a major deterrent to criminal elements entering our city through this vital choke point.

Additionally we request that you place a prominent street sign at that point indicating that

” You are now entering Piedmont” so that intruders may be deterred from entering at all.

 

Best Regards

Stavros and Amanda Gougoumis

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear City Council Members:

 

I am sorry to be writing you so late, but I have been travelling a lot and just haven’t had time to sit down and give you my thoughts on this important fiscal and crime issue.

 

I am very concerned that the positive response to License plate readers is a knee jerk response to our crime increases without sufficient study or documentation to determine if they in fact have any positive effect upon crime prevention or arrests. Early on, Chief Goede testified in front of you indicating that in Claremont, CA. they installed readers throughout the city. She gave statistics of 26 and 22 million “hits” over two years (2012 and 2011) with 166 arrests over that period. That is statistically irrelevant. It is 0.000003 arrests per hit. Statistically, there could have been that many arrests with or without the readers in place.  Crime is certainly a concern in town, but we don’t know if we had an unusual number of incidents in a short period or if it is really getting worse.

 

Please don’t make a significant financial mistake and proceed with the readers without more information. Unfortunately, Piedmont has had a record of “ready, fire, aim” which resulted in financial disasters over recent years including undergrounding expenditures and unreimbursed Blair Park costs. Both of those could have been averted with proper oversight, documentation and research.

 

Let’s not let this happen again. I urge you to study this situation more and get better  facts  and  research  before  spending  such  a  significant  amount  of  money.  Just because the City coffers are flush right now is no reason to spend money foolishly. There may be better and more efficient ways to control our crime issues.

 

Very Truly yours, Joseph Hurwich, CPA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Writing in The Piedmont Highlander, Piedmont High School student Kate Bott described the License Plate Readers proposed project as moving Piedmont closer to “the Big Brother scenario George Orwell describes in 1984…” 

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

I’m emailing to voice my support for installing License Plate Reader Cameras at each entrance and exit point of the city. Please make this part of the record.

Regards,

Mary Peek

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Dear City Council,

          Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are not a crime preventative tool. As Chief Goede stated referring to ALPRs: “Its not a crime prevention tool, its more of an investigative tool on the back end.” At the Public Safety Committee meeting Chief Goede stated there have been no studies showing a correlation between the implementation of ALPRs and a reduction in crime.

         While convicting and sentencing criminals is desirable, criminals are unaware of which cities have a high conviction rate. So the high cost of the ALPRs is simply not justified even as a peripheral conviction tool. The primary function of the ALPRs is evidently to find stolen cars, but no assumption can be made that every criminal entering Piedmont is in a stolen car. And we have yet to be provided with the effectiveness of the single existing mobile ALPR that has been in service. Additionally, a person intent on committing a crime is likely unaware they are about to do it in Piedmont so even if criminals were aware of a high Piedmont conviction rate, they are likely unaware they are in Piedmont.

          “Force multiplier” is the use of digital information to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Police. A direct means of implementing Police force multiplication is the use of predictive policing programs such as PredPol. Although in the testing phase, PredPol’s initial results have been positive in assigning probabilities of crime in space and time, implementing situational crime prevention and aiding in the most effective use of Police resources. Before our City spends $678,613 plus about $115,000 annually for a civilian ALPR monitor plus the unknown annual maintenance costs plus the thousands annual in connectivity costs plus the installation costs not covered in the 3M contract, the effectiveness of a predictive policing program should be considered.

Police patrolling is the backbone of good police work that stops crime. Criminals seeing officers patrolling is the most effective deterrent available. Can the efficiency of officer placement be enhanced by the use of predictive software? Regardless, Piedmont Police statistics consistently show a high incidence of burglaries and similar crimes committed during weekday daylight hours. Putting another officer on during these hours and in high crime areas would require about 1.66 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Officers; the cost is about $300,000 but would not require the annual $115,000 non-sworn ALPR hire. Adding an additional officer when needed is less expensive than the ALPRs and directly more effective as a crime deterrent. We still do not have a good handle on the ongoing recurring maintenance costs of the ALPRs.

A guaranteed read rate is not specified in the 3M contract. Other companies that provide the ALPRs have such a specification. I ask Council to query the 3M representatives what the guaranteed read rate is of the cameras they are supplying.

We are all alarmed by the increase in crime and we all want to prevent crimes. We need directly preventative tools, not ALPRs.

