Tag: jail

Unmasking Mayor London Breed’s Aggressive Defunding of San Francisco’s Sheriff’s Office

In the heart of San Francisco’s ever-shifting political landscape, a storm of controversy is brewing. The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office is facing a stark and troubling reality – a calculated series of budget cuts and policy shifts that paint a disturbing picture of Mayor London Breed’s unwavering campaign to defund law enforcement in the city. In this article, we’ll meticulously dissect the timeline of events that make a compelling and nuanced case for the Mayor’s relentless assault on the city’s law enforcement agencies.

A History of Radical Reform

Mayor London Breed’s political journey began as a member of the Board of Supervisors, and from the very beginning, she made it clear that she was on a mission to overhaul what she perceived as a deeply flawed criminal justice system. Her 2015 statement sent shockwaves through the city, as she passionately declared her intent to “tear down the system of mass incarceration.” This declaration was not a mere political posture; it was deeply personal, rooted in her familial ties to individuals behind bars.

 

San Francisco’s Unique Approach Scrutinized

San Francisco has long prided itself on its progressive approach to criminal justice, prioritizing rehabilitation over incarceration. The city’s history has been punctuated by numerous chances given to offenders, emphasizing diversion programs and alternatives to conventional incarceration. However, this progressive leniency took an unprecedented turn when the city began diverting criminals away from traditional imprisonment. This drastic shift triggered widespread public outrage, driven by the brazen open-air drug dealing and an alarming surge in drug overdose deaths.

Mayor Breed’s Inconsistent Stance

Amid mounting public pressure, Mayor Breed reluctantly increased the presence of law enforcement on the city’s streets. However, her efforts appeared lukewarm at best, and the city continued to prioritize rehabilitation over punitive measures. This approach left San Francisco with a troubling reputation – a city that wields the carrot without ever brandishing the stick. While the jail population did see a marginal increase from its lowest point two months prior, street-level crime continued unabated, further casting doubts on the city’s commitment to public safety.

The Mayor’s Bold 2020 Pro-Defunding Declaration

In 2020, Mayor Breed publicly embraced the nationwide call to defund the police, aligning herself with a movement that sought to reallocate funds away from law enforcement. This audacious proclamation heralded a seismic shift in the city’s approach to public safety and hinted at her intentions to fundamentally reshape the foundations of law enforcement in San Francisco.

Mixed Signals in 2022

However, as the year 2022 dawned, Mayor Breed deftly pivoted her public messaging to appear more pro-public safety, even as her actions told a different story. She imposed a nine-month freeze on deputy sheriff and police hiring, a decision that severely impacted staffing numbers, rendering the city more vulnerable to crime.

Budgetary Maneuvers Speak Volumes

Budget allocations often serve as a clear reflection of a leader’s priorities. In February 2021, as part of the budget process, Mayor Breed orchestrated a staggering redirection of $120 million from law enforcement to investments in the African American community. This financial maneuver underscored her commitment to resource reallocation.

In 2023, Mayor Breed’s office continued to raise eyebrows with significant slowdowns in the hiring process, a subtle but potent form of budget reduction. In April of the same year, she denied a longevity incentive designed to retain deputy sheriffs, despite a glaring shortage in the ranks. In July, she initially proposed a 5% budget cut to the Sheriff’s Office but ultimately executed a 2.5% reduction. And in September, it came to light that funding for crucial law enforcement tools like body cameras, tasers, and ammunition had been mercilessly slashed.

 

The Sheriff’s Office’s Apprehensive Response

In the face of relentless budget cuts and policy shifts, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office finds itself not only stunned but deeply concerned, particularly in the context of soaring crime rates plaguing the city. It appears that Mayor Breed’s actions are inextricably linked to her personal commitment to criminal justice reform, resulting in a reduction in law enforcement officers and an aggressive push for the civilianization of the police.

The Civilianization of Law Enforcement: Aligning with the Extreme Left’s Agenda

One prominent shift that has sent shockwaves through the San Francisco law enforcement landscape is the introduction of street crisis teams composed of Urban Alchemy workers, who now act as first responders in select situations. This marked transition towards civilianization of certain aspects of law enforcement has not only raised eyebrows but also drawn attention to its alignment with the extreme left’s agenda for criminal justice reform.

It is no secret that progressive elements on the political spectrum have long advocated for the civilianization of law enforcement, viewing traditional policing as inherently flawed and overly punitive. San Francisco’s embrace of this approach reflects a broader ideological shift, where the emphasis on community-based solutions and de-escalation tactics takes precedence over traditional law enforcement methods.

