Sadly, this is not unique to Oakland. Several of the cities I've lived in have been plagued with 911 hold times of 10-20 minutes or more.
In one city, the mayor threatened to put a checklist on the ballot so people could decide which types of emergencies would be responded to, and the top vote-getters would be funded.
In another, a city council member publicly told his constituents "the police are not here to protect you. If you want to be safe, get a gun and a dog."
In Las Vegas for several years recently, the police department stopped responding to traffic crashes unless someone was killed. The insurance companies put pressure on the city to reverse that.
Unfortunately, it seems that all of the "homeland security" money that the feds send to the locals goes into military-grade weapons, and not into basic services like 911 and police patrols.
I would like to see a city sell the tanks it gets from the feds and use the money for 911, and other needed services.
> In another, a city council member publicly told his constituents "the police are not here to protect you. If you want to be safe, get a gun and a dog."
Well, they aren't there to protect you (at least not in the US). There is no protection requirement for police. Police are there to investigate crimes and catch criminals.
"The Supreme Court ruled [...] that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband [...]"
> I would like to see a city sell the tanks it gets from the feds and use the money for 911, and other needed services.
I'd like for my fellow citizens to agree to fund the police properly, as well as the schools. I know "taxes" are a bad word, but either we agree to pay for these things or they will underperform.
I know there is inefficiency and corruption, but if the budget is $100m and $20m is lost to inefficiency, cutting the budget to $60m won't cure the inefficiency, it will only cut the available funding to from $80m to $48m. (Also, I'm not convinced that government is so inefficient relative to other large organizations, such as every large company; politicians promising 'more efficiency' seems like a promise of hand-wavy magic that will get something (more resources) for nothing.)
Ouch. Sounds like a failed state scenario: anarchy by services disappearing and unconcern for community. When a government ceases to provide a fundamental function, such as protecting its citizens, it risks irrelevancy... and citizens better form their own government to replace the one not doing its job, or they’re inviting criminal thugs reminiscent of ISIS to fill the power-vacuum.
Many political philosophies believe THE fundamental purpose of government is to protect. Not performing the reason why people accept government in the first place means that the government has failed to do the reason it was created. It's not a legitimate government.
Your post and example is right on the money. This is incredibly scary and seems to be happening more and more as governments aren't allocating funds to do critical functions.
In one city, the mayor threatened to put a checklist on the ballot so people could decide which types of emergencies would be responded to, and the top vote-getters would be funded.
In another, a city council member publicly told his constituents "the police are not here to protect you. If you want to be safe, get a gun and a dog."
In Las Vegas for several years recently, the police department stopped responding to traffic crashes unless someone was killed. The insurance companies put pressure on the city to reverse that.
Unfortunately, it seems that all of the "homeland security" money that the feds send to the locals goes into military-grade weapons, and not into basic services like 911 and police patrols.
I would like to see a city sell the tanks it gets from the feds and use the money for 911, and other needed services.