Several people from the SMART protest community showed up to talk about Item 18, the revision to the San Marcos Development Codes. We’ll get to this.
A few people talked about different good projects for the CBDG money.
Item 10: CBDG money for 2023-24.
This is $712K of federal money from HUD that’s intended to help community programs for low-income folk.
Here’s the requested amounts, and what ends up being awarded:
The “rec” amounts end up being approved by council.
On the Habitat House Counselling program: The federal department, HUD, requires housing counselling in certain situations. Habitat offers an online course and then individual counselling thereafter. A rep from Habitat for Humanity shows up to explain all this. But it wasn’t persuasive, because the cost is wild: Last year, Habitat charged San Marcos $13,000, and only 11 San Marcos households participated.
HUD offers a free online house counselling course. Sso we’re going with that. (We still work with Habitat on housing construction. Just not counseling.)
Shane Scott asks if we can boost CASA to $60K. The problem is that HUD has categories for this money, so you can’t dip into any project you want to move funds around. They decide that they’ll just boost CASA from the other money they dole out – the city money (HSAB) or the last bit of Covid money (ARP).
Item 11: Running wastewater from Whisper Tract down through Blanco Shoals natural area, to connect with the city wastewater system.
I’m only including this item because it annoyed me. LMC spoke during the public hearing, and asked if this involved tree removal. Would the city hold itself to the standards that it holds its citizens?
Mark Gleason follows up: Will this require tree removal? Answer: It could! Mark: Is there a remediation procedure? Answer: nope! Jane Hughson: Can we add a remediation procedure in? Answer: It’s not in the development agreement with Whisper. [Translation: you can’t make the developer pay for tree remediation.]
Ok, fine, but we can certainly pay for tree remediation. But it just gets dropped, exasperatingly.
This is the Council Dance: – Here, we identified a problem. – Let’s all sit uncomfortably for a sec – Rather than fix it, just pat it on the head and go on our merry way.
Also: Add in tree remediation to your goddamn development agreements, Council!
Item 12: Issuing $3.7 million dollars in bond debt. I didn’t really follow the details, but our AA bond rating was affirmed by Standard & Poors, which was presented as a thing we should feel good about.
Item 14: CURFEWS ARE BACK. This is delicious.
If you’ll remember, there was a three part giant shitstorm over renewing the curfew, last year. Mark Gleason decried the roving gangs of minors in his neighborhood. Mano Amiga turned out a large number of people speaking out against it. I myself made the case that curfews are dumb and wrong.
The final vote on curfews, back on 12/14/22:
So it passed. (I miss the clickers.) In theory, the Criminal Justice Reform committee was going to study the issue and bring it back.
However, the good hypocrites at the state level, in their quest to micromanage cities, felt differently!
H.B. 1819 seeks to ensure that all young Texans have opportunities to succeed without the burden of a criminal record early in life by eliminating the authority of political subdivisions to adopt or enforce juvenile curfews.
It’s really an oddly specific thing for the State Legislature to care about. Based on this flyer, it was supported by a real mix of groups: a conservative think tank, homeschoolers, youth services and racial and social justice organizations.
The common thread seems to be anti-authoritarianism. Works for me.
Upshot: in order to comply with the new state law, the curfew has now been repealed. Hooray!
Item 15: Ending the contractor test requirement to pull a permit. This came up before as a discussion item, and now it’s happening. This is a good thing. Anyone can pull a building permit now.
Firefighters also get to unionize and collectively bargain for their contracts. The firefighter’s union is SMPFFA. Since firefighters aren’t known for systematically stopping, harassing, and abusing people of color, SMPFFA gets a lot less attention than the police.
Citizen comment: equally split among a few topics: – a smattering of anti-curfew advocates, – representatives from nonprofits who are upset about the allocations this year.
We’ll get to both in due time.
Item 1: Free electric cabs downtown! The pilot program is underway. You can call them, or hail them just by waving your arm when you see one, or you can use the app.
They’re kinda cute!
The cabs have a fixed route, but they’re allowed to go off route to pick someone up or drop them off, and then they just return back to the route.
