Posted on Facing Homelessness in Antioch by City Council District 3 candidate Nichole Gardner

Raw video warning: Includes profanity.

Dear Antioch Residents,

First and foremost, I would like to say, “Thank You” to Officer Lenderman for doing his job.  In response to the video by Nichole Gardner, candidate for Antioch City Council District 3 and Member of the Contra Costa County Democratic Central Committee, that was uploaded on Facebook about our police officers responding to a 72-hour notice for the homeless to leave the area, I am personally grateful for the things they do.  Through their continued actions of upholding their oath to “Serve and Protect”, I am proud to stand with them as they are the ones who we depend on in the event of an emergency.  Defunding the police is a mistake and would lead to total lawlessness.

We do not have the ability to police ourselves, or is that what we want?  In the video the phrase “That is why I want to defund the police” was used.  Do we really want to live in a city where the police are not capable of doing their jobs due a lack of resources or even the ability to perform overtime duties when necessary?  We cannot move forward if the crime rate in our city does not decrease.

We all deserve to feel safe in our homes or even when we are out and about.  Personally, I want my family to feel and be safe at home knowing that there is a police presence in the community.

As a military veteran, I stand with all Armed Forces, to include the Antioch Police Department (APD). As part my military career, I had the honor to “Serve and Protect” downrange in Iraq.  Putting your life on the line for others is the most honorable profession.  I honor what our officers do and continue to do for us.

In closing…thank you APD for everything you do.  Through “Unity and Collaboration” we can be better and will do better.

Respectfully,

Antwon Webster, Sr.

Antioch

Dear Editor:

First let me start by saying how proud I am to see the Antioch youth finding their voices, and working to make a difference in this town.  I am also proud of the parents that have been supporting their children’s voices, took the time to listen, and also provide comments to public forms, both for and against SRO’s entering the Antioch Schools.  I am excited to hear how these conversations went between parents, students, and teachers as they discussed what this might mean for our schools going forward.  The students of Antioch asked for security evaluations within their schools, heightened security measures, and while they may not be pleased with the initial outcome of the process, there is some movement within their request.

Youth of Antioch, I know you feel your voices were not heard, but do not let this discourage you from continuing to speak up. The coordination of SRO’s entering your schools is not over, you can still have a say in how this happens.  During the 8/5 meeting Trustee Crystal Sawyer-White requested that safety commissions should be set up as campus organizations, and they should include students. I urge you to push for these safety organizations to be implemented, become part of it, maybe even volunteer to organize such a group at your school.

SRO’s are going to happen, that is a reality. So, let us work to ensure there is a positive outcome from this joint effort between APD and AUSD.  On Aug. 12 the MLU of how these officers will be implemented into the school environment will be discussed, let us have a say in that.  As an Army instructor and security evaluator, I personally would be happy to speak to anyone who would like to discuss their schools campus procedures, I am even willing to offer up my experience and training to assist the AUSD, APD and AUSB for no cost to evaluate campuses, security and emergency procedures, and help to implement how SRO’s can safely work on campuses.   I have worked on joint task forces that trained American Soldiers on how to work in other countries during deployment and helped to arrange training sessions, safety protocols, and Army immersion in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In my civilian career, I have over 10 years’ experience developing and implementing customized training sessions for military and law enforcement agencies here in the United States and in countries have created and assisted in training exhibitions at events such as Urban Shield in Oakland CA, multi-day law enforcement and military training expo and real-world scenario training event, and Shotshow in Las Vegas, Nevada. In my military career, I served on a security planning commission that was in charge of selecting and securing the polling sites in three major cities in Iraq for their first-ever government elections in 2005. I consulted and assisted in the training leading up to and including the security turnover from US forces back to the Iraqi National Guard and Iraqi Police which was placed under the direction of the Ministry of Defence. I managed a Civil-Military Operations Command Center as part of a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Khowst, a province in Afghanistan less than 40 miles from the Pakistan border. With that being said, I know that 40 hours of additional training is in no way enough to make students and parents feel that an officer is qualified to work on campus.

