Meeting Time: January 31, 2023 at 5:00pm PST
The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

13. Contract: Armored Multi-Terrain Loader (Two-thirds Vote Required) File ID: 2022-02197

  • Default_avatar
    Trevor Jones almost 2 years ago

    Big no. Shame this is what you’re going to vote on not a week since the convictions of Tyre’s murderers. How would something like this keep the numbers of police violence from rising even more than they have since George Floyd? Come on. Your community wants these grants to go toward investment in COMMUNITY. Not an armored car that will be used to coral protestors or to get one person out of a house with a grenade launcher. Y’all seem to like to make a show of these big purchases n not comprehensive reform. It’s all piecemeal for reform but y’all continue to throw the same resources the police ask for despite the rise of police violence. Do better. Use grant money more wisely, said grant doesn’t obligate you to buy this stuff!!

    Lastly, eyes are especially on some of these new council members who explicitly spoke against this type of militarization n who courted (outwardly or quietly) the community orgs for their campaigns who will be showing out against this item. Listen to your community.

  • Default_avatar
    jennifer Kretschman almost 2 years ago

    Ladies and Gentlemen of the City Council, I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed purchase of an armored multi-terrain vehicle for the Sacramento City Police Department. As a member of this community, I am deeply concerned about the recent incidents of police brutality and violence that have taken place across our nation. The horrific murders of Tyre Nichols, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and our own Stephon Clarke are just a few examples of why we need police and law enforcement reform, not an increased militarization of our police force.

    The proposed nearly $500,000 contract for this vehicle sends a message to our community that we value the militarization of our law enforcement over the protection and safety of our citizens. It also perpetuates the notion that our police are at war with our community, which is simply not true. Our law enforcement officers should be here to protect and serve, not to instill fear and intimidate.
    Instead of investing in weapons of war, I believe that we should invest in programs and initiatives that build positive relationships between law enforcement and our community. This can be accomplished through social worker and mental health response teams, professional development for our officers, and trauma-informed practices for our law enforcement. These initiatives will help to create a safer, more equitable and just community for all of us.
    I implore you to reconsider this proposal and to redirect the funds allocated for this purchase towards initiatives that will truly make a positive impact in our community. Thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns and I hope that you will make the right decision for our community. Investing in war-like tanks will only further terrorize the community and do nothing to build positive relationships, restore peace or protect the community.

  • Default_avatar
    S Silveira almost 2 years ago

    Who are the police waging war against? I think this money needs to be spent getting mental health experts on board to address all the issues the police currently has to deal with in regards to those with mental illnesses.

  • Default_avatar
    Parika Bansal almost 2 years ago

    There are better use of resources.

  • Default_avatar
    Alexis Garcia almost 2 years ago

    After reviewing several pages of "opposition" comments, it's clear to me that the Sacramento Police Department needs such equipment to do their jobs. Using terms like "military grade, militarization, militarized, military style" synonymously with referring to Sacramento as "war zone" is all the information you need to see that constituents are out of touch with the real dangers police officers can face in critical situations. “Military Grade” is often the lowest bider, cheapest made, and just barely meets the minimum standards. The Military has “military grade” toilet paper that’s 1 ply. Does that sound better and stronger than Charmin Ultra Soft?

    We've been told by the Sacramento Police Chief herself that all measures shall be exhausted before using deadly force. Read that again. Take all the time you need. City Council adopted the verbiage of AB392 (and I quote) "Last resort means that peace officers shall use tactics and techniques that may persuade the suspect to voluntarily comply or may mitigate the need to use a higher level of force to resolve the situation safely." Doesn't this vehicle assist with the preservation of life (ON BOTH SIDES) in a critical situation?

    $400,000 dollars doesn’t cover the cost of 1 room at the Capitol Park Hotel located at 9th and L Street. Projected costs have already exceeded 72 million dollars for “houselessness” in the City of Sacramento. You sure don’t see a lot of people complaining about that.

    I strongly support the purchase and use of this equipment by the Sacramento Police Department.

  • Default_avatar
    DArtagnan Byrd almost 2 years ago

    I cannot think of a valid excuse to further militarize the Sacramento Police Department. It sends a message of intimidation to already overpoliced sections of the city. Additionally, the costs to acquire and maintain this piece of equipment are outrageous, and I maintain that those funds would have better use in other community resources. I urge a 'NO' vote on item #13

  • Default_avatar
    Isaac Gonzalez almost 2 years ago

    $439,894 would be better spent providing deescalating training to the sworn officers of SacPD and establishing a partnership with the Sacramento Sherrif's department to access their Rook if the need ever arises that they must use one. Please vote no on this purchase and work towards building trust between the residents of the city of Sacramento and its police force. It's achievable if we make it a priority. Thank you.

