By Sergeant James Stenger #3604, Antioch Police Violent Crimes Unit (Investigations Bureau)

On July 8th, 2020 at 10:51 PM, Antioch Police Department patrol officers were dispatched to the 1400 block of Mellissa Circle for a 35-year-old male who had been shot while sitting in the driver side seat of his vehicle. The investigation revealed that the 35-year-old male had just pulled into a driveway in 1400 block of Mellissa Circle, when an unknown suspect or suspects approached the male’s vehicle and fired numerous rounds into the car. The male victim was struck several times during the shooting.

The male was transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced deceased. The Antioch Police Department Investigations Bureau responded and took over the investigation. There is limited suspect information, and no one has been taken into custody at this time.

No further information will be released regarding this case at this time and the victim will not be identified until an autopsy is performed by the Contra Costa County Coroner’s Office.

Anyone with information regarding this case is asked to call Detective Bledsoe at( 925) 779-6884 or Detective Smith at (925) 779-6876. Anonymous tips can also be called into the Antioch Police Department non-emergency line at (925) 778-2441. You may also text-a-tip to 274637 (CRIMES) using the key word ANTIOCH.

By Acting Sergeant Casey Brogdon #5334, Antioch Police Violent Crimes Unit (Investigations Bureau)

On July 8th, 2020 at 9:08 AM, Antioch Police Department patrol officers were dispatched to the area of Cavallo Road and E. 18th Street for a shooting. Upon arrival, officers located a 35-year-old male in front of the Romi’s Liquor & Food at 418 E 18th Street. That male was suffering from multiple stab wounds and despite lifesaving efforts by officers and the fire department, he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced deceased at the scene. Officers also located a 48-year-old male lying in the intersection of Cavallo Road and E. 18th Street with multiple gunshot wounds.

It was determined through the preliminary investigation that the 35-year-old male and the 48-year-old male were involved in a verbal and physical altercation with each other in the 1800 block of Cavallo Road, during which the 35-year-old male shot the 48-year-old male and the 48-year-old male stabbed the 35 -year-old male. The 35-year-old male died at the scene and the 48-year-old male was transported to a local hospital and is currently in stable condition. The investigation is ongoing.

No further information will be released regarding this case at this time.

Anyone with information is asked to call Detective Cox at (925) 779-6866, or the Antioch Police Department non-emergency line at (925) 778-2441. You may also text-a-tip to 274637 (CRIMES) using the key word ANTIOCH.

By Antioch Police Department

On Monday, July 6, we had the opportunity to see four of our officers promoted. Brian Rose and Rob Green were promoted from the rank of corporal to the rank of sergeant, and Adrian Gonzalez and Josh Evans were promoted to the rank of corporal.

These officers have worked extremely hard and we are very proud of them.

Antioch Police Chief T Brooks administered their oath of office, as family members watched during the department’s first ever outdoor ceremony.

 

Two tax increases included in Props 15 and 19; Prop 18 lowers voting age to 17

SACRAMENTO, CA – Secretary of State Alex Padilla on Wednesday, July 1, assigned proposition numbers to the legislative, initiative, and referendum measures set to appear on the November 3, 2020 General Election ballot. Secretary Padilla also invited interested Californians to submit arguments to be considered for inclusion in the Official Voter Information Guide. The guide is mailed to every voting household in California and posted on the Secretary of State’s website.

The propositions are listed below, along with the Legislative Counsel’s digest or the Attorney General’s official circulating title and summary.

Proposition 14

AUTHORIZES BONDS TO CONTINUE FUNDING STEM CELL AND OTHER MEDICAL RESEARCH. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Authorizes $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund grants from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine to educational, non-profit, and private entities for: (1) stem cell and other medical research, therapy development, and therapy delivery; (2) medical training; and (3) construction of research facilities. Dedicates $1.5 billion to fund research and therapy for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, epilepsy, and other brain and central nervous system diseases and conditions. Limits bond issuance to $540 million annually. Appropriates money from General Fund to repay bond debt, but postpones repayment for first five years. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: State costs of $7.8 billion to pay off principal ($5.5 billion) and interest ($2.3 billion) on the bonds. Associated average annual debt payments of about $310 million for 25 years. The costs could be higher or lower than these estimates depending on factors such as the interest rate and the period of time over which the bonds are repaid. The state General Fund would pay most of the costs, with a relatively small amount of interest repaid by bond proceeds. (19-0022A1.)

