WEATHER »

City Council Finally Addressing Gang Injunction


Thursday, April 25, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

Mayor Helene Schneider and Councilmember Bendy White announced they will ask that the city’s proposed gang injunction be placed before the City Council at a future meeting. The injunction was first unveiled two years ago and remains caught up in court proceedings. If approved, it would target 30 individuals whom city police contend are the “baddest of the bad” and limit their ability to congregate with each other in public. Although the council has discussed the proposed injunction behind closed doors — all subjects of potential litigation are exempt from the state’s open meeting laws — it has never discussed the matter at a meeting before. No date for the hearing has yet been set, but Schneider suggested it would take place at the next monthly meeting when Police Chief Cam Sanchez is scheduled to give the council an update on departmental matters.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

How much money is this attempted injunction costing the city treasury, what is the benefit (if any but political cover), and what else could have been accomplished instead with all that city attorney and police time expended here?

Follow the money.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2013 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bendy White all the sudden grabbing every photo op he can. This is unethical conduct for someone who sat on the sidelines for the last four years to now thrust himself in our faces, right before his re-election campaign. One-term Bendy, is more than enough.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2013 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why did it take 2 years for the Council to pay any attention to this?

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2013 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is now campaign silly season and Bendy White all the sudden realized he needed a platform to run on. That is why suddenly we will be seeing plenty of him as our do-nothing incumbent suddenly rolling up his sleeves and to look like he actually did something besides voting lockstep with his fellow council employee-union cronies.

My guess is we will be seeing White's face all over the liberal press from now on and you know what, this is going to work against Schneider rather than helping Bendy if she continues to exploit this for her own political cronyism game.

It is obvious this city is in dire need of a code of ethics for council member conduct. Using public office to promote your own re-election campaign is something everyone in the city, including the mayor, needs to stay well away from.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2013 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just for the record, it was City Councilman Frank Hotchkiss who has long been asking for a gang injunction and took most of the early heat for its mere suggestion.

Was Hotchkiss invited to attend this mayor's office press op?

Turning Bendy White into a tough on crime advocate with nary a prior murmur of support for this injunction is a betrayal of everything an ethical city council member should be standing for.

Thank you Frank Hotchkiss for your bold forward thinking, common sense and blunt talk. And actually getting things done, besides just posing to the press you are getting things done.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2013 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JL's correct in asking Why 2 Years? Either analyze it and choose to invoke the junction, or analyze it and choose not. I haven't decided yet and need to learn more.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2013 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A gang injunction is money well spent.

Validated (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2013 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How much money, and spent on what?

No at the city is disclosing those facts nor remotely thinking of the costs versus benefits.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2013 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The city refers to them as "the baddest of the bad". Doesn't the city realize that such talk is actually considered a compliment in gang culture?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2013 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In addition, when you demonize someone and they already feel they have no other identity, isn't that just encouraging more bad decision making?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2013 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If Frank Hotchkiss really cares about this issue he'll run for mayor; otherwise he's just grandstanding.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2013 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

foo must be Frank's campaign manager.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2013 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think he knows the difference between the Foo Fighters, WWE, and Uma Thurman.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2013 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Get the baddest of the bad off the streets. No matter what you call them, nor how much they take pride in the appellation.

Goal: get them off the street. Done. They can get a new nickname in prison.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2013 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We look forward to this open discussion, at last, at city council so everyone can learn that their favorite local zoning violations are not getting resolved or enforced against because the city attorneys are chasing their tail down the fiscal black hole of their attempted gang injunction here.

Too many illegal garage conversions in your neighborhood?
Too many commercial cars stored on your streets?
Too many junk strewn properties?
Or negligent slumlords?
Too many commercial lodging houses under the guise of residential homes?
Too many barking dogs?

These and more are not getting fixed because the city has spent more than a million dollars on an injunction that would target only about 10 people who are not already in prison.

Give the Mayor and Council member Bendy a way to save face so they can reverse their bad decision they feel they cannot get out of.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2013 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Allowing the police to categorize whom to allow to congregate in public places is a failure of democracy. If the "baddest of the bad" are "bad" then bust them for criminal activity and get a conviction and allow due process to impose whatever restrictions society needs. Short cutting the system is a sign of weakness and mean the bad guys are winning. This is the same as the failure to honor the Boston bombing suspects repeated invocation of his Constitutional rights. Sounds more like the Iranian ideal of society than the American ideal.

RHS (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2013 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Unmitigated blight in this city and a highly inefficient or a non-existent zoning violations enforcement process is exactly where city council needs to focus their attentions, because this affects the quality of life of all residents.

