Finally, someone gets it.
Policing is a business.
It goes something like this.
They decide to heavily patrol poor neighborhoods because that's where the crime is.
It seems to make sense. Only it's a con.
The con is that the city makes a mint by patrolling the poor neighborhood by racking up fees like crazy. Daily traffic stops would never be tolerated in rich neighborhoods.
So, on the one hand, the police and city flood the poor areas with patrols because that's how they generate revenue (tickets and the like).
And...wait for it...on the other hand...they get to claim they need more budget for more officers because crime is high in the poor areas. All this while they do no crime solving. No crime solving results in higher crime and the whole thing becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Solving crime is not nearly as profitable. Police are not really interested in crime reduction, it's bad for business (their business).
I love the way this article says that Oakland is wasting resources "driving around poor neighborhoods."
Oakland paid top dollar for two blue chip police consultants to come in and evaluate policing in Oakland. Both of them said to stop wasting resources driving around poor neighborhood and instead start solving crime.
These reports were ignored because solving crime is not as profitable as harassing poor people with endless tickets and belly-aching to the City Counsel for more staff.
Read the whole article from the East Bay Express.
Here's the money quote from the article:
At the same time, unnecessary stops not only reduce the quality of life for many residents, but also likely make crime worse. After all, when people commit robberies and burglaries in Oakland, they can be fairly certain they can do it with impunity, because OPD is too busy driving around poor neighborhoods.
The bolding is mine.