And since you asked:
Okay, I think the route is kind of weird. – It doesn’t go through the actual town square. – It’s all kind of peripheral – There aren’t any designated park-and-ride parking lots, from what I can tell.
The more I stare at it, the more convinced I am that that can’t possibly be the route. That has to just be the boundary of the Main Street district. There’s nothing on the website that can plausibly be the route, though, either. I give up.
But I’m strongly in favor of free public transit, so hopefully this will stay and grow! I would most like to use it during July/August/September, when being outside feels like Satan’s butt.
The pilot program is supposed to stay under $500K, and last for another six months. Then hopefully it will become a permanent thing.
As long as this is turning into a full-fledged PSA, I may as well post the flyer:
Ok, I tested out that QR code above. It just goes to the same San Marcos website that I linked to above. There’s just a phone number to call the cab. No link to an app, no route, just a phone number. (The presentation definitely claimed there is an app.) Oh San Marcos: so many great ideas, so many terrible websites.
Nevertheless: test it out, why dontcha? Public transportation is a great thing!
…
Items 2,3, and 4: Several financial reports. – the quarterly CBDG audit, – the quarterly investment report, and – the quarterly financial report.
On that last one, we’re making bank. This is the most striking graph:
In other words, we planned to spend light-blue-money, but we actually spent dark-blue-money. And we thought we’d bring in medium-blue-revenue, but we actually brought in green-revenue. Wowza. Across the board, we’ve come in under budget and over revenue, in almost every category.
On the one hand, this is good: we operated under prudent expectations and it worked out. On the other hand, we have a community with needs, and we should not sit on a windfall of money. (Nor should we return it via tax breaks.) We should spend it thoughtfully, on high quality programs.
Mark Gleason moves to approve, and Jude Prather seconds it.
Alyssa Garza wants everyone to please explain why they’re acting against the boatload of emails, calls, and petition signatures they’ve received.
No one really answers.
Jude Prather wants the CJR committee to look at the severity of the crime. He makes several points: – Government should protect civil liberty, but also safety. – he had an awful experience as a teenager, when he was strip-searched at a mall, under accusation of shop-lifting. So he understands how negative police interactions can alter someone’s point of view. – But this is not 1998 or 1999, which was a simpler time. This is a more dangerous time with greater public safety concerns. So he’s siding with the curfew.
Jude gave the same line at the last meeting, “This is not 1999, a simpler time,” which I ignored for being dumb and bland. But the second time he says it, we have to take it more seriously, because it’s mostly wrong:
So homicides did spike during Covid, but it’s absolutely in no way true that 1999 was significantly safer than, say, 2019.
Furthermore: on the murder spike, Chief Standridge specifically said that there have not been any murders in 2022 in San Marcos, for the first time in forever. So things are really not grim today!
(I’m guessing that Jude Prather graduated high school in 1999, and he imprinted on 1999 as a kind of The Most Generic Year yardstick for America.)
Back to Council discussion
Shane Scott brings up Max’s question from two meetings ago: How many encounters do young people have with police? In the last few months?
Chief Standridge answers, (at 1:42): “We don’t capture data associated with nonenforcement. And contrary to anything that’s been heard before, I never said that to do so would be “draconion”. I never used that word.” He basically says it’s complicated and expensive to get that data.
Why is Chief Standridge fixated on the word “draconian”? Shane didn’t use the word. No, it’s because Max Baker has been using it, during citizen comment, and attributing it to Chief Standridge. Max has been claiming that Chief Standridge said it would be draconian to record every instance of police interactions with community members.
So what did Chief Standridge actually say? Let’s go back to November 15th. At 1:22, Max says: “There’s presumably some other data set that says this is how many times we stopped and talked to people, with this as the reason, and is that data that you all keep? Your officers presumably should be tracking every time they stop somebody, to talk to them, right?”
Chief Standridge answers, “I would hope not! I hope we don’t ever live in a police state or a police city, where we document every time we speak to a person.”