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please add my name to support for license plate cameras & more street lighting on border streets.

Patricia Markovich

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Too Much Money, Too Few Facts, Too Soon

Before spending more than $1 million, the City should research the effectiveness of license plate readers.

Is there any reliable evidence that license plate readers reduce crime?  If so, what is it?

What are other less expensive alternatives?  How about a cost/benefit analysis of the proposal and other altematives?

How would this unanticipated expenditure affect already-budgeted items?

The March 18 staff report implies that buying readers has been decided and it is just a matter of how fast it can be implemented:  “The ‘tum key’ approach should be given serious consideration from the standpoint of time and efficiency necessary to complete the project.”  (Page 2 of the staff report.)  Staffs outreach to 3M for bids after the Council meeting is more evidence.

Instead of making a decision for the Council by presenting only one altemative, staff should have offered altematives to the Council for public consideration  The staff report does not precisely define the problem or explain how readers work to reduce crime, and it does not present any altematives.  There is no analysis.  The report gives the Council no real choice.  Nor does it support its recommendation  with any data whatsoever about the effectiveness of the single solution proposed.

It looks and feels as if the decision had been made before the Council even started its consideration in public.

The Public Safety Committee should ask staff for (1) deeper and broader analysis of multiple options to reduce crime and for (2) an analysis of the effect of pulling $!million out of the budget for this unforeseen expense–before the Committee reports back to the City Council.

Linda Roodhouse Loper

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~

On January 21, 2013 two Piedmont families were victims of violent “take-over” home invasion robberies by gun point. BULLETS were fired at them! Home invasions, crime and its impact has escalated over the years in Piedmont and especially along our city border-line with Oakland. Over the years “Proactive Patrolling, Police Presence, Response and Chase” along Piedmont’s 24 entry points and high crime Baja neighborhood’s has diminished to unacceptable levels.

Piedmont police…..willingly………..”broke off chase”……… of the home invasion suspects. At the February 12, 2013 public meeting, Chief Rikki Goede admitted:

Piedmont’s Police Department policy is…..NOT TO CHASE CARS OR SUSPECTS.

The City of Piedmont website states: “Patrol is the Backbone of Policing”

There are over 7500 law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. Many of them proudly agree and say the exact same phrase that “patrolling” is the backbone of policing.

How much time can officers devote to patrolling?

Answer: Responding to assigned calls and conducting general surveillances by “patrolling” are the two most time consuming sorts of patrol activities. In most places assigned calls take considerably less than half of officers work time. Patrolling the beat usually takes a higher proportion of time. (Whitaker Study 1982)

On the average, about 5 hours of an officer’s 8-hour shift are spent at the officer’s discretion, while 3 hours are spent on assigned tasks. (US Dept. of Justice-National Institute of Justice)

How many miles should patrol officers drive-per shift?

Answer: There are 1000’s of rural & metro law enforcement agency’s in the United States.

The “miles driven” answer is derived & recognized in several ways. Most large (spread- out) police departments have no minimum or maximum driving expectations (miles) of their patrol car officers. Their patrol officers will be patrolling 100’s of miles. But, the smaller departments (under 20 officers) tend to have unwritten policies and practices related to minimizing or maximizing mileage patrol goals. There are frugal police department’s that mandate their patrol vehicle’s sit idle for 10 minutes of each hour to save on high fuel costs.

Less patrolling miles result in fewer arrests and less impact to the city’s overall budget. But, reading the law enforcement literature, surveys, and studies, the general accepted rule & practice is a metro patrol officer should be “patrolling” 8 miles for each hour worked. If a patrol officer in Piedmont works 10 hours then his/her odometer should register and record 80 more miles on that vehicle. A large segment of patrol officers across the country, routinely clock in, as many as 100-150+ “patrolling” miles per work shift.

(officer’s.com, realpolice.net, policechiefmagazine.org)

How many miles have Piedmont police cars been patrolling?

Answer: Piedmont replaced several of its patrol police cars in 2010. They had been used for 51 months and the average mileage on each car was 45,000 miles. So Piedmont patrol cars had been driven an average of 29 miles per (24 hour) day. In a 24 hour period this is 1.2 miles per hour of patrol function. Human walking speed is about 3+ miles per hour.