However, all one has to do is look around San Francisco to see that this approach is not working. The city’s streets are marred by open-air drug dealing, rampant crime, and a palpable sense of insecurity among its residents. Critics argue that while civilianization may have noble intentions, it has resulted in a system ill-equipped to address the complex and persistent challenges of urban safety.

While proponents argue that civilianizing law enforcement can lead to more empathetic and community-oriented policing, critics express concerns about the potential ramifications on public safety and law enforcement effectiveness. The debate over the civilianization of law enforcement is emblematic of the larger struggle between reformist ideologies and the need for maintaining public safety—a battle that is currently playing out in San Francisco’s streets and city halls.

Conclusion: A Critical Crossroads

The mounting evidence leaves little room for doubt – Mayor London Breed’s relentless assault on the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office is not just a byproduct of her commitment to criminal justice reform; it’s a calculated and multifaceted agenda. As the city grapples with these complex issues, the delicate balance between reform and public safety teeters on a precipice. The choices made in the coming months will undoubtedly have profound and lasting consequences for the city and its residents, defining the future of criminal justice in San Francisco.

Mayor London Breed’s Covert Defunding Tactics: Undermining the Sheriff’s Department

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Mayor London Breed’s strategic defunding of the Sheriff’s Department in San Francisco has ignited concerns among law enforcement officials and citizens alike. Operating under the radar, these silent defunding measures, such as the denial of the longevity incentive proposal on May 15th, 2023, and disproportionate budget cuts, are adversely impacting the department’s staffing levels and compromising public safety. Let’s examine these covert actions and their potential ramifications on the Sheriff’s Department.

Denial of Longevity Incentive Proposal

One glaring example of Mayor Breed’s covert defunding strategy is the denial of the longevity incentive proposal. On May 15th, 2023, Mayor Breed rejected this proposal aimed at retaining experienced deputies eligible for retirement, and she also failed to come to the table with a counter proposal or offer any alternative ideas to address the issue. This lack of engagement and proactive effort from the mayor demonstrates a concerning disregard for the retention of deputy sheriffs and exacerbates the ongoing staffing crisis within the Sheriff’s Department. The loss of 50 to 110 deputies due to early retirement further strains the department, leading to increased workloads, reduced efficiency, and compromised public safety.

Budget Cuts and Disproportionate Allocation

Mayor Breed’s budget decisions further illustrate her covert defunding tactics. While slashing the Sheriff’s Department budget by 3%, the mayor simultaneously increased the budgets of other public safety departments, such as the police by 9% and the fire department by 3%. This disproportionate allocation sends a troubling message about the mayor’s priorities and undermines the Sheriff’s Department’s ability to effectively carry out its duties.

Unused Funds and Overtime Reduction

The mayor’s claim of utilizing unused funds from vacant positions and reducing overtime within the Sheriff’s Office raises questions about the allocation of resources. If these funds were available, they could have been redirected to support initiatives like the longevity incentive proposal, thereby mitigating staffing shortages and reducing the need for overtime. However, the failure to do so implies a disregard for the long-term sustainability of the department and places an unnecessary burden on the existing workforce.

Implications for Public Safety and Financial Efficiency

The consequences of Mayor Breed’s covert defunding tactics extend beyond understaffing. Insufficient staffing levels compromise response times, limit the department’s ability to proactively address emerging challenges, and hinder the delivery of essential services to the community. Moreover, the reliance on overtime to fill vacant positions not only strains the budget but also places an additional burden on the dedicated deputies who shoulder the increased workload.

A Call for Accountability and Transparency

In light of these concerning developments, it is crucial for concerned citizens, deputies, and community stakeholders to hold Mayor London Breed accountable for her silent defunding strategies. The Sheriff’s Department plays a vital role in maintaining public safety, and it deserves the necessary resources and support to fulfill its duties effectively.

Additionally, transparency and open dialogue are imperative in addressing these budgetary concerns. Citizens must demand clear explanations and justifications for the disproportionate budget cuts and the denial of proposals aimed at retaining experienced deputies. By fostering transparency, the community can actively participate in shaping a fair and effective criminal justice system that prioritizes public safety.

Mayor London Breed’s covert defunding tactics targeting the Sheriff’s Department in San Francisco have serious implications for public safety and the well-being of the community. The denial of the longevity incentive proposal on May 15th, 2023, without offering any alternative solutions, and the disproportionate budget cuts jeopardize the department’s staffing levels, hindering its ability to maintain law and order effectively. It is essential for citizens and stakeholders to voice their concerns, demand accountability, and advocate for the allocation of resources that align with the department’s needs. Only through open dialogue and collaborative efforts can we ensure a robust and secure future for the Sheriff’s Department and the community it serves. By holding Mayor Breed accountable for her silent defunding strategies, we can work towards a fair and effective criminal justice system that prioritizes public safety and upholds the principles of justice and equality.