Proposition 15

INCREASES FUNDING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Increases funding for K-12 public schools, community colleges, and local governments by requiring that commercial and industrial real property be taxed based on current market value. Exempts from this change: residential properties; agricultural properties; and owners of commercial and industrial properties with combined value of $3 million or less. Increased education funding will supplement existing school funding guarantees. Exempts small businesses from personal property tax; for other businesses, exempts $500,000 worth of personal property. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Net increase in annual property tax revenues of $7.5 billion to $12 billion in most years, depending on the strength of real estate markets. After backfilling state income tax losses related to the measure and paying for county administrative costs, the remaining $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion would be allocated to schools (40 percent) and other local governments (60 percent). (19-0008.)

Proposition 16

ACA 5 (Resolution Chapter 23), Weber. Government preferences.

The California Constitution, pursuant to provisions enacted by the initiative Proposition 209 in 1996, prohibits the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. The California Constitution defines the state for these purposes to include the state, any city, county, public university system, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of, or within, the state.

This measure would repeal these provisions. The measure would also make a statement of legislative findings in this regard.

WHEREAS, Equal opportunity is deeply rooted in the American ideals of fairness, justice, and equality. Programs to meet the goals of equal opportunity seek to realize these basic values. Equal opportunity not only helps individuals, but also helps communities in need and benefits our larger society. California’s equal opportunity program was upended by the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 209, entitled the California Civil Rights Initiative, amended Article I of the California Constitution to prohibit race- and gender-conscious remedies to rectify the underutilization of women and people of color in public employment, as well as public contracting and education; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 209 invalidated a series of laws that had been enacted by the California Legislature over the 20 years prior to it that required state agencies to eliminate traditional patterns of segregation and exclusion in the workforce, to increase the representation of women and minorities in the state service by identifying jobs for which their employment was underrepresented due to discrimination, and to develop action plans to remedy such underrepresentation without effectuating quota systems; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 209 also overshadowed other landmark civil rights and antidiscrimination laws. In 1959, after a 37-year campaign by labor and civil rights groups, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was passed, which was the forerunner of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and

WHEREAS, As a result of the passage of Proposition 209, women and people of color continue to face discrimination and disparity in opportunities to participate in numerous forms of association and work that are crucial to the development of talents and capabilities that enable people to contribute meaningfully to, and benefit from, the collective possibilities of national life; and

WHEREAS, The State of California has provided employment opportunities for people of color and women of all races. However, lingering, and even increasing, disparity still exists, particularly for Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Black Americans, Latino Americans, Native Americans, and women, and should be rectified; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 209 has impeded California’s continuing interest in supporting the equal participation of women in the workforce and in public works projects, in addressing the historical and present manifestations of gender bias, and in promulgating policies to enforce antidiscrimination in the workplace and on public projects; and

WHEREAS, In the wake of Proposition 209, California saw stark workforce diversity reductions for people of color and women in public contracting and in public education. Studies show that more diverse workforces perform better financially and are significantly more productive and focused; and

WHEREAS, Since the passage of Proposition 209, the state’s minority-owned and women-owned business enterprise programs have been decimated. A 2016 study conservatively estimates that the implementation of Proposition 209 cost women and people of color over $1,000,000,000 annually in lost contract awards. Most procurement and subcontracting processes remain effectively closed to these groups due to the changes brought on by Proposition 209; and

WHEREAS, Women are vastly underrepresented among firms receiving public contracts and the dollars awarded to certified women-owned business enterprises fell by roughly 40 percent, compared to levels before Proposition 209. In addition, only one-third of certified minority business enterprises in California’s transportation construction industry are still in operation today, compared to 20 years ago; and

WHEREAS, Women, particularly women of color, continue to face unequal pay for equal work. White women are paid 80 cents to every dollar paid to white men doing the same work. Black women are paid 60 cents for every dollar paid to white men doing the same work and would theoretically have to work an extra seven months every year to overcome that differential. This persistent gender wage gap continues to harm women, their families, and communities; and

WHEREAS, Despite a booming economy with almost full employment, a persistent racial wealth gap remains rooted in income inequality. Improving minority access to educational and labor market opportunity reduces the wealth gap and strengthens the economy; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 209 has had a devastating impact on minority equal opportunity and access to California’s publicly funded institutions of higher education. This violates the spirit of the California Master Plan for Higher Education by making it more difficult for many students to obtain an affordable and accessible high quality public education. While federal law allows schools to use race as a factor when making admissions decisions, California universities are prohibited by Proposition 209 from engaging in targeted outreach and extra efforts to matriculate high-performing minority students. This reduces .the graduation rates of students of color and, in turn, contributes to the diminution of the “pipeline” of candidates of color for faculty positions; and