I am pretty sure that’s the line that Max refers to. Max has substituted in the word “draconian” for “police state”. So Chief Standridge is right that he never used “draconian,” but what he actually said has roughly the same meaning.
Goddamnit, I’ve got to stop getting off-track on these dumb tangents.
Back to Council discussion:
Shane Scott, continuing in good faith: “When I was a kid, the PD made friends with me and I got a degree in CJ. Most kids are good kids, and it’s hard for me to do curfews based on my experiences.”
Shane Scott moves to postpone until after it goes to CJR. This is, of course, the same thing they voted on last week. But sounds good to me!
Also, his relative is scared of 16-year-olds because he doesn’t know about drunk people yet. Don’t you dare tell him and ruin his innocence!
But more seriously: Mark is very worried about 15-year-olds with guns, but not at all worried about this:
It sort of makes curfews just seem quaint.
Back to Council Discussion
I’m getting bored of this whole discussion.
Alyssa makes a case for tabling it: Tabling this will bring a sense of haste to the CJR. Otherwise it will join the endless, non-urgent queue.
Jane says that over the years, she’s voted on this 4 times before with no issue. No need to postpone.
Chief Standridge answers the racial data coding question from last time: SMCISD uses racial data as provided by parents.
Saul asks Alyssa’s question from two meetings ago: What percent of violent crimes is coming from teenagers? Unfortunately, Chief Standridge explains that the answer involves queries into several databases, and will take a little bit of time. They’ll give it to the CJR committee when they have it.
The vote to postpone:
Fails yet again.
Final vote on the whole damn thing:
So that’s that.
It will go to Criminal Justice Reform committee, and they will do whatever they do. In the meantime, the curfew is in effect.
Item 10: This is the big item of the night, the curfew ordinance. (Discussed previously here.)
In Citizen Comment, the speakers made all the basic arguments against the curfew: – It does not reduce crime – It creates unnecessary and negative interactions between kids and cops – It can serve as an entry point for getting a kid ensnared in the legal and criminal justice system – It’s an extra expense levied on poorer families – It requires a high degree of officer discretion, and many of us don’t trust cops to use that discretion wisely – Other interventions for troubled kids work better – It targets certain people for their age, not for any misconduct. – Plenty of cities (Austin, Waco) have done away with curfews, and it’s been fine. – (Plus some hyperbolic arguments that overstated the dangers. Maybe they helped move the Overton window a tad.)
The presentation
Objectively, Chief Standridge has a great presentation. I don’t agree with him and I didn’t change my mind, but he’s a very good public speaker.
Here’s his basic claims:
The fears are overstated. The implementation is very mild.
We can run the data and show that there is no racial bias.
The curfew is a helpful tool – both anecdotally, and based on the literature.
Here’s the longer version of the Chief’s argument:
The fears are overstated. The implementation is very mild.
There are 13 excused reasons that minors can be out and about during curfew. Many of the speakers ignored this list of acceptable reasons, and asked things like, “What if you’re coming home late from work?” Well, coming home from work is on the list of excuses.
The fines tend to be at most $100 plus court fees. Not $500.
There aren’t that many juvenile citations, and there really aren’t that many curfew citations. Pre-pandemic, there were ~15 curfew violations per year. Last year and this year, it’s about 2-3 per year. This supposedly shows good discretion by officers. It’s not being abused. Also it’s supposed to show that the police have other priorities, namely violent crime and traffic crashes.
I’ll concede part of this: as far as curfews go, this current implementation does seem to be on the milder side. However, he’s super short-staffed right now, and his focus is on violent crime and car crashes right now. Maybe next year, the focus will be elsewhere.
Is there a racial bias?
Chief Standridge wants to unpack the claim that these stops are racially biased. The numbers look racially biased. Since 2017, there have been 87 curfew citations. (There’s a lot of problems with these numbers, but I’ll tackle that at the end. For now, let’s just go with them.)
