The quickest way of opening the eyes of the people is to find the means of making them descend to particulars, seeing that to look at things only in a general way deceives them.…
–-Niccolo Machiavelli, The Discourses
One morning at about 8:10, a friend of mine named Robert heard a helicopter repeatedly buzzing the San Francisco Tenderloin area, where he lived.
Thinking that a fire or police action might be in the works, he called the non-emergency number of the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD): (415) 553-0123.
Police dispatcher
And he got a recorded message.
This told him–in English–what he already knew: He had reached the San Francisco Police Department.
Then it told him this again in Spanish. Then again in Cantonese. Then came a series of high–pitched squeals–presumably for those who are hard-of-hearing.
Then the line went dead, and another recorded voice told Robert: “If you’d like to make a call, please hang up and try again.”
At that point, Robert decided to waste no more time trying to learn if there was an emergency going on in his area. Or, to put it more accurately, he decided to waste no more time trying to learn this from the SFPD.
Instead, Robert turned on his TV and checked all the local news channels. When he didn’t see anyone reporting a raging fire or police sealing off an area, he decided there probably wasn’t anything to worry about.
But later on he decided to call the SFPD once again–to complain at a level he believed would attain results.
That level was the office of its chief, Greg Suhr.
Robert didn’t expect to reach the chief himself. But he didn’t have to: Reaching Suhr’s secretary should serve the same purpose.
The secretary he reached turned out to be a sworn officer of the agency. She patiently heard out Robert’s complaint. And she totally agreed with it.
She also agreed that this was a longstanding problem with the SFPD–citizens not being able to get through for help because of an ineffective communications system.
Finally, she agreed with Robert that the situation counted as a major PR disaster for her agency. People who become disgusted and/or disillusioned with a police department’s phone system aren’t likely to trust that agency with their cooperation–or their lives.
Then she had a surprise for Robert: Like him, she had at times been unable to reach a live dispatcher–even when calling 9-1-1.
She added that the police department did not handle its own dispatch work. This had been farmed out long ago to the San Francisco Department of Emergency Management (SFDEM).
She said that the SFPD didn’t have any control–or even influence–over SFDEM, which operated as an independent agency.
Robert suggested that it was definitely in the best interests of the SFPD for someone at its highest level to contact SFDEM and demand major reforms. Or to find another agency that would take its dispatcher responsibilities seriously.
The chief’s secretary said she would pass along Robert’s comments to the proper authority.
Will anything change? Not likely, barring a miracle.
There are few events more frightening and frustrating than having to call the police, fire department or paramedics during an emergency–and get a recorded message.
Whether intended or not, the message this sends the caller can only be: “Your call is simply not important to us–and neither are you. We’ll get to you when we feel like it.”
When people call the police or fire department, they’re usually frightened–for themselves or others. They know that, in a fire or crime or medical emergency, literally every second counts.
It’s going to take the police or fire or paramedics several minutes to arrive–assuming they don’t get caught up in a traffic snarl.
And it’s going to take them even longer to arrive if it takes the caller several minutes to reach them with a request for help.
This is the sort of bread-and-butter issue that local authorities–who operate police and fire departments–should take most seriously.
Mayors and council members should not expect to be treated with respect when their constituents are treated so disrespectfully in a time of crisis.
And citizens aren’t stupid. They can easily tell lies from truths.
Lies such as: “We’d like to put in a new communications system, but we can’t afford it due to budget cuts.”
And truths such as: While San Francisco faced a $229 million deficit for the fiscal year, 2012, it nevertheless found
- Monies to tap after the San Francisco Giants won the 2011-12 World Series, 4-0.
- Monies to decorate various San Francisco buildings (such as the airport) with the orange-and-black colors of the Giants.
- Or with the Giants logo.
- Monies to throw a day-long party for the victorious Giants on October 31–Halloween.
San Francisco Airport–decked out with San Francisco Giants colors
So, in the end, it all comes down to a matter of priority–for both citizens and their elected leaders.
As Robert F. Kennedy once said: “Every nation gets the kind of government it deserves–and the kind of law enforcement it insists in.”