Conclusion:

Police officers and Command Staff are compensated quite well in Piedmont considering the small size of the City. The compensation packages include lucrative Pension and Benefits which are unsurpassed in California. Given the cost, the Department should adhere to the  “recognized” standard that “Patrol is the backbone of policing”. The law enforcement patrolling expectations in Piedmont should match the minimum practices in use across the country. Piedmont’s small footprint of 1.658 sq. miles and nonexistent traffic congestion creates a unique situation of straightforward and uncomplicated Police patrol capability.

City Administrator Grote & Chief Goede need to prepare a new “policy” paper and directive as to “Patrolling Practices, Expectations & Recording” of all Piedmont patrol officers.

This new “Patrolling” directive should include and outline these minimum requirements:

1. Patrol officers will log/record odometer readings at the start & end of each day work shift.

2. PPD (Chief Goede) will collect data and prepare/present monthly accounting log and report of the total miles driven by “all” patrol cars, areas driven, responding to calls, etc…….

3. All collected patrol data information will be posted on the City’s website.

License plate readers are a bureaucratic gimmick to give tax-payers a false sense of security. There is no substitution for proper (pro-active) police patrol on the street.

Piedmont should direct & invest its limited resources on proper police patrol procedures and hiring another patrol officer…..for the street.

Thank You,

Neil Teixeira

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Dear City Councilmembers:

In evaluating whether license plate readers are worth the capital and ongoing investment, and recognizing that such investment takes funds away from other worthy projects in the CIty, I request that you consider whether the license plate readers are effective in preventing or deterring crime, and then, secondarily, whether they help catch criminals after a crime has been committed. Question that need to be answered:

(1) I gather that the LPRs can quickly identify whether a recorded license plate is on a “hotsheet” of stolen vehicles. Aremost crimes committed by criminals driving stolen vehicles? (If no, then the utility o fthe LPRs is less for prevention; if yes, finding the stolen vehicle after a crime is less likely to find the criminal).

(2) If crimes are committed by people driving stolen vehicles, how quickly do our surrounding cities get the license numbers of stolen vehicles into the database checked by the LPRs? We read that Oakland’s limited police force is focused on violent crimes. If so, does it take hours or days for a stolen vehicle’s license plates to get in the database?

(3) If crimes are committed in Piedmont by people driving stolen vehicles, how long before they commit a crime does such a person steal a vehicle? Are they stolen the same day that the thief plansto to commit a burglary or robbery in Piedmont? If so, what is the chance that the vehicle’s license plate number will be in the stolen vehicle database?

(4) If a crime is committed in Piedmont, and no stolen cars show up through the LPRs, what use does the PoliceDeptintend to make of the LPR data? Is there a database of former felon’s license plate numbers to see if a former felon drove through town that day? Would the Police Dept have the man power to follow up such leads? What other use could be made of the data to catch the criminal?

(5) What other City projects need funding that will not receive it if the LPRs are funded?

(6) If the funds for the LPR were devoted to hiring another police officer, how many years salary and benefits would be covered by those funds?

I look forward to your deliberations.

Richard W. Raushenbush

Important Council Meeting June 3, 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 

The City Council will hold the first of two public hearings on the FY 2013-14 Budget at its Monday meeting.  The Council’s Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) has been meeting for weeks,  examining the proposed annual budget, five-year projections, and the City’s overall financial health.  The Committee’s detailed report  with specific recommendations will be presented at the meeting.  

The Budget, along with fee proposals, the levy of the Municipal Services Tax and the Sewer Tax are all part of the Public Hearing. Staff Report.  Budget.

License Plate Readers in Piedmont have made Bay Area news and are supported by a number of Piedmonters.  Increasingly aggressive crimes led Police Chief Rikki Goede to recommend placing cameras at fifteen entrances to Piedmont.  Although controversial to some, the Piedmont Public Safety Committee, CIP Review Committee, and the BAFPC have recommended the City Council approve $678,613 from the CIP fund to cover the cost of the cameras for use in the project.  Staff Report.

Eagle Scout candidate, Cole Becker, has proposed overseeing and fund raising for a footbridge in Dracena Park.  The footbridge will replace a bridge demolished over 50 years ago.   The location connects a path near Park Way to a path used by dog walkers crossing over the path through the redwood canyon.  The Park Commission has recommended approving the footbridge, conditioned upon certain requirements.   Staff Report.

As an outgrowth of BAFPC recommendations, the City Council will discuss an ongoing  plan  to project future needs and to allocate funds for facilities maintenance.