These citations break down by race as so:
3 Black males 17 Hispanic females 40 Hispanic males 16 white males Zero white females or black females
Here’s how the chief spins this: “I admit it looks bad when you compare to census data. Hispanics are only 40% of the population in town, but they’re 65% of these citations. But remember, most of these were daytime truancy tickets! The right comparison is to the SMCISD demographics. And SMCISD is 73% Hispanic, so we’re actually not targeting Hispanic students disproportionately, after all!”
Alyssa Garza goes after him for sloppy data and mixing which data he wants to use. This is a thing that public policy folks have to be extremely careful about – how exactly are you coding race? Federal data calls Hispanic people “white”, which is a choice that feels at odds with how everyone thinks about race. Is he using self-identified race? How reliable are these numbers?
I’m also skeptical of his comparison. If he wants to use SMCISD data as his comparison group, then he needs to separate out the truancy data from the overnight data. What are the demographics for the 35% that are overnight violations? Where kids live in “certain” neighborhoods, as the chief put it last time?
The curfew is a helpful tool – both anecdotally, and based on the literature.
Next, he gets some anecdotes from cops that this ordinance has caused minors to change their behavior for the better. It keeps students at Lamar/Rebound on campus. There were gang kids involved with guns and shoot outs. There was a suicidal kid who was reconnected with their parents, back in 2001.
(This gang business is problematic, but I’m leaving that alone for today.)
Last time, Alyssa Garza specifically asked what percent of violent crimes are committed by minors in San Marcos. I want to know this, too, and it should be easy to acquire. He did not provide that data, which makes me speculate that it’s negligible.
The literature: Standridge acknowledges that the evidence is thin on curfews actually reducing violent crime. However, curfews help keep kids from being victims of crimes. And possibly they end up committing less crimes later on in life.
He also discusses truancy. Truancy is entirely separate from the police department. The elementary and middle schools all have attendance committees and parent liaisons and make home visits. (He didn’t say what the high schools do. But school funding is tied to attendance, so I’m guessing they have a lot of people dedicated to it.) He has talked with Judge Moreno about the extent and outcomes of truancy cases she sees: it’s a lot.
To me, the discussion of truancy court makes the opposite point – that the schools have an established system for kids who miss school, and the world won’t fall apart if curfew is ended.
My analysis:
First, Chief Standridge is focused on “Which kids are helped by the curfew?” The activists during citizen comment were all focused on “Which kids are hurt by the curfew?” Fundamentally, they are each focused on different groups of people. And look: life is messy. Both could be true – some kids can be helped, while others are hurt. The question is how to weigh and decide which of those claims gets priority.
Are kids helped by the curfew, like he claims? I’m skeptical of his anecdotes. For the kids carrying guns around, the cops can already intervene. For the kids who want to leave Lamar campus, I suppose the threat of a $50 fine could motivate them to stay put.
Does curfew protect minors from victimization, like the literature shows? Sure! I can believe that minors are protected from certain kinds of crimes if they obey curfews. On the other hand, this is a bit close to “lock up your daughters so they don’t get raped” territory.
But also: when we say that minors are less likely to be victims under a curfew, what kinds of crimes are we measuring? Is domestic violence included in that statistic? Because when people are trapped at home – like during covid – domestic violence increases a lot.
Now on to the activists’ side: are kids hurt by the curfew? It’s not automatically traumatizing to all kids to get stopped and asked why you’re out at 3 am. But most of these kids have seen the videos of cops shooting black and brown men, and then, if you’re black or brown, it might be terrifying. I’m not sure Chief Standridge fully gets what a trust-deficit the police have. And he also glosses over the idea that he may have racist officers that are rougher with black and brown kids than with white kids. (He’d be foolish to pretend he has no chance of having MAGA police officers.)
Finally: some kids would just like to wander around at night, and they’re not going to be destructive jerks about it. We generally take civil liberties extremely seriously. You need to have a compelling reason to remove someone’s freedom.
One final thought: You maybe could probably talk me into the daytime truancy curfew more easily than the late-night curfew. I can see a clear, direct benefit to kids to making sure they get that high school diploma. But you need to be talking with the school district, and as far as I can tell, the school district hasn’t been involved at all.
So what do our councilmembers do?
