Council's Public Safety Committee Will Meet Tuesday, Hasn't Agendized These Issues But Should is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.
(Feb 24, 2019, 10:00 a.m.) -- The City Council's Public Safety Committee (chair: Suzie Price; vice chair Daryl Supernaw; member: Al Austin, all chosen by Mayor Garcia) will meet on February 27 at 3:30 p.m.. Its agenda doesn't include the items below, but in our opinion it should.

The first four shouldn't cost major sums. They seek improved public access to neighborhood-impacting Council-district reflective crime stats. Knowledge is power, and improvements are merited because (to paraphrase a management principle) if one can't measure something, one can't improve it (or it becomes harder to improve.)

The second four confront public safety service levels that LB taxpayers previously had (item #6 had Council voted budget approval but wasn't provided) but taxpayers no longer have despite even after approving the Measure A "blank check" sales tax increase that imposed the highest sales tax rate among CA cities (tied with only a few others) and now brings LB City Hall over $50 million more each year.

[Scroll down for further.]

[Scroll down for further.]

  • 1. Proposal to list shootings (fatal, non-fatal, no-person-hit) in LBPD crime statistics
    : In Los Angeles (L.A. County's largest city), LAPD crime stats disclose numbers of "shots fired" and "shooting victims" citywide and for various neighborhoods. (See at this link. In contrast, in Long Beach (L.A. County's second largest city) LBPD crime stats don't disclose shooting data of any kind, including the number of shootings, in what Council districts they occurred and whether those numbers are increasing or decreasing. [ does this unofficially after confirming each one we learn about with LBPD but we may miss some.] LBPD includes shootings among "aggravated assaults," which satisfies federal bureaucrats but doesn't reveal realities in some LB neighborhoods. LB can and at minimum should provide residents with the level of information on shootings that L.A. provides.

  • 2. Proposal to list "quality of life"/transient related crimes in LBPD crime statistics
    Councilwoman Price has previously acknowledged the neighborhood impacts of what she calls "quality of life" crimes. These are nearly always "Part 2" crimes (all crimes that aren't "Part 1" serious crimes) and aren't routinely itemized because there are so many types of Part 2 crimes. But some Part 2 crimes are commonly associated with transient/homeless populations; LB City Hall's "Justice Lab" has documented them and has recently reported this here. With LB's increasing focus on homeless issues, LB residents should be able to see the numbers, types and locations of the most common types of LB transient-related crimes.

  • 3. Proposal to provide LB crime statistics in user-friendly spreadsheet digital form.
    LBPD currently provides neighborhood level crime stats in last century's primitive hard-copy scanned format (pdf), making them needlessly difficult to compare and analyze. We presume that internally, LBPD already has its crime stats in some digitally friendly spreadsheet formats and if so, there's no good reason not to make the data available in digitally friendly form for LB residents.

  • 4. Proposal to resume reporting LB crime statistics by Council districts
    For years, LBPD routinely released crime statistics by Council districts (which allowed residents to compare conditions in their Council district with others) but that suddenly ended entering the 2004 election cycle (when then-Mayor O'Neill supported two incumbents who ultimately lost.) City Hall claimed at the time that it ended its previous practice because some LBPD's crime reporting districts cross Council district lines, which was a bogus justification. LBPD continues to routinely report its crime stats by its four Divisions (North, South, East, West), all of which cross Council district lines. LB's Mayor and Councilmembers routinely cite "citywide" crime stats that camouflage high crime areas by crossing all Council district lines. And obviously LBPD knows in which Council district crimes occur, which LB residents deserve to know so they can compare conditions among Council districts on equity and other grounds.

  • 5. Proposal to recommend restoring LBPD's former field anti-gang unit (20 officers plus 2 Sergeants).
    LBPD no longer has a field anti-gang unit because in 2012, then-Mayor Foster proposed ending funding for it in FY13; LB's responded by funding it at half strength for a year using "one time" funds, then let those "one time" funds end in FY14. LBPD has said most of LB's shootings are gang related, but despite the inequitable concentration of shootings in working class and historically disadvantaged communities, neither Mayor Garcia nor any Council incumbents have proposed restoring LBPD's field anti-gang unit. LBPD does have a gang unit that routinely investigates non-fatal shootings and conducts other necessary work, but no longer has the valuable field level component -- interacting with residents and gathering intelligence -- that LB previously had.

