Bay Area
Opponents of San Francisco’s Prop E Hold Rally in Front of City Hall
Activists and community members held a rally Wednesday morning in front of City Hall in San Francisco to protest Prop E, a ballot measure that would allow the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) to install more public surveillance, reduce officer reporting requirements for use of force and expand vehicle pursuits.
![No On Prop E (NOPE) supporters stand outside of San Francisco City Hall to urge voters to vote against a ballot measure that would allow the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) to install more public surveillance, reduce officer reporting requirements for use of force and expand vehicle pursuits. Photo credit: The Worker Agency](https://www.postnewsgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/proposition-e-rally-featured-web.jpg)
By Magaly Muñoz
Activists and community members held a rally Wednesday morning in front of City Hall in San Francisco to protest Prop E, a ballot measure that would allow the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) to install more public surveillance, reduce officer reporting requirements for use of force and expand vehicle pursuits.
Speakers at the rally explained that voting yes for Prop E would take away independent oversight and allow SFPD to cut corners in their reporting.
Nathan Sheard, Managing Director of Advocacy at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, expressed concern that the measure would make San Francisco a testing ground for unproven surveillance technology with no regards to central freedoms and would amplify racial bias in the department.
Sheard drew attention to the landmark 2019 decision by the Board of Supervisors banning facial recognition software because it threatened the civil liberties and rights of SF residents. He argued that this new measure would infringe upon those rights.
“Unchecked surveillance is not the solution to our city’s challenges. If passed, Proposition E would expand secret surveillance while stripping away hard-won safety policies,” Sheard said.
Also in attendance was SF Police Commissioner Kevin Benedicto, who suggested that Mayor London Breed was promoting the measure for the ballot as a reelection strategy. He recalled that a similar measure had come up in 2018 when the mayor was first running and she stated she had concerns, but now in 2024, she’s backing the proposition with big money by her side.
Benedicto shared that legal bar associations, nonprofits and city leaders are all in support of taking a stand against the measure, which can sometimes seem rare in politics.
“The other side might have the money, but we have the people on our side,” Benedicto said.
He explained that if the measure passed, safeguards meant to protect citizens would be thrown out and would allow officers to cut corners and would also not allow a lot of room to make changes or go back on the proposition if they found it did not work for the city. The initiative would have to be undone by another ballot measure.
Benedicto added that Prop E establishes a dangerous precedent and is not how the city should address its public safety concerns, considering that the measure would disproportionately impact Black and Brown communities, who are often victims of racial bias by police.
Members of the community who have experienced the negative effects of SFPDs racial bias and consequences of vehicle pursuits also spoke at the rally.
Julia Arroyo, co-director of the Young Women’s Freedom Center, shared that from a young age she had frequent encounters with SFPD while living in the Mission District. She recalled the constant stops and searches she and her friends underwent on the way to school, saying that she even adjusted her morning schedule to accommodate the interactions.
It wasn’t until years later when she was pregnant with her first child that she had been stopped by officers and instructed to sit on the ground until a female officer could arrive to conduct the search, that Arroyo realized the frequency of these stops were not normal. She shared that people had begun crowding around her to make sure she was okay and calling out SFPD for treating a nine month pregnant woman so harshly.
Arroyo stressed the importance of citizen oversight so that the public can be made aware of when they are treating residents in a similar fashion and hold those officers accountable.
Ciara Keegan tearfully shared the story of becoming a victim of a car accident due to a vehicle pursuit by SFPD last December. She said the person who crashed into her had been involved in an armed mugging and was running from the police in the opposite lane to her vehicle, where the suspect’s car then skidded right into Keegan’s car, sending her to the hospital.
According to CHP data, 38% of about 150 vehicle pursuits by SFPD resulted in a collision from 2018 to 2023, and 15% of those chases involved a collision in which at least one person was injured.
Keegan was informed by lawyers that a lawsuit against the police department would likely be fruitless because officers have immunity in cases of accidents by vehicle pursuit. She shared that although she was able to walk out of the situation alive, she wouldn’t wish the emotional and physical trauma on anyone.