 

Media Contact:

Ken Lomba
President
San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
415-696-2428

The Impact of Operant Conditioning on Criminal Mindsets: San Francisco’s Lenient Approach under Scrutiny

open-air-drug-marketOperant conditioning, a psychological concept that examines how behavior is influenced by consequences, has far-reaching implications in various aspects of our lives. In the realm of criminal justice, the application of operant conditioning principles can have profound effects on the mindset of offenders. This article delves into the concerning issue of San Francisco’s lenient approach to offenders who violate the conditions of their electronic monitoring and the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project. By exploring the inadvertent reinforcement of wrong behavior through operant conditioning, we shed light on the significant impact this leniency has on the criminal mindset and its implications for public safety.

Operant Conditioning and Criminal Mindsets: Operant conditioning, as developed by psychologist B.F. Skinner, posits that behaviors are shaped and maintained by their consequences. In the context of criminal behavior, the principles of operant conditioning can play a pivotal role in reinforcing or discouraging criminal actions. When offenders consistently experience minimal consequences or repeated chances without facing severe repercussions, they inadvertently learn that their wrong behavior can go unpunished. This forms the foundation for the development of a criminal mindset, where individuals perceive that their actions have little accountability or deterrence.

Leniency in San Francisco’s Criminal Justice System: San Francisco’s lenient approach towards offenders who violate electronic monitoring and the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project is a cause for concern. Instead of imposing substantial consequences for violations, offenders are granted multiple chances and minimal penalties. This leniency inadvertently reinforces the wrong behavior, undermining the principles of accountability and deterrence. As a result, offenders develop a distorted perception that their actions carry no significant consequences, contributing to a culture of impunity.

The Reinforcement of Wrong Behavior: The lenient application of operant conditioning in San Francisco’s criminal justice system inadvertently reinforces wrong behavior among offenders. By repeatedly granting chances and minimal penalties, the system fails to establish a strong connection between criminal actions and negative outcomes. Offenders perceive that their actions have little impact on their freedom or future, further entrenching the belief that criminal behavior can go unpunished. This reinforcement of wrong behavior creates a vicious cycle, leading to an increase in criminal activity and posing a threat to public safety.

Implications for Public Safety: The lenient approach driven by operant conditioning principles in San Francisco has significant implications for public safety. When offenders perceive that their actions have minimal consequences, it erodes the deterrent effect that a robust criminal justice system should have. The lack of accountability not only emboldens offenders but also sends a detrimental message to the community, instilling a sense of insecurity and a loss of trust in the justice system. As a result, crime rates escalate, innocent lives are shattered, and neighborhoods suffer the consequences of a flawed approach to rehabilitation.

Moving Towards a Balanced Approach: Recognizing the detrimental impact of operant conditioning on criminal mindsets, it is essential to adopt a more balanced approach in San Francisco’s criminal justice system. Striking a balance between rehabilitation and accountability is crucial. Implementing structured consequences that are proportionate to the severity of offenses can create a stronger deterrent effect. By ensuring that offenders face meaningful repercussions for their actions, we can break the cycle of wrong behavior and foster a greater sense of accountability and responsibility.

The inadvertent reinforcement of wrong behavior through leniency in San Francisco’s criminal justice system, driven by operant conditioning principles, poses a significant challenge to public safety. The development of a criminal mindset, wherein offenders perceive little accountability or deterrence, perpetuates a cycle of wrongdoing. It is imperative for policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and community stakeholders to address this issue. By adopting a more balanced approach that incorporates accountability, proportional consequences, and a commitment

San Francisco’s Soft-on-Crime Disaster: Operant Conditioning Fuels a Breeding Ground for Criminals

San Francisco Soft on Crime

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The abysmal state of San Francisco’s criminal justice system has reached a boiling point, as its leniency towards offenders who violate the conditions of their electronic monitoring and the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project is exposed. This shocking revelation exposes a broken system driven by the misguided principles of operant conditioning, inadvertently nurturing a breeding ground for criminals. Today, we uncover the harrowing consequences of operant conditioning and demand an immediate and radical overhaul of the city’s failing approach.

Operant Conditioning: Electronic Monitoring and Violations

San Francisco’s criminal justice system has become a haven for criminal activity due to its nonsensical handling of inmates on home detention by electronic monitoring. Instead of facing the full weight of their actions, violators are shamefully granted multiple chances and reinstated on electronic monitoring. This revolving door of leniency perpetuates a dangerous cycle of wrong behavior, effectively rewarding offenders for their transgressions. The result? A community plagued by escalating crime rates and a complete erosion of accountability and deterrence.