Below are my suggestions for bringing SRO’s to campus without having full exposure to Chief Brookes SRO plans:

• Ideally, RSO’s should be assigned in pairs. Require all SRO’s to attend, in paired teams, and complete all sensitivity training, diversity training, conflict resolution training, and safety training on all campuses they are assigned to work along with campus staff
• Require refresher courses annually
• Officers should not carry a firearm while walking around campus during the school day. There are plenty of other techniques and tools to subdue a student, break up a fight, or conflict management without the fear of a gun. However, the officers should have access to a firearm available that can get to quickly in case it is needed. There should be a discussion on whether officers carry firearms, less than lethal launchers, or a combination of both.
• Officers should be in street clothes, or a school appointed uniform, not in full APD uniform, and should be completely integrated into the school staff.
• AUSB mentioned they would like the officers to be role models to students. For this to happen, the hiring practices will be paramount. Offers should be handpicked for the school that they will be working. Officers need to be able to connect with the students at the school they will be serving. If possible, there should be every attempt at finding applicants that either went to the school they would be serving or went to a school that resembles their potential work site in demographics and social/economic at least one officer should be female. Students are more likely to approach a female officer when reporting rape, abuse, bullying, or domestic issues. Also, students should be represented in the final interview process.
• Create campus safety committees that include at least 3 parents, and are open to students, make it mandatory that officers attend these meetings and address concerns
• SRO’s are to attend all after school activities (fully armed) and provide security at school-sanctioned events, staying the entire length of the event + 1 hour to help clear any loitering on campus following event conclusion

I would be happy to meet with anyone in our community to further discuss security plans on our campuses, and while I was unable to have a say in the SRO Grant, my goal if elected to the Board for District 1 is that my unique experience will assist in making the SRO program a positive for students, staff, and officers.

Thank you,

George Young III

SSG, Civil Affairs Section NCOIC;

Team Leader; Observer/Controller – Trainer

1005th Civil Affairs & Psychological Operations Training CO, Airborne

1st Training Brigade; Special Operations

georgeyoung4change.com

george.young4change@gmail.com

925.783.5663

2020 Antioch Unified School District District 1 Candidate

Dear Editor:

The members of the Woman’s Club of Antioch are outraged and extremely disappointed in the behavior and actions of the protesters of the Antioch School Board meeting of August 5th. Banging on walls and windows in an attempt to stop the board meeting is not a peaceful protest and should have been stopped the moment it started. Further protesters that pushed and shoved two women board members, causing minor injuries, should have been charged with assault.

Blocking board members’ departure, requiring them to get police escorts home, is unacceptable behavior.  It causes one to ask, “Who raised these people?” Were you taught to shove your grandmother around or shout and scream to get your way? One of our board members is now over 80 years old and this behavior was a traumatic experience. You should be ashamed. We might conclude this is a result of State school laws changing over these many years prohibiting teachers to take any discipline against unruly students thereby diminishing the level of education for all students in a classroom.

There is no excuse allowing this behavior on the part of the protesters. In fact, we are currently experiencing the most significant movement for equality since the 1960’s and Martin Luther King, Jr’s peaceful marches. Significant as it unifies all peoples under the banner of Black Lives Matter. These unruly protesters threaten the success of this movement by alienating the public and furthering the attempt to divide us again.

It is time for all members of our community to speak out against violence and to speak for equality, reason and civility to bring our nation back together. We do this by VOTING and by denouncing violent behavior. Antioch will not be another Portland as long as good people speak up for our democracy.

The Woman’s Club of Antioch has supported our schools, students and education and our community since our inception in 1902.  118 years later we still support and stand with our elected representatives in the community.

Respectfully,

Angela deVictoria, President              Lynn Confetti-Ledbetter, 1st VP Mount Diablo District

Elizabeth Rimbault, Auditor              Teresa Hernandez-Cain, 1st VP Antioch

Bari Costello, member                        Lanette Clark, 2nd VP Antioch + numerous members

By Antonio Hernandez

For years, our community has struggled with providing a safe, supportive learning experience for our students. This has resulted in a decline in enrollment in the Antioch Unified School District, as more parents have opted for private education, inter-district transfers, homeschooling and charter schools.

But when parents opt out of our local public schools, they are not protesting the great teachers at AUSD. They are saying no to a system that continues to overstretch staff resources. Within the last year, AUSD has cut counselors, teacher aids, college and career staff, librarians, custodians, bilingual aids, and much more. Most recently, AUSD cut 26 similar positions (totaling $1.8 million) from its budget.

Now, both the City of Antioch and AUSD are facing a tough question: whether or not to fund over $3 million to place six cops on our school campuses known as student resource officers (SRO). But is it really the right response?

It’s understandable that as a community we may feel that adding police to our schools will make our children safe. But cops on school campuses are not an effective solution, which is why schools throughout our country are moving away from this practice in favor of more holistic solutions.

A recent paper by the Brookings Institution found that increasing investments in SROs does not lead to safer schools. Instead, they found that academic achievement is a much stronger predictor of school safety. Another paper published in Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice found that students felt less safe in the presence of SROs.