“I could have been killed or suffered life changing injuries. Proposition E treats San Franciscans as collateral damage. But I am not collateral damage. We are not collateral damage,” Keegan said.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of July 24 – 30, 2024
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of July 24 – 30, 2024
![](https://www.postnewsgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/oakland-post-7-24-24-featured-web.jpg)
To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of July 17 -23, 2024
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of July 17 -23, 2024
![](https://www.postnewsgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/oakland-7-17-final-featured-web.jpg)
To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Bay Area
Op-Ed Senate Bill 966 Threatens Health Equity in East Bay
My East Bay community is struggling to get by. A proposed State Senate bill would set us back even further. Serving the East Bay community has been my life’s work and my greatest joy. After leaving the Bay Area to complete my seminary, I returned home to found The Community Church in Oakland. From the outset of my time as the church’s pastor, I have been guided by the belief that my service must extend beyond the pulpit, because the health and economic needs of my community are so great. Our church has organized free food banks, COVID-19 testing clinics, and a housing and re-entry program for those suffering from addiction.
![Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook.](https://www.postnewsgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/VanHook-featured-web.jpg)
By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook
Special to the Post
My East Bay community is struggling to get by. A proposed State Senate bill would set us back even further.
Serving the East Bay community has been my life’s work and my greatest joy. After leaving the Bay Area to complete my seminary, I returned home to found The Community Church in Oakland.
From the outset of my time as the church’s pastor, I have been guided by the belief that my service must extend beyond the pulpit, because the health and economic needs of my community are so great. Our church has organized free food banks, COVID-19 testing clinics, and a housing and re-entry program for those suffering from addiction.
Through my service, I have seen the challenges that our community members are facing. Oakland, my hometown, has the third-highest rate of violent crime in the state. The local economy is strained. Oakland-based businesses are leaving our community because they’re struggling to get ahead.
Both East and West Oakland has disproportionately high rates of respiratory illness due to heavy air pollution. While our local efforts have brought some aid to those in need, we are also counting on our state elected officials to help us address the systemic health disparities afflicting the community.
Chief among the health concerns of community members is having reliable and affordable access to prescription drugs. Equitable access to medications gives us the peace of mind that we can keep ourselves and our families healthy and safe. Our community should not have to choose between paying rent or purchasing prescriptions.
Unfortunately, rather than taking action to combat soaring prescription drug prices, some California lawmakers are pushing legislation that could raise patient costs at the pharmacy counter.
The Legislature is currently considering SB 966, a bill backed by special interests that would undercut the few tools we have to keep prescription drug costs contained, letting big drug companies increase their prices, profiting on the backs of working families – some of whom already live paycheck to paycheck.
SB 966 would target the fundamental programs through which small businesses, unions, and government health programs are able to offer their employees and members quality and affordable healthcare. Millions of Californians rely on these plans to obtain essential medications at the lowest-possible cost.
The bill would make it illegal for employers and unions to incentivize the administrators of their prescription drug plans to negotiate for the lowest possible cost for prescriptions. Right now, small businesses and unions can choose to pay these administrators more for taking on big drug companies and securing discounts – a choice that will be outlawed under this bill.
As a result, employers will have no leverage to stop big drug companies from setting sky-high prices, disproportionately impacting working families.
As these health costs quickly add up, employers will have little choice but to pass the increases down to their employees. That means California patients will see higher healthcare costs and co-pays.
From my perspective, most concerning is that the bill would exacerbate the health disparities impacting my community and other underserved populations. If SB 966 becomes law, the most vulnerable may be forced to skip prescription doses, stop filling their prescriptions, and avoid essential care.
By rejecting this cash grab by big drug companies, our state elected officials can send a clear message that they stand with the community, patients, and working families.
We cannot afford SB 966.
Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.
-
Arts and Culture3 weeks ago
Rooted in Tradition: The Intricate History of Black Hair Braiding
-
Bay Area4 weeks ago
“I Will Not Be Bullied,” Says Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao
-
Bay Area2 weeks ago
PG&E Increases Rates While Bay Area Households Are Struggling to Stay Afloat
-
Business3 weeks ago
Gov Newsom: Raising Fast Food Minimum Wage to $20 Pays Off as Jobs Multiply in Industry
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Opponents of Mayor Sheng Thao Are Calling on Her to Resign Following FBI Raid
-
Bay Area2 weeks ago
Juneteenth Mass Shooting Suspect Charge with Multiple Counts of Felony Assault by Alameda County DA Pamela Price
-
Community1 week ago
Hundreds Come to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Assembly Hall for Three-Day Program of ‘Good News’ in Fremont
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Oakland Coliseum Sale to AASEG: A Model for Community Development and Inclusion