WHEREAS, Since the passage of Proposition 209, diversity within public educational institutions has been stymied. Proposition 209 instigated a dramatic change in admissions policy at the University of California, with underrepresented group enrollment at the Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses of the University of California immediately falling by more than 60 percent and systemwide underrepresented group enrollment falling by at least 12 percent. Underrepresented group high school graduates faced substantial long-term declines in educational and employment outcomes as a result of these changes; and

WHEREAS, Among California high school graduates who apply to the University of California, passage of Proposition 209 has led to a decreased likelihood of earning a college degree within six years, a decreased likelihood of ever earning a graduate degree, and long-run declines in average wages and the likelihood of earning high wages measured by California standards. The University of California has never recovered the same level of diversity that it had before the loss of affirmative action nearly 20 years ago, a level that, at the time, was widely considered to be inadequate to meet the needs of the state and its young people because it did not achieve parity with the state’s ethnic demographics; and

WHEREAS, The importance of diversity in educational settings cannot be overstated. The Supreme Court of the United States outlined the benefits that arise from diversity, as follows, “the destruction of stereotypes, the promotion of cross-racial understanding, the preparation of a student body for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and the cultivation of a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry”; and

WHEREAS, Federal courts continue to reaffirm the value of diversity in favor of race conscious admissions, as exemplified by United States District Judge Allison D. Burroughs who stated, “race conscious admissions programs that survive strict scrutiny have an important place in society and help ensure that colleges and universities can offer a diverse atmosphere that fosters learning, improves scholarship, and encourages mutual respect and understanding. Further, Judge Burroughs recognized that there are no race-neutral alternatives that would allow a university to achieve an adequately diverse student body while still perpetuating its standards for academic and other forms of excellence; and

WHEREAS, It is the intent of the Legislature that California remedy discrimination against, and underrepresentation of, certain disadvantaged groups in a manner consistent with the United States Constitution and allow gender, racial, and ethnic diversity to be considered among the factors used to decide college admissions and hiring and contracting by government institutions; and

WHEREAS, It is further the intent of the Legislature that California transcend a legacy of unequal treatment of marginalized groups and promote fairness and equal citizenship by affording the members of marginalized groups a fair and full opportunity to be integrated into state public institutions that advance upward mobility, pay equity, and racial wealth gap reduction; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California at its 2019-20 Regular Session commencing on the third day of December 2018, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of the State of California, that the Constitution of the State be amended as follows:

That Section 31 of Article I thereof is repealed.

Proposition 17

ACA 6 (Resolution Chapter 24), McCarty. Elections: disqualification of electors.

The California Constitution requires the Legislature to provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony. Existing statutory law, for purposes of determining who is entitled to register to vote, defines imprisoned as currently serving a state or federal prison sentence.

This measure would instead direct the Legislature to provide for the disqualification of electors who are serving a state or federal prison sentence for the conviction of a felony. This measure would also delete the requirement that the Legislature provide for the disqualification of electors while on parole for the conviction of a felony. The measure would provide for the restoration of voting rights upon completion of the prison term.

Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California at its 2019-20 Regular Session commencing on the third day of December 2018, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of the State of California, that the Constitution of the State be amended as follows:

First-That Section 2 of Article II thereof is amended to read:

SEC. 2. (a) A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.

(b) An elector disqualified from voting while serving a state or federal prison term, as described in Section 4, shall have their right to vote restored upon the completion of their prison term.

Second-That Section 4 of Article II thereof is amended to read:

SEC. 4. The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections and shall provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or serving a state or federal prison term for the conviction of a felony.

Proposition 18

ACA 4 (Resolution Chapter 30), Mullin. Elections: voting age.

The California Constitution authorizes any person who is a United States citizen, at least 18 years of age, and a resident of the state to vote.

This measure, in addition, would authorize a United States citizen who is 17 years of age, is a resident of the state, and will be at least 18 years of age at the time of the next general election to vote in any primary or special election that occurs before the next general election in which the citizen would be eligible to vote if at least 18 years of age.

Proposition 19

ACA 11 (Resolution Chapter 31), Mullin. The Home Protection for Seniors, Severely Disabled, Families, and Victims of Wildfire or Natural Disasters Act.