Operant Conditioning: San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project

The San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project has devolved into an utter farce, fueled by operant conditioning gone awry. Offenders placed on project own recognizance who repeatedly violate the terms are granted chance after chance, creating an environment where criminal behavior thrives. By indulging in this unfathomable leniency, the system inadvertently breeds a culture of impunity, where offenders learn that there are no real consequences for their actions. This betrayal of justice undermines the very fabric of our society and endangers the safety of law-abiding citizens.

The Reinforcement of Criminal Behavior

San Francisco’s woefully lenient criminal justice system, driven by the dangerous principles of operant conditioning, is single-handedly responsible for the surge in criminal activity. By allowing offenders to evade incarceration and doling out feeble consequences for their violations, the system effectively nurtures a generation of criminals. It sends a chilling message that criminal behavior goes unpunished, perpetuating a cycle of lawlessness and emboldening wrongdoers. The consequences are dire: innocent lives shattered, neighborhoods gripped by fear, and a city held hostage by its own failed policies.

The Urgent Need for Drastic Change

The time for half-hearted measures and empty promises is over. San Francisco’s criminal justice system demands a seismic shift towards accountability and decisive action. It is imperative that city officials, law enforcement agencies, and community leaders come together with unwavering determination to enact sweeping reforms. This includes implementing stringent consequences that strike fear into the hearts of criminals, dismantling the perverse incentives created by operant conditioning, and restoring the bedrock principles of justice and public safety.

Rebuilding San Francisco’s Future

The catastrophic consequences of San Francisco’s soft-on-crime disaster demand an immediate response. It is time to cast aside failed ideologies and embrace a bold, new vision for the city’s criminal justice system. By rejecting the flawed principles of operant conditioning and embracing a tough stance on crime, San Francisco can reclaim its reputation as a safe and thriving community. It is a pivotal moment, requiring courage, resilience, and an unwavering commitment to restore law and order.

Media Contact:

Ken Lomba
President
San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
415-696-2428

San Francisco’s Escalating Crime Rates Linked to Misguided Jail Population Control

PRESS RELEASE

 

London BreedThe alarming increase in crime rates throughout San Francisco can be directly attributed to Mayor London Breed’s misguided ideology of manipulating the jail population, resulting in a concerning number of bed vacancies. Recent revelations shed light on the concerning consequences of this flawed approach and the urgent need for change.
 
Despite the prevalence of crime in the city, San Francisco’s jails continue to exhibit a puzzling pattern of bed vacancies. On average, the jail population is being manipulated to maintain an artificially low average of 800 inmates per day, while a staggering 400 beds remain vacant. This raises serious questions about the city’s commitment to holding criminals accountable and ensuring public safety.
 
In light of the escalating crime rates, it is only reasonable to expect that the jails would be at full capacity. However, the deliberate manipulation of the jail population by Mayor London Breed’s administration demonstrates a disregard for the safety and well-being of San Francisco’s residents. The empty beds stand as a stark reminder of the failure to enforce consequences for criminal behavior.
 
San Francisco is facing a crisis that demands decisive action. The prioritization of reducing incarceration has resulted in a system that fails to provide adequate deterrence for criminals. This flawed approach not only undermines public safety but also sends a message that criminal activity will go unpunished.
 
The safety and security of the community should never be compromised in the pursuit of misguided ideologies. Mayor London Breed and city officials must recognize the urgent need for change and reassess their strategies. It is imperative to prioritize the protection of law-abiding citizens, restore accountability in the criminal justice system, and ensure that the jails serve their intended purpose of detaining those who pose a threat to society.
 
San Francisco deserves leadership that upholds the principles of justice, prioritizes public safety, and addresses the concerns of the community. It is time for Mayor London Breed and her administration to take immediate action to rectify the shortcomings in the management of the jail population and restore confidence in the city’s commitment to combating crime.

 
Media Contact:

Ken Lomba
President
San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
415-696-2428

Mayor Breed’s budget worsens the unconstitutional conditions of San Francisco County Jails

PRESS RELEASE

Mayor Breed’s budget – released yesterday –worsens the unconstitutional conditions of San Francisco County Jails at San Bruno and at 7th Street for inmates’; conditions which cause long term chronic illness, and increases the lack of safety for both inmates and deputies. The City is currently being sued for these unconstitutional conditions. Both the San Bruno Jail (County Jail 3) and the 7th Street Jail (County Jail 2) are in violation of Building Code, Title 24, and cannot meet California Regulations. Staffing is already woefully short, forcing the jail to regularly lockdown all prisoners, denying inmates out of cell time, and creating in essence solitary confinement. This is all unconstitutional. Recently the Mayor denied a longevity proposal that would retain needed deputies that are now going to retire but gave longevity incentives to Police and Fire. Yet, Mayor Breed’s budget cuts another 3% off the Sheriff’s budget, while increasing the police budget by 9%. The increase in police hiring is to encourage new arrests. New arrests will increase the inmate population and any increased inmate population will only make the unconstitutional conditions at County Jails worse.