Everyone is more uneasy about the curfew now. Last time, the focus was on crime in neighborhoods and how this curfew was good for everyone else. The focus was not on the kids (besides Max and Alyssa). Even Mark “gunshots every day outside my house!” Gleason is now thinking about actual juveniles, and he is worried that home schooled kids will get caught up in the truancy curfew. (The ordinance gets amended to include home schooling as a defense to prosecution.)
Saul proposes that the whole thing get sent back to committee for further drafting.
Jane Hughson says, “Back? It never was in a committee.” But nevertheless, Saul’s proposal sets things in motion.
Alyssa Garza always makes the most sense. But tonight, Shane Scott makes the second-most sense. He basically says, “The speakers were convincing and the chief was also convincing. But when I was a kid, I was allowed total freedom as long as I didn’t get in trouble. I just don’t like constraining anyone’s freedom if they’re not doing anything wrong.”
Alyssa Garza makes the best points. Basically, it’s complicated:
What about kids with informal jobs?
What about kids avoiding violent or unsafe homes?
Can we involve more players at the table?
This is exactly right. The reasons that a kid might be out at 3 am are big and complicated, and sometimes innocent and totally fine. Let’s bring social services and Community Action and the schools into the conversation, instead of being authoritarian about it.
Last time, Max Baker made an amendment to cap the citation at $50, plus court fees. Mark Gleason was the only person to vote against the cap.
This meeting, Mark Gleason tries to undo it. He makes a motion to allow penalties of up to $100 plus court fees, because he’s a jerk because he mistakenly believes that stiffer penalties are a bigger deterrent to bad decisions. (Actually, if you want to deter crime, you should have small, predictable consequences. The main problem here is that getting caught is extremely erratic, not the size of the penalty.)
But no one seconds Mark’s motion, and I enjoyed listening to the silence drag out. The malevolent little amendment gasped for breath, and died.
The curfew expired at the beginning of November. So currently, there is no curfew ordinance. (Children! Go run nuts! All hell has broken loose!) The question is:
Should this get sent to the Criminal Justice Reform Committee, and then renewed when they come back with their recommendations?
Or should this get renewed, and then sent to the CJR committee, and then revised when they come back with recommendations?
Alyssa makes a motion for the first option.
The vote to postpone without renewal:
So that fails. (Alyssa mutters “y’all are so fake” quietly.)
They unanimously agree to send it to the Criminal Justice Reform committee.
Should it be approved in the meantime?
One technicality: this is still the first reading. Last time, the first reading never passed. So this still has one more reading to go through.
…
Post Script #1: Just for funsies, let’s dunk on “defenses to prosecution” for a moment:
#9: Anyone between the ages of 10-17 who is married can be out past curfew. What the fuck is going on with that?
This ordinance was originally written in 1994. You know what it was intended to mean back then, of course: if an underage girl has married an adult man, and she’s out past curfew, then you wouldn’t take her home to her parents anymore. She’s married into the adult class of people now, and her husband deserves all deference on the matter. It is super-duper creepy as hell!
Furthermore, it doesn’t stand up to the barest of logic. An underage married person isn’t at risk of being a victim of crimes? An underage married person can’t commit crimes? Doesn’t need to finish high school anymore?
Honestly, show me a 17 year old married girl, and I actively want someone pulling her aside and asking if she needs help. Most likely, she either got pregnant, or she was escaping something worse at home. Either way, she could probably use a hand.
…
Post Script #2: The the data from Chief Standridge’s presentation is kinda gibberish.
Exhibit A:
Brought to you in patented squint-o-vision, because I had to take a screen shot, because it doesn’t appear in the packet.
At 1:49:45, Chief Standridge is partway through this slide, and he talks about the green area on the far right, Curfew Citations. He says “the raw number of citations for 2022 is two.” So I’m inferring that the 3rd-from-right column is the raw number of curfew citations for the past five years. Add those up: 17+14+11+3+2=47 curfew violations over the past five years.