For more information, call the City Clerk’s office at (510) 420-3040.

A 20-page, close-up view of Piedmont’s fiscal health will be presented to the City Council on Monday, June 3, by its Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC).

The five-member committee, made up of Piedmont residents with diverse fiscal expertise, focused its analysis on the City’s financial outlook for the next five years, potential financial risks regarding employee healthcare and retirement costs, the Sewer Fund, and some specific steps the Council can take to save money and reduce risks.

Here are a few of the report’s highlights.

First the good news: “Overall, the City looks to be in improving financial shape,” the report states,  “recovering as expected from the recent recession, and appears able financially to continue to provide exceptional basic public services.  However,” it warns, “there are still risks facing the city in retirement costs as well as sewer replacement and operating costs that need to be addressed.”

City Employee Retirement Costs  

In an effort to reduce “uncontrollable retirement benefit costs,” the Committee recommends: 1) the Council refinance the CalPERS pension side fund and negotiate a lower corresponding cap from City employees; 2) compensate employees in ways that do not contribute to their retirement costs, such as giving bonuses instead of salary increases; 3) continue to bargain for caps and sharing on pension retirement costs with new and current employees; 4) reduce current and retiree healthcare cost coverage to 75% of costs or lower, down from 100%, extend vesting of retiree healthcare benefits to 20 years instead of current 5 years;  and investigate putting more burden on “Tier 1 retirement employees” (current, long-time employees), if possible.

The report notes the importance of controlling these costs in light of the fact that, “The City faces the likelihood of substantial turnover in the next 5-10 years, as 23 employees have over 20 years of service and an additional 28 have over 10 years of service. We estimate that approximately 40 of the City employees are likely to retire over the next 10 years, with a significant portion in the next 5 years.”

Aquatics

The Committee notes that in FY12/13, expenses of the City-owned pool exceeded revenues by $158,000.  Based on the FY13/14 aquatics budget, the Committee projects pool expenses will cost Piedmont taxpayers $200,000 per year in the next 5 years.  The Committee also points out that the School District currently does not pay for pool use, and the private Piedmont Swim Team pays a below-market rate for pool use of about $17,000 per year.  The Committee “recommends that, regardless of the policy with respect to the School District, proper accounting should reflect the capital/operational costs per user which includes the School District usage as a footnote to the budget.”

Sewer Fund

The Committee recommends the City restart phased sewer replacement of the remaining 93,000 feet of Piedmont’s mainline sewer in order to save substantial costs over the currently planned small-scale, emergency repair/replacement strategy. Committee members unanimously recommend obtaining a low-interest State loan to restart the phased rehab and investigate potential funding sources — either through a temporary sewer surcharge measure or borrowing from the City’s General Fund — in order to address the projected temporary shortfall in the Sewer Fund beginning in 2016-17.

The Committee believes that the total cost to the City of a “logically phased rehabilitation program” would be lower than making incremental repairs because of 1) lower cost per lineal foot of larger-scale projects;  2) low interest State loans, currently at 1% interest; 3) lower risk of costs escalating if the rehab is done sooner rather than over decades; and 4) less risk of not meeting EPA regulatory requirements.

Conclusion

The report concludes that the City is in a “relatively strong financial position compared to the recent past.  However, the risks to the city still exist and Council must stay vigilant to find ways to adequately compensate employees in a controllable way and continue to work to improve the stability of the City’s finances.”

BAFPC REPORT

At the May 31, 2013, Piedmont City Council meeting the report from the Budget Advisory and Financial Projections Committee (“BAFPC”), will be considered.   In a letter to the City Council a resident emphasizes parts of the report.

The BAFPC committee has done excellent work as demonstrated in the Report before you.  The financial professionals on the BAFPC did a remarkable job.

I. SEWER FUND

Page 11 references the ongoing transfer of a significant portion of the Sewer Fund to the General Fund: “This transfer has grown in response to regulatory mandates, going from $600k–$700k in years prior to 2006 to $900k for the current fiscal year, about 40% of the sewer revenue. Staff time attributed to the sewer systems is estimated rather than tracked directly.”  Were this $900k not so substantial, the already penciled in November 2014 additional Sewer Tax would be absurd.  Council should implement a time sheet and/or accounting system to replace the current “estimated” system.