The California Constitution limits the amount of ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property, defined as the county assessor’s valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill and, thereafter, the appraised value of the property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership occurs after the 1975 assessment, subject to an annual inflation adjustment not to exceed 2%. The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to authorize a person over 55 years of age or any severely and permanently disabled person residing in property eligible for the homeowner’s exemption to transfer the base year value of that property to a replacement dwelling of equal or lesser value located in the same county, or another county that has adopted an ordinance allowing base years value transfers from other counties, as provided. The California Constitution also provides that the purchase or transfer of the principal residence, and the first $1,000,000 of other real property, of a transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased, is not a “purchase” or “change in ownership” for purposes of determining the “full cash value” of property for taxation.

This measure, beginning on and after April 1, 2021, would authorize an owner of a primary residence who is over 55 years of age, severely disabled, or a victim of a wildfire or natural disaster, as defined, to transfer the taxable value, defined as the base year value plus inflation adjustments, of their primary residence to a replacement primary residence located anywhere in the state, regardless of the location or value of the replacement primary residence, that is purchased or newly constructed as that person’s principal residence within 2 years of the sale of the original primary residence. The measure would limit a person who is over 55 years of age or severely disabled to 3 transfers under these provisions.

The measure, beginning on and after February 16, 2021, would exclude from the terms “purchase” and “change in ownership” for purposes of determining the “full cash value” of property the purchase or transfer of a family home or family farm, as those terms are defined, of the transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased. In the case of a transfer of a family home, the measure would require that the property continue as the family home of the transferee. The measure would require that the taxable value of the property be determined as provided. In the case of property tax benefits provided to a family home under these provisions, the bill would require the transferee to claim the homeowner’s or disabled veteran’s exemption within one year of the transfer. The measure would specify that the above-described provisions relating to transfers between parents or grandparents and children or grandchildren would apply to transfers occurring on or before February 15, 2021.

The measure would establish the California Fire Response Fund in the State Treasury. The measure would require the Controller to annually transfer a specified amount, based on calculations by the Director of Finance, of the additional revenues and savings that accrued to the state from the implementation of this measure’s provisions from the General Fund to that fund. However, the measure would provide that, if the amount required to be transferred to the California Fire Response Fund exceeds the amount transferred for the previous fiscal year by more than 10%, that excess amount would not be transferred to the California Fire Response Fund. The measure would require the Legislature to appropriate moneys in the fund solely for the purpose of funding fire suppression staffing by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and underfunded special districts that provide fire protection services, as provided.

The measure would also establish the County Revenue Protection Fund and continuously appropriate moneys in that fund for the purpose of reimbursing eligible local agencies, as provided. The measure would require the Controller to annually transfer a specified amount, based on the above-described calculations by the Director of Finance, from the General Fund to that fund. The measure would require each county to annually determine the gain of the county and any local agency within the county resulting from the implementation of this measure and, if that amount of gain is negative, provide that specified eligible local agencies may receive a reimbursement from the County Revenue Protection Fund. The measure would require the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to provide a reimbursement to each eligible local agency that has a negative gain, determined every 3 years based on the aggregate gain of the eligible local agency, as provided, and require the Controller to transfer any remaining balance in the County Revenue Protection Fund to the General Fund at the end of each 3-year period, to be available for appropriation for any purpose.

Proposition 20

RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR NON-VIOLENT OFFENDERS. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Imposes restrictions on parole program for non-violent offenders who have completed the full term for their primary offense. Expands list of offenses that disqualify an inmate from this parole program. Changes standards and requirements governing parole decisions under this program. Authorizes felony charges for specified theft crimes currently chargeable only as misdemeanors, including some theft crimes where the value is between $250 and $950. Requires persons convicted of specified misdemeanors to submit to collection of DNA samples for state database. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state and local correctional costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, primarily related to increases in penalties for certain theft-related crimes and the changes to the nonviolent offender release consideration process. Increased state and local court-related costs of around a few million dollars annually related to processing probation revocations and additional felony theft filings. Increased state and local law enforcement costs not likely to exceed a couple million dollars annually related to collecting and processing DNA samples from additional offenders. (17-0044.)

Proposition 21

EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Amends state law to allow local governments to establish rent control on residential properties over 15 years old. Allows rent increases on rent-controlled properties of up to 15 percent over three years from previous tenant’s rent above any increase allowed by local ordinance. Exempts individuals who own no more than two homes from new rent-control policies. In accordance with California law, provides that rent-control policies may not violate landlords’ right to a fair financial return on their property. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Potential reduction in state and local revenues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or more. (19-0001.)