However, no one refers to 47 as the total curfew violations. The total violations cited everywhere is 87 citations for the past five years. It’s in both the presentation, it’s used throughout the discussion, and it’s in the police memo from the packet.
Chief Standridge uses the smaller numbers to illustrate how sparingly this is used, but uses the bigger numbers to talk about demographics and how there’s no racial bias. It’s weird and I don’t understand the disparity between the two numbers.
But wait! There’s more!
Exhibit B: Here’s how the 87 breaks down racially:
Standridge computes the percentages black/Hispanic/white from this. Here’s how he gets his percents:
3 Black kids out of 87 total violations: 3/87 = 3.45% 17 females + 40 males = 57 Hispanic kids out of 87 total violations: 57/87 = 65.52% 26 white kids out of 87 total violations: 26/87 = 29.89%.
See how there are 26 white kids, instead of 16? That’s because 3+17+40+1+16=77 total citations, not 87 citations. There are 10 unaccounted kids in his racial breakdown, and so he made them all white. (And maybe it is just a typo. It could be that the true number is actually 26 white kids, not 16.)
Those are the percents for the blue bars in this chart:
I know, it’s miserable to read that chart. But the three blue bars are labeled 3.45% on the far left, 65.52% for the middle blue bar, and 29.89% for the blue bar on the right.
(That graph is supposed to be the defining argument that the curfew isn’t being administered in a racist way. He’s comparing the blue curfew citations with federal census racial demographics (orange), and SMCISD racial demographics (gray). Each cluster of three bars is a different race, with Black kids on the left, Hispanic kids in the middle, and white kids on the right.)
What’s the correct computation, then? You need to change the denominator. You only know the demographics of 76 kids, so you must compute the racial percents out of 76.
Here are the correct percents: 3 Black kids out of 76 violations: 3/76 = 3.95% 57 Hispanic kids out of 76 total violations: 57/76 = 75% 16 white kids out of 76 total violations: 16/76 = 21.05%
I don’t think this is part of some big conspiracy where Chief Standridge is intentionally massaging the data. I do think he’s spouting a bunch of gibberish, because he’s got inconsistent numbers handed to him, and he went with what was most expedient to serve the narrative he wanted to tell.
Citizen Comment: Citizen Comment is mostly animal shelter experts who are politely asking us to undo the amendments that were added to the Animal Ordinance last meeting, and to trust that the experts have designed the policy to work best when you don’t throw sand in the gears.
One person also speaks up about the curfew ordinance, which ends up being the item of the night that I’m most fired up about.
Item 1: Sidewalk Maintenance and Gap Infill program
There is a quick update from the city – how do they pick which streets to install sidewalks on, what’s the process, how does it work for the landowners, etc. It seems very straightforward to me.
Your neighborhood can petition to get sidewalks added*. Max Baker asks if there is a petition process available to prevent sidewalks from being added to your neighborhood. There hadn’t been, but since all the councilmembers like the idea, there will be, now.
(I hate this idea. I want everyone to want sidewalks. They benefit people who may not live on your street! But that is not the Texas we live in, so I suppose anti-sidewalk petitions are good for the libertarians out there.)
* Although it’s not totally clear at that link where you find the petition. Maybe you have to email.
Item 17: Curfews. I actually feel really strongly about this issue!
Did you know that San Marcos has a curfew for underage residents? Neither did Chief Standridge. Apparently it’s been on the books in its current form since 2009, and it gets re-upped every three years.
There are two parts:
Curfew overnight: 11 pm – 6 am on school nights, and midnight – 6 am on weekends.
Curfew during school hours: 9 am – 2:30 pm, Monday through Friday.
Chief Standridge first says that it’s not used very often, and it was impossible to use during Covid when everyone was at home during school hours anyway. So far this school year, they’ve only used it three times.
He specifically talks about “troubled neighborhoods”, neighborhoods with violent crime. Standridge likes curfews because it gives officers an opening to stop and talk to someone who looks too young to be out and about. Otherwise they’re not allowed to just detain people walking down the street, because that is a hallmark of a police state.