Further the Report notes: “Long‐range projections undertaken by this committee and staff found, however, that as debt service is retired, revenues are projected to exceed expenditures beginning in FY23‐24 and the fund balance to turn positive by FY29‐30, even with no additional source of revenue. Thus, the fund balance problem is temporary.” At page 6 the Report notes the large number of Teir I employees retiring in the next 10 years which “should provide a downward trajectory for CalPERS benefit costs.” If Council continues to control compensation packages, the financial picture remains  increasingly positive. Various forces are at play that insure that any decline in the Sewer Fund is temporary and that the General Fund subsidy from the Sewer Fund can likely be reduced. No additional taxes are required of the already heavily taxed Piedmont electorate. Current residents should not have to bear the entire cost of a 100 year system.

The city continues to comply with the EPA directives utilizing $340,000 for sewer projects plus $300,000 additional for emergency repairs. The Report notes emergency repairs costs at $352,000 average annually, well within current revenues. Since the Measure A Sewer Tax failed in Feb. 2012, the total mainline rehabilitation has gone from 60% to 64%.  Regardless of City Hall characterization that only emergency work is being done, the mainline is being replaced/rehabilitated at a rate acceptable to the  EPA. Evidently all work is labeled “emergency” as the most deteriorated parts of the mainline are logically given priority.

II. PENSION SIDE FUND

At p19 the reports states: “If the Side Fund were refinanced, the CalPERS rate would drop for the upcoming year to 28% and thus would be below the sharing cap. As a result, the City would be obligated for Side Fund payments and the employees would not provide any payment towards the CalPERS pension. As a result, without a contract change in the mechanics of the cap, the refinancing of the Side Fund would save the employees substantial money but actually cost the City more money.” Council should undertake the BAFPC Private Placement recommendation to refinance the Pension SideFund and commensurately renegotiate employee Caps downward . Refinancing the fund so only Tier I employees benefit on top of already lucrative packages makes no sense; refinancing the Pension Side Fund requires downward Pension cap negotiation.

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

“The Crowd and the Mob: Opportunities and Cautions for Constant Video Surveillance“

An opinion by Camille Crittenden, Deputy Director of Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS) at U. C. Berkeley appeared on the Berkeley Blog:

“In addition to facilitating the “wisdom of crowds,” technology grows more sophisticated for automated surveillance, including face recognition and gait analysis. In the last decade, many cities have accelerated implementation of surveillance systems, capitalizing on advances in computer technology and funds available from the Department of Homeland Security and other public sources. Yet whether considering fixed cameras or citizen footage, the effectiveness of surveillance for crime prevention is mixed.”

Read the complete opinion.

Editors’ Note: The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association. 

.

On Monday, June 3 the City Council will consider the recent proposal for a  Dracena Park footbridge.

We are on notice of the proposed castle (er,bridge) to be constructed in Dracena Park by Eagle Scout candidate Cole Becker.We are totally in favor of the project.We just wish that Piedmont had more Boy Scouts like Cole. Wonderful project and will bring pride to the neighborhood.

 

Bob & Diane Coleman

~~~~~~~~~~~

I wanted you to know that I am very much in favor of the bridge project that has been proposed by Cole Becker.

It would be a great addition.

 

JohnBassett

~~~~~~~~~~~

I have some questions about the proposed Dracena Park foot bridge that I hope you will address at Wednesday’s hearing. I saw the drawings at the site but did not see any indication of how the bridge will be anchored to the slopes. If cement footings are needed, can you determine the size and design of these, and whether any trees will have to be cut down to build the bridge.  I think a full rendering of the bridge and required structures and potential tree loss is needed for the public to comment on the proposal and for you to make a recommendation.  I’d also like to know about the impact of any footings on drainage.  Significant runoff is experienced throughout the park so I think it is important that we be don’t add to the problem. Finally, will there be illumination of any parts of the bridge?

 

I appreciate Cole’s motivation to improve the park and he deserves credit for the effort he has already undertaken for this ambitious project. From an entirely different perspective, however, I’d like you to weigh the value of not adding a bridge and restoring this end of the park to pristine redwood habitat. When I was on Park Commission, a long-term goal was to remove the large eucalyptus at this end of the park and restore the native redwood forest. The bridge does not prevent that but a legitimate question is whether, if restored, should this area be a pristine redwood stand with minimal hardscape?  Before the bridge and the eucalyptus, there was just the redwoods and I think there is value in restoring that condition to this end of the park.  For example, on Arbor Day last week, it was announced that genetic clones of ancient coastal redwoods were being replanted in California (http://www.ancienttreearchive.org/).  I think an equally valuable restoration project for the park would be to remove the footings of the old bridge and replant these cloned trees. That would require fundraising and physical effort and could be undertaken as a scout project.