Right now, we have inmates who have been incarcerated for years. At least 60 inmates have been incarcerated for over 4 years. These jails have no outdoor facilities, and so all inmates are housed 24/7 under fluorescent lights. With lockdowns, inmates are forced inside their cell without exercise, without showers, without meaningful human interaction and contact, at times for 24 hours or more. Studies show that forced isolation is one of the worst things that can happen to inmates. Stressed out and mentally ill inmates are a danger to themselves and to deputies.

The lawsuit, Norbert v. CCSF , 3:19-cv-02724 is set for trial on August 8, 2023. San Francisco has no defense for why our jails violate the building code. And the plaintiffs in Norbert claim that denying human beings – long term – outdoor sunlight causes chronic illness, including diabetes. One of the plaintiffs, M. Brackens has developed diabetes while incarcerated in San Francisco County Jail.

The San Francisco Deputy Sheriff’s Association wants to do our job, and do it in a way that treats inmates humanely. The Sheriff’s Department Mission Statement says that the Sheriff is committed to the “constitutional detention” of inmates. The Mayor needs to allocate enough funding so that all inmates receive constitutional conditions of confinement.

We were forced to close 850 Bryant Street because it was so dilapidated that there were regular raw sewage spills in jail cells. That cost the City $2.1 million in a lawsuit.

San Francisco needs to provide jails that meet all building code and constitutional standards. And the Sheriff’s Department cannot do so, if the Mayor keeps cutting the Sheriff’s budget so there’s not enough staffing, and sufficient capital investment in the jails themselves so that the jails meet constitutional standards.

Ken Lomba
President
San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
415-696-2428

High Crime in San Francisco and the Benefits of Owning a Protection Dog

San Francisco, like many other cities, faces the challenge of crime in certain neighborhoods. In such areas, residents often seek ways to enhance their security measures and protect their homes and families. One effective option is owning a protection dog, which can serve as a deterrent to intruders and provide a sense of safety. In this article, we will explore the high crime rate in San Francisco and discuss the benefits of owning a protection dog. Additionally, we will highlight some of the best breeds of dogs that are commonly used as protection dogs.

Protection Dogs

High Crime in San Francisco: San Francisco has faced challenges with crime, particularly property crime, in certain neighborhoods. According to recent data from the San Francisco Police Department, there has been an increase in crimes such as burglary, theft, and auto theft in some areas of the city. These incidents can cause residents to feel vulnerable and anxious about the safety of their homes and families.

Benefits of Owning a Protection Dog: Owning a protection dog can offer several benefits, especially in high-crime areas like San Francisco. Here are some advantages of having a protection dog:

  1. Enhanced Security: A well-trained protection dog can serve as a visible deterrent to potential intruders. The presence of a protection dog can deter criminals from attempting to break into a property, as they are less likely to risk encountering a trained and vigilant dog.
  2. Effective Crime Prevention: Protection dogs are trained to alert their owners to potential threats, such as intruders or suspicious activity. Their keen senses, such as heightened hearing and scent detection, can help prevent crimes from occurring or escalating.
  3. Companionship: In addition to providing security, protection dogs can also be loving and loyal companions. They can offer companionship and emotional support to their owners, which can be particularly comforting in high-crime areas where residents may feel anxious or unsafe.
  4. Peace of Mind: Knowing that you have a trained protection dog can provide peace of mind for homeowners and their families. Protection dogs can provide a sense of security, knowing that they are trained to protect their home and loved ones.

Best Breeds of Dogs for Protection: Not all dog breeds are suitable for protection work, as temperament, size, and behavior traits vary among different breeds. Here are some of the best breeds of dogs commonly used as protection dogs:

  1. German Shepherd: German Shepherds are known for their intelligence, versatility, and loyalty. They are often used as police and military dogs due to their ability to be trained for various tasks, including protection work.
  2. Belgian Malinois: Belgian Malinois are highly energetic and intelligent dogs that excel in protection work. They are known for their speed, agility, and strong work ethic, and are often used in police and military roles.
  3. Doberman Pinscher: Doberman Pinschers are known for their loyalty and protective instincts. They are intelligent and trainable, with a natural ability to guard their home and family.
  4. Rottweiler: Rottweilers are powerful and protective dogs that have a natural instinct to guard their family and territory. They are known for their strength and courage, making them effective protection dogs.
  5. Boxer: Boxers are strong and athletic dogs that can excel in protection work. They are known for their loyalty, intelligence, and protective nature.
  6. Great Dane: While not as common as some of the other breeds on this list, Great Danes can also make excellent protection dogs. Despite their large size, they are known for their gentle and friendly nature, but can also be protective when needed.