Often by the time an SRO is involved in a student’s life, we have already failed them in a million different ways. More than two-thirds of children report experiencing at least one traumatic event by the time they reach the age of 16. Based on a 2018 survey of our students, a full 70 percent of 11th graders in Antioch identified with the statement, “I felt sad and down.” And according to the most recent Census statistics, 24.9 percent of AUSD students — more than 7,000 kids — are living below the poverty line.

It’s not hard to imagine how these factors can lead to trouble at school. Yet school incidents could be prevented with the right resources. For the same cost as the six SROs, we could hire around 20 counselors to staff nearly all of our schools. But our efforts don’t have to end there. By providing quality after-school programs, access to food and shelter, and a supportive community, we can begin to address the true underlying causes of student underachievement issues rather than just the symptoms.

When we invest in SROs over education, not only are we teaching our kids that we see them as violent and in need of policing, but we are ignoring the root of the problem. On the other hand, by addressing the basic needs of our students such as access to food, shelter, and mental health resources, we can dramatically improve not only the safety of the school, but student achievement as well.

By connecting troubled students with a trusted counselor, we can reduce their feelings of hopelessness. Kids could learn to express their anger in healthy ways as well as develop resilience to help them through traumatic events.

Too often, the lack of student resources and support leads to tragedy. How many more students does the community have to mourn before our city leaders can make bold, innovative decisions to address the equity issues at the heart of the challenge with school safety?

Cops are a band-aid solution to under-resourced schools, and a very poor one at that. We must resist the temptation of using our overstretched police department to solve our communities most complex problems, even if it makes us feel better.

Now more than ever, we need to let our leaders know this is not the way we want to solve this problem. Join in this conversation on my facebook page: facebook.com/antonioforausd

Hernandez has taken out Nomination Papers to run for Antioch School Board in District 1 to challenge Board President Diane Gibson-Gray.

By Terry Ramus

It is certainly crazy times for many reasons, but now even reality means little to some of our opportunistic local politicians. For the last thirty years, we have watched as the City of San Francisco has failed to “solve the homeless problem”. Even with all of the money in SF and all of the progressive politics, homelessness is worse than ever in SF and in California. Did they ever consider if maybe the permissive, anything-goes approach is actually the wrong direction? Of course not, just throw more money at it in another example of the definition of insanity.

So recently in Antioch, Council members Lamar Thorpe and Joy Motts (with Monica Wilson who joined them in a 3/2 vote) rushed to a hastily arranged podium in front of the cameras to announce that they now have the solution for homelessness in Antioch. Oh, and by the way, we have an election in three months …

Their dramatic claim to a brilliant idea is to open Motel Thorpe, Wilson, Motts in one of the more challenged areas of Antioch, near the corner of Cavallo Road and East 18th Street. The existing motel would become a homeless motel and the annual cost would be at least a million dollars to the city. An area of town that needs a range of upgrades to help the local businesses and residents would instead be further burdened with more drugs, addiction, and the crime that goes along with these lifestyles. This is really very disrespectful to this area of town.

Homelessness is clearly a problem, but it is really a problem with drug and alcohol addiction and the mental illness that results from continuous abuse. The homeless motel idea does not even begin to deal with the actual problem, and it is just a cynical election year waste of money that the City of Antioch does not have now or ever. I will also point out that my family has firsthand experience with family members that have chosen to descend into this type of mess, but they do not emerge until they get tired of it. That is the sad reality and “enabling” this type of lifestyle just means that it takes longer for that choice to arrive. Honestly, the programs that are partially successful often involve the faith community and there are already people in this are area of town working from this perspective. As a reminder to the opportunistic politicians, a solution takes far more than a motel room with four walls.

Periodically, the illegal homeless encampments in the area are removed and the City must follow a legal process. Then they must clean up months of trash and thousands of pounds of unsanitary mass. Part of the process includes an offer for an official place for people to stay. Recently approximately 90 people were removed from an illegal encampment that had been in place for several months. Only two of the approx. 90 people accepted the offer for a place to stay. Solution oriented people might wonder why? The reason is that the places to stay come with rules, and 97% of the people in this case chose to refuse an official place to stay, with rules.