  • 6. Proposal to recommend acquiring and deploying "Shotspotter" or similar gunfire location technology.
    In Oct. 2011, then-Councilman Garcia proposed and the Council voted to allocate oil revenue for items that included funding Shotspotter. Garcia wrote in his agendizing memo: "Shotspotter System: $350,000. The Shotspotter gunshot detection system would be a valuable tool to assist the Police Department in responding to gun incidents and other types of crime." Despite the Council vote, LBPD brass refused to acquire and deploy Shotspotter, eventually claiming it would no available gunfire location system that met LBPD's needs. We consider this defensive double-talk. Our sources told us the real reasons were the system's ongoing cost plus Shotspotter's ability to demonstrate the real number of shots fired in some LB neighborhoods (likely higher than the public phones in) which would prove problematic for LBPD responses lacking 208 citywide deployable officers that the Council had erased. [Since FY17, the Council has restored funding for 22 out of 208 erased citywide deployable officers.] Rather than simply accept what LBPD management says, we suggest that the Committee invite a Shotspotter company rep to deliver a public presentation on what it offers. That's an opportunity for the Committee to ask no-nonsense questions of both sides.

  • 7. Proposal to recommend restoring LBFD's second downtown Fire Engine (Engine 101 for density/high rise protection). For years, LB taxpayers had Engine 101 deployed in addition to Engine 1 at downtown Station 1 (Magnolia Ave. between Ocean Blvd./Broadway) providing an added safety margin reflecting the challenges of downtown high-rise density. At the same time as Councils that included Robert Garcia and Suja Lowenthal invited increased downtown density with a developer-desired "Downtown Plan" enabling the highest high rises in Long Beach history, the Council recklessly eliminated Engine 101 which hasn't been restored.

  • 8. Proposal to recommend annual officer increases at a pace sufficient to restore 186 citywide deployable officers by 2025 that City of LB provided to its taxpayers in 2008.

    Other nearby cities weathered "the Great Recession" without doing what LB elected officials did to LB taxpayers. Under Mayor Foster (who sought election in 2006 by pledging to put 100 more police on the street in his first four years), City Councils that included Robert Garcia and Dee Andrews erased 208 citywide deployable officers -- a staggering 20% of LBPD's citywide deployable strength amounting to the largest reduction in police officers for LB taxpayers in the more than 100 year history of the City of Long Beach. Since FY17, City Council votes have restored 22 citywide deployable officers. To view LB's too-thin thin blue line per capita compared to what Los Angeles and Signal Hill provide for their taxpayers, click here

    In our opinion, the Council's Public Safety Committee should go where the truth leads on these (and other) issues no matter whose toes it steps on. If they're unwilling, any Councilmember(s) can and should agendize these issues for prime time full Council discussion "on any Tuesday."

    Below are the items on the Public Safety Committee agenda for its Feb. 27 meeting (3:00 p.m., City Council Chamber.) None of the d items include written or PPT materials, letting the public (or committee members) know what city management, LBPD or LBFD plan to say on these matters (a practice accepted by that committee.)

    1. Recommendation to approve the minutes for the Public Safety Committee meeting held Tuesday, December 18, 2018. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation.

    2. Recommendation to receive a report on the use of Tiger Connect. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation.

    3. Recommendation to request a report on funding methods for fire stations in future development projects. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation.

    4. Recommendation to receive an update on Standing No Trespassing Orders. Suggested action: Approve recommendation.

    5. Recommendation to receive a report on the management of impacts from homelessness on railroad property. Suggested Action: Approve

    6. Recommendation to receive a report on the status of the restoration of Fire Engine 17. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation

    PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public are invited to address the Committee

    Opinions expressed by, our contributors and/or our readers are not necessarily those of our advertisers. We welcome our readers' comments/opinions 24/7 via Disqus, Facebook and moderate length letters and longer-form op-ed pieces submitted to us at






    Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to incumbent Long Beach officials, development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

    blog comments powered by Disqus

    Recommend to your Facebook friends:

    Follow with:




    Return To Front Page

    Contact us:

  • Adoptable pet of the week:

    Carter Wood Floors
    Hardwood Floor Specialists
    Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050

    Copyright © 2018, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here