Protection DogIt’s important to note that while these breeds are commonly used as protection dogs, not all individual dogs of these breeds may possess the necessary temperament, training, and behavior traits to excel in protection work. Proper training and socialization from a young age are crucial to ensure that a protection dog is well-behaved, obedient, and capable of handling potential threats in a controlled manner.

Conclusion: In high-crime areas like San Francisco, owning a protection dog can provide an added layer of security and peace of mind for homeowners and their families. The presence of a well-trained protection dog can deter intruders, prevent crimes, and offer companionship and emotional support. However, it’s important to carefully consider the responsibilities and requirements of owning a protection dog, including proper training, socialization, and ongoing care.

If you’re interested in owning a protection dog, it’s recommended to work with a reputable breeder or professional dog trainer who specializes in protection dogs. They can help you choose the right breed and individual dog that fits your specific needs and lifestyle, and provide guidance on training and care.

Remember that owning a protection dog is a significant commitment, and it’s important to be prepared for the responsibilities and challenges that come with it. However, for those who are willing to invest the time, effort, and resources into proper training and care, a well-trained protection dog can offer invaluable benefits in enhancing home security and providing peace of mind in high-crime areas.

How to Start a Neighborhood Watch Group Using Nextdoor App

Safety and security are important concerns for any community, and starting a neighborhood watch group can be an effective way to foster a sense of community vigilance and keep your neighborhood safe. With the advancement of technology, there are now online tools that can facilitate the organization and communication of a neighborhood watch group, such as the Nextdoor app. Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to start a neighborhood watch group using the Nextdoor app.

Step 1: Create or Join a Nextdoor Account The first step in starting a neighborhood watch group using the Nextdoor app is to create an account on the Nextdoor platform, if you don’t have one already. Nextdoor is a social networking app that connects neighbors and allows them to communicate about various topics, including community safety. You can sign up using your email address or by linking your account to your Facebook profile. Once your account is set up, you can verify your address to join your neighborhood’s Nextdoor community.

Step 2: Get to Know Your Neighbors Building a neighborhood watch group starts with getting to know your neighbors. Take the time to introduce yourself to your neighbors and build relationships with them. This can be done through the Nextdoor app by sending messages or posting introductions in the neighborhood feed. Building a sense of community and trust among your neighbors is crucial for the success of your neighborhood watch group.

Step 3: Create a Neighborhood Watch Group Once you have established a rapport with your neighbors, you can start creating a neighborhood watch group on the Nextdoor app. You can create a group specifically for your neighborhood within the Nextdoor platform, and invite your neighbors to join. You can name your group something like “Neighborhood Watch” or “Safety Patrol,” and set the privacy settings to invite only or require approval to join for added security.

Step 4: Define the Purpose and Goals of Your Group Clearly define the purpose and goals of your neighborhood watch group on the Nextdoor app. What are the main objectives of your group? Is it to report suspicious activities, share safety tips, or organize neighborhood watch patrols? Clearly outlining the purpose and goals of your group will help members understand its focus and expectations.

Step 5: Establish Communication Protocols Communication is key for the success of any neighborhood watch group, and the Nextdoor app provides various tools to facilitate communication within your group. You can use the group’s chat feature or create specific discussion threads for different topics. Establish communication protocols, such as how and when to report suspicious activities, what information to include in reports, and how to handle emergency situations. Encourage active participation and engagement from all group members.

Step 6: Educate and Empower Group Members Empower your group members with knowledge and resources to be proactive in keeping their neighborhood safe. Share safety tips, crime prevention strategies, and information about local law enforcement agencies. Invite local law enforcement representatives to provide training sessions or participate in discussions on the Nextdoor app. Educate your group members about emergency protocols, including what to do in case of a fire, natural disaster, or other emergencies.

Step 7: Organize Neighborhood Watch Patrols One of the main activities of a neighborhood watch group is organizing patrols to monitor the neighborhood for suspicious activities. With the Nextdoor app, you can easily coordinate neighborhood watch patrols by creating events or discussion threads for members to sign up for patrol shifts. Encourage members to report any suspicious activities they observe during patrols or in their day-to-day activities.

Step 8: Collaborate with Local Law Enforcement Collaboration with local law enforcement is crucial for the success of a neighborhood watch group. Establish a positive relationship with your local law enforcement agencies and keep them informed about your neighborhood watch group’s activities. Invite law enforcement representatives to attend group meetings or participate in discussions on the Nextdoor app. Seek their guidance and support in organizing your neighborhood watch group, and work together to address safety concerns in your community. Remember, neighborhood watch groups are not meant to replace law enforcement, but to work in partnership with them to enhance community safety.