 

Garrett Keating

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I recently heard about the proposed project in Dracena Park, and would like to let you know that we strongly support it.  I admit, I do know Cole Becker, but I wouldn‘t write this unless I truly supported the concept.

 

Not only would the bridge look beautiful, it would be a huge help to older folks & young children.  On rainy or damp days, it is tricky walking down the steep path to get to the main dog walking area & a bridge would solve that problem.  My mother had a minor fall on that path & I‘ve seen young kids also take tumbles.

I do hope the many people who are in favor ofthis project let their voices be heard!

Thank you,

 

Ulla Smit

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My name is Roger Ashton and my family and I reside on Dracena Ave. directly across the street from Cole Becker’s proposed bridge project. I am strongly in favor of the City’s approval for this project. There was a bridge that once existed in this same location which gives the project historical value in addition to its function. The bridge will have architectural appeal and come at no cost to the City. Please support this project, Cole Becker and his Boy Scout Troop.

 

Thank you. Roger Ashton

 ~~~~~~~~~~~

I am a Piedmont resident living on Park Way and would like to show my support in favor of Cole Becker’s Eagle Scout bridge project.

My family and I believe that the bridge will be great neighborhood addition and truly beautify the park and the surrounding neighborhood. We’ve been hoping for years that the city or someone would restore the bridge and restore it in a way that fits into the existing environment and has a sense of belonging and we believe this bridge through it’s design and use of natural material has just that.

 

The bridge is a low cost green project that won’t cost the city a large amount of capital and will be fairly easy to maintain. The bridge connects Park Way to Dracena Ave and will be a great access between the two streets, especially for kids that go through the park to get to school and for people who walk the park. Piedmont Park currently has a couple bridges in it so rebuilding a bridge at Dracena Park will also help tie together both parks and make the parks more cohesive while adding to the park experience.

 

Thank You

        

Brian Mahany and family

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am a Piedmont resident living on Dracena Ave. across from the park.  When I first saw the bridge design hanging in the park, I thought it was beautiful, harmonious with the environment, and that it would add a unique element to the park.  After learning that the bridge had historical meaning, it made it seem like an even more perfect fit.

 

As a neighbor and frequent visitor to the park, I have an interest in making sure that nothing negatively impacts it.  I understand that there are some residents who do not want the bridge project to move forward – and I have to say I don’t understand at all why. Change is a part of what makes a great community. Supporting a project like this that adds beauty, convenience, and supports a young man in our community simply makes sense.

 

I hope that the Parks Commission approves this project.

 

Thanks,

 

Franci Kursh

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~

I just saw the drawings and mock up for the new proposed bridge by Cole Becker in Dracena Park.   I really think it looks great and would be an excellent project for his Eagle Scout.  I live on the corner of Carmel and Blair and have been a resident for 15 years and use Dracena daily.  I plan on contributing to the cause.  Please support this great addition to Dracena Park.

 

Thank you,

 

Don Eidam

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

I assume that the City is aware of the signs posted in the park about a proposed Eagle Scout project consisting of a bridge spanning the lower walkway/dog run area. I’ve been meaning to send you a note every time I go there & keep forgetting, but today it caught my eye again.

 

This seems like a totally unnecessary, intrusive idea that would mar the natural beauty of the trees and plants in the area.  Is there an ongoing discussion about this, including community input and City feedback? 

 

Patti Singer

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~

You well may know, the leaves that fall in the park can be very slippery especially if they are wet. I am writing to let you know I am in favor of Cole Becker building a bridge for his Eagle Scout project for many reasons.

 

First and foremost, I believe it will be much safer to walk across a bridge rather than go down the hill to get to the other side, especially if you don’t have time to walk around. This morning I had to grab my dog quickly so I proceeded down the dirt hill and fell and slid the entire way. I consider myself to be in good shape and do not have balance issues. A bridge would have served me well today.

 

Secondly, I am certain that anything the Becker’s design and build will be of superior quality. This is yet another gift that the Beckers are providing to the City. I think we should applaud Cole’s vision and foresight and support this bridge that will serve our residents well.

 