Proposition 22

CHANGES EMPLOYMENT CLASSIFICATION RULES FOR APP-BASED TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY DRIVERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Establishes different criteria for determining whether app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers are “employees” or “independent contractors.” Independent contractors are not entitled to certain state-law protections afforded employees—including minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation. Instead, companies with independent contractor drivers will be required to provide specified alternative benefits, including: minimum compensation and healthcare subsidies based on engaged driving time, vehicle insurance, safety training, and sexual harassment policies. Restricts local regulation of app-based drivers; criminalizes impersonation of such drivers; requires background checks. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increase in state personal income tax revenue of an unknown amount. (19-0026A1)

Proposition 23

AUTHORIZES STATE REGULATION OF KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS. ESTABLISHES MINIMUM STAFFING AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Requires at least one licensed physician on site during treatment at outpatientkidney dialysis clinics; authorizes Department of Public Health to exempt clinics from thisrequirement due to shortages of qualified licensed physicians if at least one nurse practitioner orphysician assistant is on site. Requires clinics to report dialysis-related infection data to state andfederal governments. Requires state approval for clinics to close or reduce services. Prohibitsclinics from discriminating against patients based on the source of payment for care. Summaryof estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased state and local health care costs, likely in the low tens of millions of dollars annually, resulting from increased dialysis treatment costs. (19-0025A1.)

Proposition 24

AMENDS CONSUMER PRIVACY LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Permits consumers to: (1) prevent businesses from sharing personal information; (2) correct inaccurate personal information; and (3) limit businesses’ use of “sensitive personal information”—such as precise geolocation; race; ethnicity; religion; genetic data; union membership; private communications; and certain sexual orientation, health, and biometric information. Changes criteria for which businesses must comply with these laws. Prohibits businesses’ retention of personal information for longer than reasonably necessary. Triples maximum penalties for violations concerning consumers under age 16. Establishes California Privacy Protection Agency to enforce and implement consumer privacy laws, and impose administrative fines. Requires adoption of substantive regulations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased annual state costs of roughly $10 million for a new state agency to monitor compliance and enforcement of consumer privacy laws. Increased state costs, potentially reaching the low millions of dollars annually, from increased workload to DOJ and the state courts, some or all of which would be offset by penalty revenues. Unknown impact on state and local tax revenues due to economic effects resulting from new requirements on businesses to protect consumer information. (19-0021A1.)

Proposition 25

REFERENDUM TO OVERTURN A 2018 LAW THAT REPLACED MONEY BAIL SYSTEM WITH A SYSTEM BASED ON PUBLIC SAFETY RISK. If this petition is signed by the required number of registered voters and timely filed, a referendum will be placed on the next statewide ballot requiring a majority of voters to approve a 2018 state law before it can take effect. The 2018 law replaces the money bail system with a system for pretrial release from jail based on a determination of public safety or flight risk, and limits pretrial detention for most misdemeanors. (18-0009.)

Ballot Arguments

Arguments may be submitted for or against the measures. Arguments selected for the Official Voter Information Guide will be on public display between July 21 and August 10. If multiple arguments are submitted for a proposition, state law gives first priority to arguments written by legislators in the case of legislative measures and to proponents of an initiative or referendum; subsequent priority goes to bona fide citizen associations and then to individuals. No more than three signers are allowed to appear on an argument or rebuttal to an argument.

Ballot arguments cannot exceed 500 words and rebuttals to ballot arguments cannot exceed 250 words. All submissions should be typed and double-spaced.  Arguments may be hand-delivered to the Secretary of State’s Elections Division at 1500 11th Street, 5th Floor, Sacramento, California 95814; faxed to (916) 653-3214; or emailed to VIGarguments@sos.ca.gov. If faxed or emailed, the original documents must be received within 72 hours.  The deadline to submit ballot arguments is July 7 by 5:00 p.m. The deadline to submit rebuttals to the ballot arguments is July 16 by 5:00 p.m.

Candidate Statements in the County Voter Information Guide

Candidates for the United States House of Representatives, California State Senate, and California State Assembly have until August 7 to submit candidate statements to their county elections official for the local sample ballot in the county or counties in which the district lies.

For more information on ballot measures, candidate filing requirements, and election deadlines, please visit: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/general-election-november-3-2020/

 

By Antioch Police Department

Last night, the proactive teams in our community were BUSY!! The teams issued citations and confiscated several dozen fireworks. They were on hand to put out several fires caused by fireworks and even made an arrest for a side show on the way to a fireworks call. This team alone responded to 88 calls for service in 6 hours. Thanks for all the patience and tips when you called in.