Step 9: Promote Community Engagement In addition to patrolling and reporting suspicious activities, a neighborhood watch group should also focus on promoting community engagement. Encourage members to participate in neighborhood events, socialize with one another, and look out for each other. A strong sense of community can deter crime and create a supportive environment where neighbors watch out for one another’s safety.

Step 10: Regularly Evaluate and Adjust Regularly evaluate and adjust the activities of your neighborhood watch group on the Nextdoor app. Review the effectiveness of your patrols, communication protocols, and engagement strategies. Seek feedback from group members and law enforcement partners to identify areas for improvement. Adjust your group’s activities and strategies accordingly to ensure that you are addressing the changing safety needs of your community.

In conclusion, starting a neighborhood watch group using the Nextdoor app can be a powerful way to promote community safety and security. By creating a group, defining its purpose and goals, establishing communication protocols, organizing patrols, collaborating with law enforcement, and promoting community engagement, you can build a proactive and vigilant neighborhood watch group. Remember, safety is a shared responsibility, and by working together as a community, you can create a safer and more secure neighborhood for everyone. Stay connected, stay vigilant, and keep your neighborhood safe with Nextdoor!

Car break-ins are a major problem in San Francisco

Car break-ins are a major problem in San Francisco, with thousands of incidents reported every year. In fact, San Francisco has one of the highest rates of car break-ins in the country. This can be a frustrating and costly experience for car owners. However, there is a solution that can help reduce the risk of break-ins – security window tinting.  Make it difficult for the thieves.

car break ins

Security window tinting is a type of window film that is designed to make your car’s windows stronger and more difficult to break. It works by adding an extra layer of protection to your car’s windows that makes it much harder for a thief to break in. Here are some of the ways that security window tinting can help reduce break-ins in San Francisco:

  1. Deterrent Effect

Thieves are often looking for easy targets – cars that they can break into quickly and without being noticed. By adding security window tinting to your car, you are making it more difficult and time-consuming for a thief to break in. This can act as a deterrent, making your car less attractive to potential thieves.

  1. Reduced Visibility

Security window tinting also reduces the visibility into your car, making it harder for thieves to see what’s inside. This can help prevent smash-and-grab break-ins where a thief breaks a window and quickly grabs whatever they can see. With security window tinting, they are less likely to see anything valuable inside and may move on to an easier target.

  1. Increased Durability

Security window tinting is made of a strong, multi-layered film that is 4 mil. in thickness and designed to hold your car’s windows together even if they are shattered. This can help prevent a thief from gaining access to your car, and also reduces the risk of injury if the windows are broken during a break-in.

  1. Heat Reduction

In addition to its security benefits, window tinting can also help reduce the amount of heat that enters your car, making it more comfortable to drive and reducing the need for air conditioning. This can be particularly beneficial in San Francisco’s warm climate.

  1. UV Protection

Window tinting can also protect your car’s interior from the damaging effects of the sun’s UV rays, which can cause fading and cracking over time. This can help maintain the value of your car and keep it looking newer for longer.

Installing security window tinting on your car is a relatively quick and easy process that can be done by a professional. Once installed, the tinting requires little to no maintenance and can last for many years. It is also a cost-effective solution for reducing the risk of break-ins in San Francisco.  Here is an example of security window tint and some locations of installers https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/b00016706/

In conclusion, if you want to protect your car from break-ins in San Francisco, security window tinting is a smart investment. It can act as a deterrent, reduce visibility, increase durability, and provide additional benefits such as heat reduction and UV protection. By adding this extra layer of protection to your car’s windows, you can enjoy greater peace of mind and reduce the risk of becoming a victim of car break-ins.

SFDSA Files Lawsuit Against SF Sheriff

At some time prior to July 8, 2022, the City and County of San Francisco Sheriff’s Office decided to create a pilot program in County Jail #3 (“CJ3”) in housing unit 5. The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office had two employees evaluate the functionality of the program and identify any concerns they saw with the changes proposed by the Sheriff’s Office. These deputies found numerous safety concerns that made it difficult to perform the regular safety checks of the inmates in some cases and completely impossible in other cases.

Despite the safety concerns, on July 8, 2022, the changes were implemented.

CJ3 has multiple housing units that are the shape of a circle with inmate cells on the perimeter of the circle. This circle is divided into to sides, the A and B sides. Inmates from A cannot cross over to B and vice versa. On one side of the dividing line is a “Crow’s Nest” or a tower with windows that can look out over portions of both the A and B sides of the housing unit. This Crow’s Nest has previously not been used.