Financial considerations are very important to understand. Over the past several years, the people of Antioch have agreed to tax ourselves with a total 1% additional sales tax via Measure C and Measure W. These measures were passed based on promises to expand the police services in Antioch. Chief Brooks has led an amazing turn around in the City of Antioch with APD, and I thank him. Still far from perfect, but better. I do not believe that the people of Antioch want to return to the chaos of 2012 after the last recession! However, Council members Thorpe, Wilson and Motts suggest taking a million dollars from the APD police or other existing city services. Currently, the City of Antioch only meets the demands of our city via a slight spending deficient over time. Over decades, the city is on a glide path to a very low and unacceptable reserve fund. So, the City of Antioch must use our financial resources wisely. We must also make Antioch a place in which future and existing businesses and residents want to come and live. Instead, this unwise political proposal would move Antioch along a path as a magnet for the challenges of more crime and homeless people.

With their three votes, the Council Members Thorpe, Wilson, and Motts have forced the City of Antioch to do a “feasibility Study” on Motel Thorpe, Wilson, Motts for only a few percent of the homeless addicts to stay at without rules. This effort is another election year cynical political move and a waste of time and money. What is my suggestion? Homeless and addiction issues need to be solved at the State level as even the County does not have resources for a solution. Similar unwise politics in other cities have made many cities unlivable in many parts of these cities. Unfortunately, homelessness and addition will never be solved with progressive and permissive policies toward criminal behavior.

Terry Ramus, Ph.D. is a resident and business owner in Antioch, a former member of the Mello-Roos Board and co-author of Measure H, Antioch’s growth management advisory ballot measure passed by over 69% of the voters in 1997.

Manny Soliz, Jr. From LinkedIn.

By Manny Soliz, Jr.

I watched the press conference two weeks ago of our Transitional Housing Ad Hoc Committee at the motel on E. 18th Street about the plan to lease the entire facility for Antioch’s unhoused residents. My first thought was why are we having a press conference when the rest of our city leadership hasn’t even discussed this yet? They called their plan a bridge strategy.

It’s actually a bridge to nowhere. There’s no strategy to help the 30 or so people housed at a price tag of $1 million per year. There’s no substance abuse counseling, no help for people suffering from mental illness, no job rehabilitation services offered and no end in sight to the City’s financial commitment.

To add insult to injury, the City would lose about $100,000 per year in hotel occupancy taxes, funding critical to support the Animal Shelter and Animal services. How about the businesses along E. 18th Street, were they consulted about placing a homeless shelter in their midst? How do you think their businesses will be affected?

How about the residents living next to and in the vicinity of the motel? Do you think this will make them feel safer? Will this improve their property values?

How about the Mary Rocha Child Care center or the Rocketship Charter School both along Cavallo Road, were they consulted? Were they happy with this idea?

And perhaps the most alarming is that this “bridge” is a few hundred feet away from one of the 2 highest crime corridors in Antioch! Why would you place a vulnerable population so close to crime elements? This area is so dangerous, there was a homicide and a stabbing a few hundred feet away the week before the press conference.

Homelessness needs addressing at the County and State levels, given the complexity and scale of the issue. As a city, we cannot address this issue on our own. It is too costly and beyond Antioch’s sole ability to resolve.

Unhoused people are not one monolithic group, there are those suffering from mental illness, those afflicted with substance abuse and the people who have lost their jobs and then their homes. One approach will not help all the groups.

Failing to find shelter, in close proximity to the needed services, is incredibly sad, and a stunning waste of time and resources. The City has been talking about this issue for over a year, and we are no closer to actually helping those needing our help.

City leaders need to avoid the short-sighted approach of the bridge strategy and work as soon as possible to break ground on the proposed shelter, just east of Los Medanos College and adjacent to the county building where the needed services can be provided.

Once in a generation, a mistake of astronomical proportions is made by Antioch leaders. The last mistake of this magnitude was the ferryboat financial fiasco of the late-1980s. This bridge strategy is a costly bridge to nowhere.

Manny Soliz Jr.

Former Mayor Pro Tem & Council Member, City of Antioch

Current Antioch District 1 Candidate

Dear Editor:

This is an open letter to the city of Antioch per #CupOfJoBruno and Delta Peers. Specifically, this is a letter addressing the current city council. It’s close to elections and I’m curious why I should support you. Any of you. So, here’s the thing. I’m a Pittsburg native, and I am a proud Pirate. But Antioch is home to me. I have placed my heart in the waters that rest under the bridge. I have, like many others, marked my territory. I did what a lot of folks do, and I left home to experience life outside of where I was born. I traveled overseas and went to college in another state. But I find myself back here and I’m playing for keeps.

Currently without residency, living in my car, I am working hard to become the best version of myself. And even with the heartache and pain of my situation, I am quite happy with who I’ve become as I decide to watch y’all real close. As an anthropologist and a writer, I am observing you and waiting to write my critique. I see myself running for office as I grow into my purpose in Antioch. I feel I may even run for mayor one day. What’s a city, right? A lot of responsibly y’all. It’s a lot of responsibility.