Finally, there was a bridge there before and to recreate it would be in keeping with a historical design. I would be happy to share my opinion at any public forum if need be.

 

Best regards,

 

Pam Fullerton

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Council member Garrett Keating Disputes Piedmontage Article –

Last month’s Piedmontage (Piedmont Post column by Council member Jeff Weiler) compared the solid waste JPA (Joint Powers Authority)  that Piedmont is a
 member of to the social service JPA, JCAP (Associated Community Action Program)  that became insolvent some months 
ago.  That’s like comparing Councilmember Jeff Wieler to Andrew Weiner, the
congressman who disgraced himself on Facebook.  StopWaste is in no way like
 JCAP, especially so in that Piedmont sends council and staff to monthly 
meetings of StopWaste, an oversight function apparently not carried out with
JCAP.  And StopWaste administrative staff did not act unilaterally in
approving the benchmark fee for conducting annual waste audits. As the Piedmont representative to the Board, I and a solid majority approved this
 fee.  The benchmarking fee is a $2/year fee that will be used to analyze
 waste going to the landfill to determine what recyclable materials are being
 disposed of improperly.  After the first year, residents can opt out of the
 fee.  In Piedmont¹s case, recommendations of the Environmental Task Force
 and the Climate Action Plan call for increasing the city¹s landfill 
diversion rate (currently at 69%) and utilizing public outreach efforts to
 do so.  Hard to do that without information on Piedmont¹s waste stream and
though dirty work, someone has to do it.

A fee increase currently before the StopWaste board has to do with the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Program.  Several HHW facilities operate around the county and accept paint, pesticide, batteries and other hazardous chemicals from the public at no charge.   The facilities are supported by a fee on landfill tonnage but as the economy has slowed, revenue to this 
program has declined, and StopWaste has brought several proposals to the
 Board, some calling for a fee increase, others reducing the extent of the
service.  The recommendation of StopWaste staff is to attach $5/year fee to 
the property tax bill of county residents to maintain the current service 
level. Piedmonters interested in this issue should follow City Council over
the next several meetings as this matter is discussed.

Garrett Keating, Piedmont City Council member

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

As Police Departments Shrink, New Software Seems to Aid Crime Prevention

Tight budgets have forced many California cities to reduce the size of Police Departments.  At the same time crime rates are rising. To offset the loss of police officers some cities are turning to Predictive Policing (PredPol), a predictive analytics technology tool developed in California and named one of the “Best Inventions” of 2011 by Time magazine. Using the crime date, time and address data already recorded by police departments the software analyzes it and forecasts the time and location for the same crime in the future.

Small and medium cities using PredPol —  including Alhambra, Campbell, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, Salinas and Santa Cruz—are reporting reduced burglaries. The Santa Cruz police personnel decreased by 20% in 2011 while crime increased by 30%.  After the first year using PredPol printouts of predicted hotspots at the start of each shift, Santa Cruz Police reported a 19% reduction in burglaries and added predictions of bike thefts, battery, assault and prowling in late 2012.

Putting visible police patrols in the locales at times when burglaries are most likely is thought to be the reason burglaries are prevented.  Predictive Policing is applied to the most frequent crimes in each community and is dependent on the specific crime patterns of each city.  The goal is to make the best use of available police officers.  According to Co.Exist Fast Company, “Predictive Policing is charging cities based on population, with costs ranging from $25,000 to $250,000 per year for the largest cities.”

The Alhambra Police Department explains their decision:

“Developed over a period of six years by cops, mathematicians, criminologists and anthropologists, PredPol is a predictive policing program that looks at burglaries and car thefts and other crimes in a similar manner as predicting aftershocks from an earthquake.  Agencies that have deployed the PredPol tool have seen marked reductions in targeted crimes.  PredPol gives medium sized cities like Alhambra access to complex, large analytic capabilities normally only available to big cities or massive corporations.  The inputs are straightforward: previous crime reports, which include the time and location of a crime.  The software is informed by sociological studies of criminal behavior, which include the insight that burglars often ply the same area.”

Los Angeles experimented with Predictive Policing in just one precinct—Foothill—for six months.  At the end of the trial, the Police Department reported that burglaries in the Foothill precinct decreased 36 percent while crime rose across Los Angeles over the same period. 

Read “Don’t Just Map Crime, Predict it”