I’m so frustrated by the conversation that I want to start with a rant, instead of the council discussion. We’ll get back to the council discussion.
Are curfews best for kids?
Let’s say you’ve got a kid who is jeopardizing their future by missing too much school. Is it in their best interest to entangle them with cops and the legal system? NO. Just no.
Best case scenario, it costs them or their family $150 to go to court and straighten it out. Worst case scenario, they are now tangled up with the juvenile criminal justice system, and they are starting to accumulate prior offenses. This is particularly bad for kids who are likely to get racially profiled.
We lock up an astronomical number of people in the United States. We have a moral obligation to work to keep kids out of the criminal justice system.
And remember, we’re not cruising all neighborhoods on an equal basis, looking to talk to youths! We’re cruising troubled neighborhoods, and stopping young people there. The effect is biased along race and class lines, no matter how much Chief Standridge insists that there’s no racist intent. Maybe there is no racist intent! But in effect, there is bias. Only kids from troubled neighborhoods are getting ensnared under curfew laws.
What about those kids that really are getting up to mischief overnight or during school? Most of the time, you can let the family handle it. The police are not needed to help the kid straighten out.
But other times, kids causing problems are the ones that have big problems. They are in unstable homes. They have mental health issues. They are living with poverty and/or witnessing substance abuse and/or violence and/or manipulation and/or emotional control, etc. Getting these kids ensnared in the legal system just pours fuel on the fire.
What’s the alternative? What would be in the best interests of the kid? Basically, any meaningful, evidence-based intervention. Run it through community services, rather than the cops. Cops are really not trained to handle traumatized kids! Traumatized kids will deliberately try to provoke adults and be disrespectful, and cops are the worst at handling that kind of thing!
Why don’t we do implement more of those interventions that are shown to work? First of all, we do. Notice that there was no one from Community Action or the public schools or other after-school programs there to talk about what actually works against truancy.
If kids are still slipping through, why don’t we do even more of these programs? $$$$$$$$$. Anything that works will be labor-intensive and time-intensive. You have to have programs and you have to take time to build relationships with kids. You know what’s cheap? Letting officers stop kids whenever they want and intervene.
This is absolutely not best for kids. This is cheapest for kids.
Is it best for everyone else? Does it protect the rest of us to keep kids under curfew?
No.
Do kids get up to mischief? Abso-fucking-lutely. They are absolutely capable of petty theft and vandalism and being a nuisance. But if any of those things are going on, then cops are allowed to stop people who may be involved. If someone calls in that the neighborhood kids keep stealing shit off their porch, the cops are allowed to go talk to the neighborhood kids. No curfew needed.
Do kids get up to violent crime? Maybe occasionally? But most violent crime is going to be committed by men aged 17-30, who are not affected by curfew. You can address the stray kid with a propensity for violence using the same techniques that you address the 17-30 year olds. No curfew needed.
When there is mischief or criminal activity, there are already mechanisms to intervene.
But more importantly, curfews don’t actually work. The academic studies show zero or minimal improvement when there are curfew laws in place. (What actually works? This chart summarizes the outcomes of a bunch of programs, both good programs that work, and also the dumb, authoritarian ones like Scared Straight that turn out to increase crime. This longer read is really thorough and good on programs that work.)
So how did City Council actually deal with this?
First, Shane Scott makes a motion to deny. Great! I agree.
Max Baker asks several times for data surrounding whether or not curfew is used to just stop teens randomly. What percent of stops do not result in tickets? Chief Standridge says that they don’t track that, and it would be overly cumbersome to do so.
Mark Gleason is a Chief Stan-stan, and so he’s all in. Anything that reduces truancy and violent crime (or pretends to) is good with him. His wife is an educator, and knows that truancy is a major problem. And violent crime in his neighborhood is out of control.
Alyssa asks, “How much of the violent crime is actually committed by minors?”
Chief Standridge doesn’t know this either. He openly says that the point of a curfew is to give officers cover so that they can stop minors and ask them why they’re out and about. I genuinely think he thinks it’s best for kids. (It’s not.)