“all fireworks are illegal in Antioch as well as all of Contra Costa County. In addition to the possible $1,000 criminal fine, fireworks pose an extreme fire danger and can cause traumatic injuries.” – Antioch Police Chief T Brooks

Illegal Fireworks Use Poses Extreme Risk of Grievous Bodily Harm and Catastrophic Wildfires During; Current Period of Critically High Fire Danger

Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (Con Fire) and local law enforcement agencies across the county, this week warned citizens about the extreme dangers of illegal fireworks during the days leading up to the Independence Day holiday.

Fire and law enforcement leaders reminded residents and visitors that all fireworks, regardless of type or labeling, are illegal everywhere in the county. There are no “Safe & Sane” fireworks, regardless of labeling. Additionally, the potential for grievous bodily harm posed by these illegal devices and the risk of causing catastrophic wildfires during this time of extremely high fire danger is great.

With prolonged warm, dry and windy weather leading up to the Independence Day holiday, fire danger is unusually high making fireworks an even greater threat to our communities than in recent wetter and cooler years. Because of these conditions, in the month of June alone, communities across the District have experienced a nearly fourfold increase in grass and vegetation fires. More than a dozen of these were started by illegal fireworks; many have threatened homes and businesses.

“The only safe and sane approach to fireworks in Contra Costa County is to simply not use them,” said Fire Chief Lewis T. Broschard III, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. “They are uncontrollable and dangerous, illegal, and their use poses the very real possibility of causing wildland fires that could easily destroy homes and threaten lives in this time of critically high fire risk.”

“This year, we have seen a tremendous increase in fireworks-related complaints and calls for service compared to previous years,” said Chief Tammany Brooks, Antioch Police Department. “I want to remind everyone that all fireworks are illegal in Antioch as well as all of Contra Costa County. In addition to the possible $1,000 criminal fine, fireworks pose an extreme fire danger and can cause traumatic injuries.”

“Fireworks aren’t just illegal, they’re dangerous. We want you to keep that and your community in mind as we approach the holiday weekend,” said Concord Police Chief Mark Bustillos. “We wish everyone a happy and safe 4th of July!”

“Already several weeks into what promises to be a high-risk fire season, we want to remind residents of the very real dangers involved with illegal fireworks,” said Lafayette Police Chief Ben Alldritt. “We owe it to our friends, families, and neighbors to be safe and avoid fireworks risks this Fourth of July holiday — the City of Lafayette wants everyone to be safe and avoid fireworks-related accidents and fires.”

“While Independence Day is a time for celebrating, and we wish you all the best on this holiday, the Martinez Police Department remains steadfast in our commitment to public safety,” said Chief Manjit Sappal. “As such, we wish to make it clear that fireworks are illegal and unsafe; they can cause injury and devastating fire-related damage. Please commit to the safety of your family, friends, and neighbors by not using any fireworks.”

“The Fourth of July is a great time to spend with family and friends, but illegal fireworks continue to be a problem in our community,” said Chief Brian Addington, Pittsburg Police Department. “We have already had more than 350 calls reporting illegal fireworks. We have a zero-tolerance policy; if you are caught with illegal fireworks, expect a $1000 fine, or a trip to jail.”

“We know how disappointed people are by the cancellation of the traditional fireworks shows due to COVID-19, but using illegal fireworks instead is not a safe solution. They pose serious danger to those using them, and to the surrounding community, as well,” said Pleasant Hill Police Chief Bryan Hill. “This year, we are encouraging everyone to celebrate at their place of residence, and to celebrate safely.”

“The pyrotechnic powder in most fireworks is extremely sensitive to heat, shock and friction, and in certain circumstances can explode even when you don’t want or expect them to,” said acting Lt. Anthony Mangini, Walnut Creek Police Bomb Squad. “The fire and injury danger from illegal fireworks poses extreme risks for civilians, and also for first responders and our hazardous devices technicians who must dispose of them.”

While public fireworks events around the county have been cancelled this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, officials strongly discourage residents from attempting to replace these events with illegal consumer fireworks use. Instead, residents are encouraged to watch a fireworks display on television or online video, use safe and readily available glow-stick products, or many other ways of celebrating.

Fire and law officials urge residents to protect their homes, families and neighborhoods by reporting all use of illegal fireworks immediately to their local law enforcement agency’s non-emergency phone line. In cases where immediate risk to life or property exists, 911 should be called.

In addition to fire danger, there are significant risks of serious injury or death. On July 5th, 2018, an Antioch resident was severely injured handling a supposedly “Safe & Sane” firework discarded at his place of business. Nationwide, thousands are injured annually, more than half are under 15.