Has nothing to do with the day to day administration of the police department however, other than the broken window theory of crime enhancement makes their jobs a lot harder.

Thank you for raising this important community concern - what are our community standards and what do we contract to uphold together as residents.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2013 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"In addition, when you demonize someone and they already feel they have no other identity, isn't that just encouraging more bad decision making?"

and statements like....

"Allowing the police to categorize whom to allow to congregate in public places is a failure of democracy."

...come from a pie in the sky train of thought that "if we did this or that" instead of addressing it from a law enforcement plan of attack (to avoid attacks) we would give these ruthless idiots a better path is just foolish.

Whether you're rich, poor or in the middle life come down to personal choices. If one chooses a gang they should be identified by it and be targeted for it.

I only support the rights of victims and a civilized society.

Validated (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2013 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I suppprt the rights of all humanity. And I should've figured someone would either be disingenuous enough or dim enough to take my comments out of context. The SB "Taxpayer's" Association is a criminal gang, why no injunction against them?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2013 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I support rights, duties and obligations of all members of society.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2013 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While I have my own reservations about the exemption to Miranda for National Security and Public Safety, there is;
no proof that this murderous ass repeatedly asked for his attorney;
no way to use the information gained pre Miranda in his court trial.
RHS must be trolling the wacked out internet blogs to formulate his opinions. And yea, as this morons half witted mother stated, it was probably just a "play" intended to demonize her precious murderous sons. Tell that to the people that lost their limbs and/or their loved ones in this "play".
The gang injunction is no different than RICO.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2013 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Italiansurg, how dare you impugn a mother.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2013 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The DA and City Attorney are asking a judge to declare a large part of Santa Barbara a nuisance area. I own a home in that proposed "nuisance zone" and I want out.
The injunction is about my rights as a property owner. Why is there no option for me to decline the government's offer of protection? (The DA makes a big deal about how former gang members can opt out, but I cannot!)
The biggest cost of the injunction will be loss of property value for people like me whose homes are in the proposed nuisance area.
When I sell my house, I must disclose that it is on a street that lives in constant fear of attack by the "baddest of the bad." Nonsense. But is the buyer more likely to rely on my realtor's assurances that there is no gang problem, or on a colorful map endorsed by the District Attorney?
And what about business owners? Does a restaurant on State St. have a duty to warn customers who just stepped off the cruise ship that they are in a gang nuisance area? What number should we put on the cost of that new liability for businesses?
I have no doubt that injunctions are a great tool in LA and Oakland, but Santa Barbara is a very different kind of place.

Review (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2013 at 12:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Gang nuisance area"? We are becoming a military state.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2013 at 12:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Illegal Alien Nuisance Area" The entire state of California...

But seriously, I'm with you again KV.

Review makes some great points instead of the usual Left illiterate whining about the Constitution. In Oakland at least the areas subject to the injunction had zero normal citizens. The only families in those areas were multi generational welfare and crime syndicates related by blood. Yea you went a little too far with your slippery slope argument but the foundation is food for thought.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2013 at 6:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you already live in the gang injunction area you already have a property value loss because it reeks with violence, blight, helplessness and fear. A gang injunction will increase your property value; not decrease it.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2013 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

we're getting plenty of Right illiterate whining, too, vide foo...
Yeah, Review makes some pretty good points... gawd, KV, have you just figured out "We are becoming a military state" ? Naw, you already knew that...how 'bout since about the time Ike warned us about the military-industrial complex (1961)?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2013 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There are far more unholy alliances than just the military-industrial complex, which was one of the biggest under the radar mover and shaker getting us this country into the Iraq War. Too bad few did follow Ike's advice because he, of all people as a truly distinguished war hero, knew what he was talking about. He saw what was coming and he was ignored.

But we also have the medical-industrial complex draining us dry with little to show for its ever-increasing share of our GDP. And the latest educational-industrial complex which will be the next big bubble to burst in our faces, even though we can see it coming.

What do you think allows so many to ignore the obvious in all of these situations? We can see the problems created by these unholy alliances, yet the train wrecks happen anyway.

Both parties have their pet complexes to exploit for their own political benefit: Reps for the military industrial; Dems for the educational industrial, and all of us for the medical-industrial delusions.

All massive money suckers, yet we keep voting for legislators in every single office from local, to city, to county to state to national who keep doing this to us. We the voters are never the ones to gain, yet we are the ones later stuck with the costs and the fallout.