Fundamentally, if you’re a hammer, you see the world as a nail. If you’re a chief of police, you think that police intervention is good for community members. (It’s not, necessarily.)
Jane Hughson asks about the list of exceptions. For example, you’re allowed to be out after curfew if you’re heading home from work or church. You’re allowed to be out and about on school holidays. Why don’t we call those “exceptions”? Instead we call them “defenses to prosecution”.
The reason is kind of creepy: If we called them exceptions, then officers would not be allowed to stop minors with exceptions. If we call them “defenses to prosecution”, then officers can stop whoever they like and give them a ticket, and the kids can use those exceptions in court to fight the ticket. It means that the cops don’t have to presume innocence. They can presume guilt, and let the kids fight it, in court.
The vote to deny the curfew ordinance: Deny: Max, Alyssa, and Shane Do not deny: Jane, Mark, Saul
Jude Prather is absent. It takes 4 votes to win a vote, so the motion to deny fails. So now there is a motion to approve the ordinance, which still needs to pass.
Max Baker asks how much the tickets cost. This is also a big consequence of over-policing poorer neighborhoods! You nickel and dime people to death!
Do you remember how much hand-wringing there was over a tax increase of $24 per year, which goes to help the entire community? The tickets here are set by the judge, with a max of $500. Plus court costs, which run $80-$100.
Max Baker makes a motion to cap the ticket fine at $50. This seems eminently reasonable to me. You’re still running up $150 in costs by being stopped by cops.
The vote: Cap tickets at $50 max: Jane, Alyssa, Max, Shane, Saul Fuck those poor people: Mark
Mark believes that punitive punishments are effective. That is a very authoritarian mindset. It drives me up the wall.
Next we go down a real rabbit hole with data. Max Baker wants the police to start recording a lot more data around these curfew stops.
I think asking for data is a waste of time, to be honest. The issue of curfews is a moral issue, and we already know, straight up, that curfews target people based on where they live. The only consequence of asking for data is to throw sand in the gears, because data is cumbersome to acquire. (Furthermore, Max’s question – are you stopping kids in a biased manner? – is not going to be answered by the data Max wants. You’d have to know which kids they just let walk by, without stopping them at all.)
Alyssa reiterates her question about wanting to know what percent of violent crime is caused by minors. This is the right question. And it’s not cumbersome at all to acquire. You’re not asking cops to fill out an extra form throughout their day, you’re asking someone to retrospectively pull a number from a spreadsheet.
Standridge balks at this. Minors records are protected by law!
Alyssa points out that she wants aggregate data, not individual data. (What Alyssa does best on the dais is respond to points like this in a soothing manner. She says, “Data is really powerful! I bet we can figure out a way to get the answer and still protect the kids!” in an upbeat, soothing way. It’s very effective.)
Max goes off on a rant about Mark Gleason being a shill for the police, because they endorsed him, and therefore he’s going to be in favor of this, no matter what!
Max is a little off here – Mark Gleason has a true authoritarian streak. Mark supports curfews because he sincerely loves heavy-handed police tactics, and believes in “good guys” and “bad guys”, and believes that the police can tell the difference. The police endorsed Mark, but Mark was always already in their corner.
Mark Gleason takes offense, and goes on a rant about the violent crime in his neighborhood. (He lives in Blanco Gardens.) He’s sick of it! He hears gunshots all the time, and kids are stealing car parts and messing up people’s yards.
Clearly Mark thinks that allowing cops to stop and talk to anyone looking young on the streets will have an effect on violent crime. That’s a very authoritarian take, and ends up hurting people who “look” like criminals.
The vote: Should cops have to collect and present a lot more data? Yes: Max, Shane, Alyssa, Saul No: Jane and Mark.
Finally, the main motion on curfews:
The vote: Should we have curfews? Yes: Jane, Mark, Saul No: Max, Shane, Alyssa
So this fails too!! What does this mean? It means that when they discuss curfews at the next meeting, it will still be the first reading. However, Max will be gone and Matthew Mendoza and Jude Prather will be back. So I’m guessing this will pass.
The San Marxist 