Last year, illegal fireworks use in the County sparked preventable vegetation fires threatening lives and structures and straining emergency resources needed for higher priority fire and medical emergencies.

For more on protecting homes and businesses from wildfires, visit www.cccfpd.org/wildfireprep.

About Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (Con Fire) — A recognized fire service leader — Con Fire provides fire and emergency medical services to more than a million people across its 304 square-mile District area, and through mutual aid, in and around the 20 cities and unincorporated communities of Contra Costa County, California. With few exceptions, county emergency ambulance transport services are provided by Con Fire through its unique sub-contractor Alliance model. In 2019, the District responded to nearly 78,000 fire and EMS emergencies and dispatched some 95,000 ambulances, providing exert medical care on more than 74,000 ambulance transports. The District, with 26 fire stations and more than 400 employees, is dedicated to preserving life, property and the environment.

By Antioch Police Department

Last night, Wednesday, July 1, 2020 around 1:00 am, our graveyard officers were patrolling in the area of Yosemite and Hill Drive. The officers were providing extra patrol in the neighborhood due to reports of vehicle burglaries occurring in the area. During their patrol, they observed a male had his head inside the open window of a parked car.

The officers found this behavior suspicious and stopped to have a conversation with him. During the conversation, they found that the gentleman had a warrant for his arrest for being a parolee at large and on the floorboard of the vehicle he was leaning into, there was a loaded handgun.

The male was arrested for weapons charges as well as the warrant and was given a free ride to county jail!

By Allen Payton

During their first community forum on police reform, entitled “Bridging the Gap”, Tuesday night, June 30, 2020, the Antioch City Council heard more comments from members of the public on both sides of the issue. Then the council decided what topics to include in future forums and agreed to hire a facilitator to moderate them.

To open the meeting, Mayor Sean Wright said, “Thank you for coming, tonight for those who are joining us. This is an opportunity for us…at the end of the last meeting we had five or ten minutes to decide where to go with this. Tonight, is an opportunity to get input from all council members and the public…to decide where we want this to go…to drive this conversation forward in a positive way for our community.”

Councilwoman Monica Wilson then said, “I am looking forward to what the community says. To make sure this is not just a one and done and that we continue the conversation.”

Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts read some prepared comments saying, “I’m happy to have lived in Antioch my entire life. I’ve watched my family grow up, here. Let’s be clear in saying I always do what is best for our community.”

She spoke of wanting an “all hands on deck meeting.”

“I am seeking to find opportunities where we can improve as a city,” Motts added.

There were video and audio challenges that caused the meeting to not be visible for most of the first half hour, so not all the opening comments from the council members could be heard.

A variety of people submitted comments or spoke through the Zoom meeting connection, mostly reiterating the over 850 comments made during the two special council meetings on whether to form a council ad hoc committee on police reform two weeks ago, that led to Tuesday night’s forum.

Council Members Respond to Public Comments

Mayor Wright was the first to respond to the public comments.

“I’ll be honest, after the last meeting…I was pushing in discussions with our city manager, having an hour with our chief of police come forward give us a report on the reforms within the department, then an hour to hear from members of the African American community,” he said.

“People have already spoken. We’ve heard. We had a lot of comments at the other meetings. I appreciate the city manager saying…let’s not jump into a discussion of what you think we’ve heard…so we can have a discussion among council members of where we want to go.”

He then provided a list of the things he heard from the public comments.

“I thought you summarized it fairly well,” said Councilman Lamar Thorpe. “I don’t think you mentioned mental health. I have a concern of stretching our police force. I don’t think they should deal with that.”

“The five areas I outlined…are overarching,” he continued. “We can populate with the things you talked about.”

The five reforms Thorpe is seeking, which he mentioned in his press release, earlier this month are 1. Demilitarize our local police, 2. Increase police accountability, 3. Improve police hiring practices, 4. Excessive use of force and 5. Budget appropriations.

“If we’re going to talk about body worn cameras, about mental health, we have to talk about the budget,” Thorpe added.

“Community programs is a huge one,” Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock also mentioned. “What does systemic racism look like in Antioch? The Police Crime Commission going into their districts finding out that information. Work together…we all need to work together. This is a priority for this council. We’re here tonight trying to work on these issues.”

“I too thought the meeting was a little vague coming into it,” Wilson. “We really owe it to the community to really have an outcome…that we really are listening. We’re all not going to agree. None of us are here to attack.”