Prior to July 8, 2022, CJ 3 has always had 2 deputies working a general population housing unit. One each on the A and B sides. These deputies worked on the floor with the inmates.

Safety Checks are required to be done every hour. There are state laws, known as Title 15 rules, as well as a San Francisco Sheriff’s Office policy, CODM 4.04, which outline the minimum requirements for these safety checks. The purpose of the checks is to maintain safety and security in the jail for staff, visitors and the inmates. Some of the requirements of these checks include noting the skin color of the inmate, the rise and fall of the chest, movement that indicates life, looking for any signs of illness or distress, inspection of cell doors and windows and a search for any apparent contraband or hazards.

These safety checks were completed by the deputies working on the floor but walking up to each inmate cell door and observing the inmate, the cell and surrounding area. Sometimes, at night, a flashlight would be required to properly check the welfare of the inmates.

On July 8, 2022, this changed. No longer would there be any floor deputies. Now, only one deputy, instead of two, would monitor all the inmates by him/herself, from the Crow’s Nest. In the event of an emergency, the deputy in the Crow’s Nest was not to leave and assist an inmate having a medical emergency, being attacked, or attempting to harm himself, instead, the deputy is now required to call for help. Deputies who are roaming around the rest of the jail would then have to respond and handle the situation, wasting valuable time.

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office was unable to remedy all the safety concerns raised by the two employees who evaluated the new Crow’s Nest plan. The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office administration directed Crow’s Nest deputies to utilize binoculars to assist them in seeing the inmates better. While this may help with viewing some of the inmates when the lights are on, they do little to help at night and cannot solve the problem of the inability to see some of the cells at all, with or without binoculars.

The DSA sent a letter to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office on July 18, 2022 and it was resent to the Director of Employee Relations, on July 22, 2022. This letter demanded that the new Crow’s Nest practice stop until the parties can meet and confer over the impacts and effects of it. Numerous impacts and effects were listed in this notice.

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office responded on July 26, 2022, refusing to maintain the status quo until the parties were able to meet and confer.

Within days of its implementation, a fight broke out in one of the cells in the evening and it was not discovered until the next morning. This is evidence of the lack of safety the DSA was concerned with when it demanded the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office cease and desist its new Crow’s Nest practice.

March 28, 2022 RFI.

On March 28, 2022, the DSA requested information necessary and relevant to ascertain the dates, times, and shifts that the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office fell below the minimum staffing required by the MOU. (Exhibit X) Arbitrator Alexander Cohen previously resolved a grievance filed by DSA when the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office previously violated the Minimum Staffing section of the MOU. Arbitrator Cohen issued his ruling in favor of the DSA in 2017 in favor of the DSA. In his decision, he awarded damages to be paid to those members who worked on shifts that were below the minimum staffing required by the MOU. Because the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office continued to fall below the minimum staffing, the DSA filed a new grievance on March 4, 2022. The RFI filed on March 28, 2022 was to gather necessary and relevant information to calculate the damages incurred by the DSA members as the result of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office’s current grievance for again violating the MOU. (Lomba Decl. ¶ 9)

The March 28, 2022 RFI was acknowledged received by the City Attorney’s office and forwarded to the Employee Relations Division (ERD) to respond. No response from ERD was ever received. (Howell Decl. ¶ 6 and 9; Exhibit 3) On May 2, 2022, the DSA followed up with ERD and the City Attorney’s office and demanded production of the RFI by May 9, 2022, which never came. (Howell Decl. ¶ 10 and 11; Exhibit 5)

On May 13, 2022, the DSA filed a First Amended Unfair Labor Practice Charge in PERB Case No. SF-CE-1794-M to have this matter added to that current litigation. On June 7, 2022, after filing the amendment to the PERB Charge, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office produced documents responsive to the March 28, 2022 RFI. Judge Cloughesy declined to amend the Charge and Complaint in that matter to include this RFI issue but gave leave to refile this matter with PERB.

February 16, 2022 RFI.

On February 16, 2022, the DSA requested information necessary and relevant to ascertain the names, dates, and hours of Overtime Pay DSA members were denied. Information was also requested to ascertain the history, deliberation, changes, analysis and communications regarding Administrative Code section 18.13 involving the maximum permissible overtime. This information is necessary for the DSA to enforce the contract at a grievance proceeding and is unable to establish the damages or the individual DSA members affected, without the response to the RFI.

The February 16, 2022 RFI was acknowledge received by the City Attorney’s Office on February 22, 2022, via email. (EXHIBIT XX – email from KNS to Rapoport and back) Having received no responsive documents, the DSA’s counsel sent an email on August 2, 2022 to demand production. (Exhibit XX – Email KNS to)

 


 Contact:

Ken Lomba
SFDSA President
415-696-2428
San Francisco, CA