Why haven’t you taken responsibility? Why haven’t you done anything for the unhoused population until we had a pandemic? The police department needed a good looking at prior to the countless murders of young black folks. Why are so many buildings unused and boarded up? Why have you dismissed your responsibilities and are you going to do anything different this time?

If I have personally spoken to you in passing, I know you know who I am. With all the kind words and motivational speeches, we’ve shared, I question who you are because I haven’t seen many of you act on any of it. As I move forward with establishing Delta Peers, will I see you at the table? I sure hope you hold true to your word because we need better support out here for the community. Y’all have seemed to forgotten your community and we are suffering out here. Y’all can do better, and I pray you start using the resources within the community so we can build better resources for the city.

Delta Peers is coming to the streets. We are bringing our voices and our skills. We are supporting each other and it’s time you support us too. Peer Support and mental health wellness is key moving forward as we rebuild Antioch. Y’all better get on the right side of history and make this city booming like it was when I came and visited when I was a child, in the mid-80s. We can’t ask for surrounding cities to help or join us, we are the wise old woman sitting on her porch with a shot gun, protecting her land. We help the other cities. Guide them. We are the leader here. And it’s about time we rise again.

So, show me why I am supporting you. Show us where our money is going. Show us all how you intend to improve the city that’s been stagnant the entire time you’ve been in office? Please, show us. We’ve been waiting for a long time.

Jo Bruno

Peer Action League Member for California Association of Mental Health Peer Run Organization (CAMHPRO)

By Jon Coupal and Ernest Dronenburg

Come November, Proposition 13 faces its biggest political battle at the ballot box. It is instructive to ask whether that iconic tax affordability measure remains good tax policy for California.

As the just-released property tax assessments rolls from several California counties reveal, Proposition 13 is working exceedingly well at keeping homeowners and small business owners from losing their properties to skyrocketing property taxes, while delivering government a reliable source of revenue. Voters would be foolish to repeal one of its major protections this November.

Take San Diego County, for example. The assessed value of all taxable property increased to a record high $604.75 billion, more than a five percent increase over last year. Because the state-set “lien date” is January 1st, any potential impact from COVID-19 won’t show up in this year’s numbers. Nonetheless, there is little to suggest that the county will see any major downturn in the real estate market, notwithstanding the pandemic.

San Diego’s experience with Proposition 13, as with most California counties, should lay to rest the notion that Proposition 13 has starved local government of revenue. Since 1978, increases in property tax revenue for local governments have far exceeded population and inflation. And while California now has the highest income tax rate, gas tax and sales tax rate in America, we remain in the top third (17th out of 50) in per capita property tax revenue. In short, we are not a low property tax state.

Hardly an outlier, San Diego County’s benefits from Prop. 13 are evident in the other counties that just reported their assessment rolls. These eleven counties all enjoyed big increases in taxable value that produced more revenue for schools and governments, including Fresno (up 5.5 percent), Marin (4.5 percent) and Orange (4.72 percent).

So how is it possible that, over the course of 41 years of history, Prop. 13 continues to work so well? Prop. 13 is an implicit contract with government that says property owners agree to pay a maximum property tax rate of 1 percent for as long as they own the property and agree to an annual increase of that taxable value up to 2 percent. When the property changes owners, it is reassessed at the market value and the new owner gets the benefit of a transparent and predictable tax they can afford. Prior to Prop. 13, every year was a guessing game as to whether you could afford your property taxes.

But now, far-left progressives and tax-hungry public sector labor interests want to strip away that protection from business and industrial properties in order to seize what they believe to be between $6 billion to $12 billion annually in taxes. Even their estimate of revenue has huge volatility.

Their Proposition 15 proposal on the November ballot would require continuous reassessment of business properties by removing the two percent cap on annual increases.

There are many reasons to reject Prop. 15. But as the 58 counties release their assessment rolls, it’s more evident than ever that Prop. 13 has delivered affordability for property owners and a stable and growing revenue source for schools and local governments. We shouldn’t abandon a system that’s working.

We should reject Proposition 15 in November. It’s obvious that it will have a negative impact on revenue stability for our schools and on stability for taxpayers. We will see businesses closing not because of the pandemic, but because they cannot afford to pay their property taxes.

Jon Coupal is the president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Ernest J. Dronenburg, Jr. is the elected San Diego County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk and former 20-year member of the California Board of Equalization and Chairman of its Property Tax Committee.