“We’ve all said one time, or another Chief Brooks is doing a wonderful job. But we can always do better,” she continued. “We must constantly be looking at how we can improve ourselves.”

“Accountability, de-militarization, hiring practices, police oversight, body cameras…how we’re going to maintain all of that, the use of force,” Wilson continued. “We have to come to the reality that not all of us are going to agree. Like most families…we have to respect our differences. I’m hoping we’ll be able to start attacking some of these and have some good outcomes and start making our community better and let everyone in our community know they’re being heard…and they’re not being left out.”

Motts then shared her thoughts stating, “I had doubts without having the chief speak to some of the comments we’ve heard over the past few weeks. But, after hearing from the community, tonight I’m glad we went this way.”

“I heard ‘do no harm’, she continued. “I do think the APD is really getting out there…and trying to work with the community. The mental health issue…this is something that’s been going on for decades, now. East County, we do not have a (homeless) shelter. We do not have homeless services. It is incumbent upon us to do something about them.”

Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock spoke about “What we should do with Measure W money. They want to spend some on police services, but also on youth services. I’m looking forward to these conversations. I would like to have the chief come back and speak on some of the investigations going on. I want to see us all work together. We love this community…we want our community to feel embraced and feel safe. So, I’m looking forward to the conversation.”

Discuss Future Agenda Items, Agree to Hire Outside Facilitator

“This can’t be done in a meeting,” Wright explained. “I need to look at how this fits in. I’m OK looking at the five headings Councilmember Thorpe put in. There might be six or seven other headings.”

“I think we all want to hear from the chief,” Thorpe stated. “The actually leading of this conversation shouldn’t be led by the chief. The chief is a participant in all of this. I think for many people I think there’s a curiosity of policing in American and the relationship with African Americans and why policing even started in this country. They can’t pinpoint why in this country that things blow up following interactions between police and African Americans.”

“I was going to suggest we hire an outside facilitator…helping us through the process,” Wright added.

Ogorchock added, “I think it’s great we have an outside moderator. Where in the budget would that come from?”

“We would have to approve the expenditure,” Wright said.

“It would come out of the General Fund,” said City Manager Ron Bernal.

“I agree someone from outside…to help moderate this conversation,” said Motts.

“I would like to hear from the council…some of the things you’re wanting this person do in the processs,” Wright said.

“Someone with a background in social justice, race relations with police,” Wilson said.

“I would say someone with experience with police reform and that may not be someone with a social justice background,” Thorpe said.

“It has to be a well-rounded person,” Ogorchock said. “We need to have someone coming in who is neutral, who is going to ask the right directions and get us in the direction this council wants to go. What is the cost of this person? I would ask the City Attorney is this part of the agenda, tonight? A moderator?”

“What you’re talking about is future agendas, so yes, your discussing a future agenda item,” City Attorney Thomas Smith responded.

Wright then said he wanted, “someone who is respected on both sides, the police department and someone trying to create police reform.”

“We’re not looking for specifics in what they think on police reform…but understanding the lay of the land when cities decide to do police reform,” Thorpe said. “I’m not pretending we’re not discussing police reform. That’s what the point of having the ad hoc is.”

“This is a bigger conversation that we will all participate in,” Wright said. “I think the next steps…is to find that person and have that person to work together with a few members of council and the chief, to categorize and move forward.”

“I would be happy to participate in that,” Thorpe said.

“So, would I,” Wright responded.

“I would, too so here we go,” said Ogorchock. Regarding the hiring of a moderator she added, “Make sure they understand Antioch. We’re a diverse city.”

“Yes, we are a majority people of color community,” Thorpe said. “You’re absolutely right.”

“That’s not what I said. I said we’re a diverse community,” Ogorchock responded.

“We are doing some things well…and I want the chief to report on that,” Wright said. “As I’ve gone out the past few weeks and talked to different people there are people in the black community who aren’t aware that there is a citizens police academy and a youth police academy. So, there’s more outreach that needs to be done.”

“I’ve been doing some research…and people of color are being killed at a higher percentage, at a higher rate,” Wright stated. “I would like to see elicit bias training for our police and the council. To be able to put ourselves in the shoes of other people. I would hope as a community…that we better understand one another…as we go through this.”

“If there are regular mental health checkups to deal with law enforcement stresses,” said Motts. “I would like to see that as part of the discussion, here.”

“I will work with you and Councilmember Thorpe in hiring someone to facilitate…someone familiar with police reform, and other areas, and familiar with police departments,” Bernal said in response to Mayor Wright.

The council then adjourned the meeting.