    -Isaac Gonzalez

  • Default_avatar
    David Hornung almost 2 years ago

    I’m against this expensive purchase for seemingly unnecessary equipment. I’m unclear on the need for this type of equipment in Sacramento. I agree with what others have written with concern about militarization of our police and the disproportionate effect on communities of color.

    Please do not support this spending.

  • Default_avatar
    Katie Webster almost 2 years ago

    The police do not need this porta potty tank. Since when is Sacramento a war zone? This is absurd. Imagine the police mowing down citizens in this thing. Vote no. This is absolutely a waste of money. Use this money to do mental health screenings on the police force and fire anyone with violent and psychotic tendencies so we don’t have a gang beating in our city like they did in Memphis. Buying this thing is going in THE WRONG DIRECTION.

  • Default_avatar
    JoJo Ng almost 2 years ago

    I oppose strongly.

  • Default_avatar
    James Jackson almost 2 years ago

    The fact that this agenda item was not pulled by the city or police department in the wake of upcoming vigils for Tyre Nichols shows a blatant disregard for the constituents of Sacramento. There is already a huge lack of faith in SacPD and the whole institution of policing because they show no respect for black lives, and this only proves it further. Does Sac PD see the coming protests as an opportunity to get more unneeded equipment and money? Are they trying to profit from an unarmed man’s death? Or are they just that out of touch? Either way it affirms that police are not willing to protect and serve anyone but themselves. Vote down this request and all further funds from the department should be withheld. I do not want more weapons in my city. I don’t care who owns them, police or civilian, I am tired of violence in all its forms and violence at the hands of the state is the most unforgivable. Shame on SacPD.

  • Default_avatar
    Sam Roodbar almost 2 years ago

    Item 13 is exceptionally problematic. Sac PD doesn't need a new militarized vehicle. I live in Oak Park, and I frequently witness how SWAT teams attack and further harm communities of color for the simplest of things. The same money could be diverted to other more useful endeavors that would quite literally save lives including investing in more mental health training for officers as opposed to military training. In the rational section of the staff paper providing support for this purchase there is a claim that the purchase of this vehicle could lead to reduction of expenses in the future cause all vehicles will be the same brand. Equipping Sac PD with de-escalating tactics will have far more positive impacts (financially or otherwise) right now AND in the future. Please do not approve this purchase.

  • Default_avatar
    Nick Montoya almost 2 years ago

    I am opposed to the acquisition of the armored mmulti-terrain loader. Our police force is already far too militarized with an over-bloated budget. What money this would have cost should be spent on non-law enforcement oriented youth programs and social housing programs.

  • Default_avatar
    Angela McIntireAbbott almost 2 years ago

    As a longtime resident of District 7, I am writing to express my opposition to the City’s proposal to purchase armored vehicles described in this agenda item. Instead of spending large sums on armored vehicles, the City of Sacramento should be doing what it can to explore creative methods of policing it’s citizens, rather than further militarizing its police force.

  • Default_avatar
    Amanda Czyzewski almost 2 years ago

    This is an egregious misuse of funds for an already overmilitarized police force. Our city does not need more weapons at the hands of police officers, we need investments in care and public services.

  • Default_avatar
    Kay Crumb almost 2 years ago

    I'm a District 6 resident and I strongly oppose this. Please allocate funding towards better transportation for people in the city, not the militarization of our police force.

  • Default_avatar
    Beth Hopkins almost 2 years ago

    I am a Sacramento city resident in district 4 and I strongly oppose item #13.

  • Default_avatar
    Kiana Taylor almost 2 years ago

    I have never once had the police help with anything I've called them for. What on earth would they need a beefed out vehicle like this for when they don't respond to calls? Absolutely ridiculous. I'm opposed to my taxes going to pay for this farce.

  • Default_avatar
    Adam Stark almost 2 years ago

    This is an absolutely ridiculous and expensive boondoggle that the City of Sacramento does not need or want. You should be focused on improving the lives of the citizens, not spending close to half a million on finding new ways to bust down doors and bulldoze cars. I'm disgusted that any one of you would even consider this.

  • Default_avatar
    Katherine Lauck almost 2 years ago

    This kind of militarization of Sacramento Police is revolting. Spend this money on housing people and treating addiction.