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
9-1-1-, ABC NEWS, BEVERAGES, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, FBI, HOMELESS, Kamala Harris, NBC NEWS, PROPOSITION V, SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT, SODA TAX, TAXES, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, THE SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, USA TODAY
PAY MORE TAXES, GET LESS FOR THEM
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on November 1, 2016 at 6:20 amThe budget for the City and County of San Francisco for 2016-17 is $9.6 billion. Its proposed budget for 2017-18 is $9.7 billion.
San Francisco occupies 46.87 miles and has a population of 837,442.
Roughly half of the budget goes toward city-related business operations–such as the Port, the bus line, the Airport and the Public Utilities Commission.
The other half of the budget goes toward such public services as Public Health, Police and Fire Services, Recreation and Parks.
As the November 8 election quickly approaches, the most controversial issue on the city ballot is Proposition V.
Specifically, this calls for a tax of one cent per ounce from the distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages.
Currently, San Francisco does not impose a tax on the distribution of sugar-sweetened beverage.
The initiative defines “a sugar-sweetened beverage” as “a beverage that contains added sugar and 25 or more calories per 12 ounces.
“These include some soft drinks, sports drinks, iced tea, juice drinks and energy drinks. The tax would also apply to syrups and powders that can be made into sugar-sweetened beverages, for example, fountain drinks from beverage-dispensing machines.”
Supporters of the initiative are trying to sell it via the “save our kids” argument. The Vote Yes on V campaign states:
“On November 8th, the health of children in San Francisco relies on us.
“Proposition V will tax distributors of soda and other sugary drinks that have direct links to obesity and chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart and liver disease.”
Left unsaid is how putting more money into city coffers would lead children to show more restraint in buying “sugar-sweetened beverages.”
Perhaps the real reason why many city officials enthusiastically back this measure can be found in a statement by the San Francisco Controller:
“Should this ordinance be approved, in my opinion, it would result in an annual tax revenue increase to the City of approximately $7.5 million in fiscal year (FY) 2017–2018 and $15 million in FY 2018–19. The tax is a general tax and proceeds would be deposited into the General Fund.”
San Francisco Controller’s Office
San Francisco takes in more than $9 billion in taxes every year. But for many San Francisco officials this just isn’t enough.
Yet for many San Francisco residents, it is. In 2014, they defeated a similar soda tax.
Opponents of the tax have attacked it as a “grocery tax.” They argue that grocers–especially those running the mom-and-pop stores popular in San Francisco–will pass on the costs to their customers by raising prices on groceries altogether.
Proposition V supporters claim this is a lie. Rebecca Kaplan, a member of the Oakland Council, told the Huffington Post: “People worry about having to pay for their groceries. To threaten that their groceries are going to be taxed when it’s not true is a totally despicable tactic from the soda industry.”
Actually, there is nothing in the measure to prevent grocers from passing the tax on to consumers.
Meanwhile, what are San Franciscans getting for the $9 billion in taxes City Hall collects?
Call even 9-1-1 and the odds are great that you’ll get the same message. And if you complain to a city official about it, you’ll likely be told: “Well, we have only so many operators.”
The last thing someone calling police or the fire department in a crisis wants to hear is: “We’ll get back to you when we feel like it.”
You’ll find its red-brick blocks filled with stinking, disease-ridden, drug- or alcohol-addicted, often psychotic men and women whom city officials politely call “the homeless.”
In 2016, the city spent $241 million on “homeless” services. But the population surges between 7,000 and 10,000. Of these, 3,000 to 5,000 refuse shelter.
City officials admit that San Francisco ranks second to New York in homelessness. What they won’t admit is that they are largely responsible for it.
The city’s mild climate and social programs that dole out cash payments to virtually anyone with no residency requirement draw rootless, unstable persons like a magnet.
In 2002, the San Francisco Chronicle found that the city’s violent criminals had a better chance of escaping punishment than predators in any other large American city.
The SFPD had the lowest violent crime “clearance rate” among the nation’s 20 largest cities. Among Federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, the SFPD is considered a joke.
From 2004 to 2011, Kamala Harris served as the city’s District Attorney. In total defiance of the law, she set up a secret unit to keep even convicted illegal aliens out of prison.
Kamala Harris
Her program, called Back on Track, trained them for jobs they could not legally hold. This was a flagrant violation of Federal immigration law. It is not the duty of local law enforcement, she said, to enforce Federal immigration laws.
In San Francisco, you don’t necessarily get what you pay for.
Share this: