Agenda Item

7. Cooperative Agreement: Public Safety Supplies and Equipment File ID: 2023-00270

   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
10000 of 10000 characters remaining
  • Default_avatar
    Sarah Roberts over 1 year ago

    I am writing to OPPOSE giving even MORE money to law enforcement when they have existing equipment purchases (like the $600K Rook) that meet and exceed their equipment and 'public safety' needs. Whose safety is being voted on here? The people or the individual police officers who want new toys? There are <1000 uniformed police officers on Sac PD. There are 10,000+ homeless and unsheltered people struggling to survive in Sacramento. And yet, you keep giving money and protection and weapons to the 1000 cops instead of the 10000 constituents who could actually benefit from this funding. I OPPOSE FURTHER MILITARIZATION OF THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, and you should too.

  • Default_avatar
    Courtney Vee over 1 year ago

    Please vote no on this request for $600,000 worth of body armor. It is disrespectful to the Sacramento community to approve further militarization of our police force. Citizens at previous council meetings and vigils for civilians killed by police violence in Sacramento have clearly communicated that the community does not support purchasing this type of equipment. Several city council members have showed up to these vigils claiming sympathy and support. If that is true, do not support this purchase.

    So many issues with this proposal but I'll only discuss three as the public was not made aware of this in a timely manner. 1) this equipment is already in SPD inventory for the SWAT team, and they are trained to be in situations with rifles. Having untrained officers in this equipment is questionable at best. 2) It says this armor will require maintenance fees and more spending so SPD is requesting an increase to future budgets. The Sacramento police department already has a budget over $220 million. If they cant function with $220 million you need to reassess personnel and spending practices. Approving this will only encourage this frivolous spending. Our community cannot afford to waste money like this when the housing crisis rages on. 3) This is marked as "public safety" but fails to explain how it will keep the public safe. This is a significant amount of money to commit to in the future and so its proposal should include a more detailed analysis and not just be slipped by the public's eye under this seemingly innocuous name. Again there is no verified research or reason for this equipment, public safety wise or not.

  • Default_avatar
    Shanna Niroumandzadeh over 1 year ago

    I strongly oppose giving an additional 60k dollars to an already outrageous police department and calling it “public safety”- the safest areas do not have the most police, they have the most resources. To vote for additional funding would be a moral disgrace and a misuse of power. Act accordingly.

  • Default_avatar
    Gabby Obkirchner over 1 year ago

    This agenda item proposes spending $600,000 every 5 years on protective equipment for non-specialty Sacramento PD officers, equipment that the Sacramento PD SWAT team already owns and operates. This budget item is presented as if it is meant to serve public health and safety, but is just another increase in public funding that only serves SPD. I'd like to see SPD utilize their current resources and growing budget more efficiently before considering equipping the whole department like they are a SWAT team.

  • Default_avatar
    DONALD WEINGARTNER over 1 year ago

    I don't think police safety should be considered public safety as they(police) are consistently held outside of the standard of conduct as other members of the public. This notion is misleading at its most benign. Equipping and empowering police to act without regard to public safety and human life at its worst.