So how about this as a non-partisan slow pitch, handed to the distinguished group of commentators here. What gives?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2013 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

it's a democracy, foo, and so long as "the people" vote such folks into office -- look as Das against whom you just railed on another thread -- we'll get this. Don't agree with your union-hating, Democrat-hating comments vs. the "educational industrial" complex (your term). You just don't want to pay your parcel taxes on the next Prop 30-type tax coming.
Ike was also an actual FDR Democrat under the skin, glad to know you like him so much.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2013 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The discussion will go better if you tell us your thoughts DD, instead of you telling others what they think. Do you want to try again?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2013 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yea DD, how come you never admit that FDR abhorred public unions? I don't think they are celebrating FDR any where near the Balkans or in and around Poland or the Czech Republic...
And Ike was nothing like FDR. History seems to have correctly judged Ike more favorably than the first opinions and FDR more objectively as both good and bad.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2013 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

FDR's famous 1937 letter about the role of public unions endorsed the idea of these unions but his vehement opinion was that they should never be allowed to strike. See http://www.federaltimes.com/article/2...
I don't agree with you about Ike, he did not dismantle the FDR "New Deal" programs like Social Security and so on which Robt. Taft would have done if he'd gotten the Republican nomination in 1952...Taft = the real Republican, Ike = Kansas boy son of the Depression he could have as easily been a Democratic President.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2013 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The FDR Library has collected his writings and speeches on the subject of collective bargaining and provided interpretation here:

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/abou...

I took the time to read those documents and found them fascinating:

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/abou...

In the above link, it is plainly clear that:

1. FDR supported the existance of public unions.

2. FDR supported their ability to bargain collectively.

However, FDR did not support their ability to strike or bargain for wages. FDR said that wages for Federal employees were set by Congress, was therefore law, and not subject to bargaining.

It's dissappointing how misinformation like this can so easily be spread and made to sound like fact. Scott Walker's gubernatorial campaign in Wisconsin stimulated lots of that propaganda.

Interestingly, the FDR Library says Roosevelt never made any comments about collective bargaining rights for state or municipal workers, even when he was Governor of NY.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2013 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, stallion, eat some lasagne on this one, you were totally incorrect in your statement "FDR abhorred public unions"...check out some websites offered to you so you can learn some US history.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2013 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is 2013, and our government employee unions have created an unsustainable drain on present public resources.

This is heading towards another Prop 13 backlash. Won't matter what FDR did or did not say. What matters is what we do now. We have a spending problem; not a revenue problem. No other way to cut it.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2013 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

just more of your ultra-libertarian gibberish, foo, & I was responding to the stallion's FDR riposte... the drain on government is NOT mostly from the defined benefit gov't retirees, though there are issues there. No, we DO have a revenue problem...and some of it comes of untold trillions offshored in banks in British Virgin Islands etc.
You always say the same stuff, nuff.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2013 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The drain on the government are pointless, unnecessary wars; corporate bailouts; cleaning up after corporations; and babysitting teabaggers who think giving billionaires more money will solve the debt problem.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2013 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just because the majority of the rest of us have unwittingly allowed the financial services industry to leech off our 401(k)'s doesn't mean government workers deserve the same fate.

The likes of JP Morgan and Prudential would love to get their hands on the billions of dollars of public pension portfolios out there.

Pay attention to the parts where the reps from JPM & Prudential are asked about fiduciaries and index funds ... they are lying straight into the camera:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontli...

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2013 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just another dishonest attempt to privatize Social Security.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2013 at 1:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Injuntion-junction; what's my function? Contraction of action of a gang faction... Politicians don't listen, all talk and no action. Spending your money, they think it's too funny.
But no one here's laughing...when nothing gets done.
Election time coming, so let's have some fun.

GluteousMaximus (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2013 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PERS and STRS can keep their money and their obligations and deal directly with those who choose to stay with their plans.

Only thing being eliminated is putting the taxpayers on the hook to make up for their failed investment strategies and over-bloated promises.

They need to get back to their primary duty taking care of the promises they made to their beneficiaries instead of racking up billions of unfunded future liabilities, losing millions on failed social engineering investment schemes and charges of internal self-dealing corruption at the highest levels.

Once they stop acting like a fiduciary, they will no longer get federal retirement plan protections. Stay with them if you want, but do your homework to see if they are the best way to protect your retirement income.

Will it be there when you think you need it. Will taxpayers continue to support your needs; instead of their own? Your call. But you have been forewarned. Plan accordingly.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2013 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: