News

RACE RELATIONS

 

Do Long Beach Police jail the homeless during Grand Prix week?


PHOTO by DANIEL DE BOOM

“Every legend has a basis in truth,” James Strickland responds, finally, after taking maybe 20 seconds to survey through squinted eyes the gentle rustle of sunny-spring-morning activity in downtown’s Lincoln Park. The wry smile on his beatific face—framed by a baseball cap, clean-and-straight shoulder-length hair and a light beard—suggests he knows he hasn’t quite answered the question. But also, that he hasn’t quite avoided it, either. He takes another hit off the joint he’s been discreetly sharing with his friend, Isaiah.

The legend Strickland is referring to—or the rumor, which is how I’d presented it to him—is that the annual arrival of the Long Beach Grand Prix triggers a roundup and relocation of the downtown homeless by the Long Beach Police Department.

According to that story, cops operating on orders from higher-ups sweep through the streets closest to the waterfront racetrack and try to bust everybody with a backpack, shopping cart, sun-baked cheeks or disheveled hair—in order to get them out of sight of the many thousands of visitors who may be forming consequential impressions of Long Beach.

The story came to me from representatives of homeless aid agencies, and they told it adamantly, in detail—but also under the precondition that neither they nor their agencies be identified. They expressed fear that complaints could cut them off from government cooperation and financial aid.

In that context, Strickland’s deft answer may be more than wordplay, no matter how subtly he seems to be enjoying the chance to display an inscrutable nature beyond his 31 years—or the effects of that joint. Since leaving the Coast Guard, this strapping white man has spent a decade on the streets—mostly in downtown Long Beach—where people throughout Lincoln Park can attest that being good-naturedly hard to pin down frequently qualifies as a survival skill.

“I just mind my business, do what I do,” says Isaiah, a small black man in his mid-20s whose deferential posture makes him seem smaller. He comments reluctantly, only out of courtesy, because he’s been asked. As he speaks, he seems to shrink further, a by now reflexive demonstration of his strategy.

Strickland picks up on Isaiah’s remark to drift back toward the original topic—the alleged relocation of the homeless during Grand Prix week. Depending on the rumor, this can range from the soft suggestion to go elsewhere, to a crackdown on warrants that sends violators to jail, to involuntary one-way bus trips out of the city.

“This park is usually peaceful; some positive things happen here, but they don’t happen during Grand Prix week,” he says. “The police do try to get you to be someplace else. The city wants to fool visitors into thinking it doesn’t have homeless people. I don’t know about bussing people out—nothing as open as that—but the police have done some pretty messed-up things in this park.”

When contacted for comment, LBPD Officer Joe Seminara—who, along with Officer Merle McGee, comprises the Quality of Life unit that patrols the homeless population based at Lincoln Park—said he couldn’t answer questions.

“I’m not authorized to speak,” Seminara apologized, referring the inquiry to the department’s public relations staff.

A telephoned request for an interview with an authorized-to-speak member of the Police Department went unanswered for two days. On the third day, I dropped by the department personally to check up on the request. By the end of the day, the phone rang. There was no one available to discuss reports that the homeless are relocated during Grand Prix week, although someone had composed this official LBPD-approved response:

“It is not our practice to move the homeless. Any individual is subject to arrest if they have a warrant, which is ultimately a judge’s order to arrest for a crime already committed. It has been our experience that many of the homeless don’t like the large crowds that the Grand Prix and other events draw, and oftentimes they will leave the area on their own. We are always sensitive to the needs of individuals, and everyone is treated with respect. There has been no practice of moving or shuffling people along as the result of an upcoming event.”

Not much, but it’s more than what Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal, whose 2nd District constituents include the Lincoln Park homeless, offered. About 24 hours after requesting her perspective on the issue—whether an interview or an e-mailed response—spokesperson Jemie Sae Koo phoned to report that Lowenthal was “unavailable for comment.”

All in all, pretty inscrutable, too.

Back in Lincoln Park, people who hear about the city officials’ responses universally react with an I-coulda-told-you-so roll of the eyes, although they embellish it differently. Some huff in disgust, others shrug helplessly, a few are indignant, even fewer are outright angry. By now, they’re used to this.

Among a group of black men playing dominos on the southeast quadrant of the park—near the Pacific Avenue approach to the Central Library—those emotions tend to run the gamut.

“Hell, Officer McGee already told us—the Grand Prix is coming in, and everyone with a dollar warrant is going to jail,” says a man named Jay. “He told me to tell all my friends. In actuality, somebody got taken to jail yesterday.”

Farther north along Pacific, where a diverse group of men and women is sitting on a bench beneath a shade tree, a thin balding white man who introduces himself as “Cowboy” says arrest isn’t the only tactic.

“They’ve recently removed the port-a-potties, which pressures people to move or risk citation for public urination—none of the local businesses will let us use their bathrooms,” Cowboy says. “And they are ticketing anybody who comes to the park to distribute food or clothing.”

“The littlest thing,” says Andrea, a Latina sharing lunch with friends on the park’s far west edge, “and you are in big trouble.”

But the law is the law, right?

“Yeah, except that most of these warrants are for the so-called crime of homelessness,” says Jay. “Somebody lays down in the park—which if you are homeless, will get you cited for illegal camping—and doesn’t have the money to pay the ticket, so it goes to warrant. And then, during Grand Prix week, turns into a trip to jail.”

“It happened to me a couple of years ago,” says a man nicknamed Capone. “I was minding my business when they pointed me out, asked for my name, ran me for warrants and hauled me off to jail. If you go down there now, you’d find a gang of people in there. Of course, you can’t do that.”

He pauses for a moment.

“But come by this park during the Grand Prix,” he suggests. “You won’t see anybody here.”

Tags: , , , ,

  • lbresident
    Why don't you do a story on how 80% or so of the general fund goes to city salaries and pensions and that city employees only contribute something like 2% to their fund while tax payers pick up the rest. Or how about a story on the mis-alignment of city employees and tax paying residents because most city employees don't live in LB. Or how about a story on how much money could be spent on infrastructure and beach/water quality issues if we didn't spend money on staff or direct funds for social services. Include the opportunity cost of missed grants, etc. for infrastructure. How about a story on the negative effects of low income housing in the 1st and 7th districts and how it actually hurts the poor living in that district more than the rest of the city. How about a story on the worst council person ever Tonia Uranga and how she is so completely owned by unions that she votes against the benefit of her district yet complains that the city can't afford to fix a sewer line in her district.

    You guys are always looking for a controversey. And that is good. The PT sure doesn't keep anyone in check. I just wish even though you're all liberal socialists you would throw a bone to some of us moderate, tax paying, homeowners who care about the quality of life in this community. At some point you're going to be cnn and the moderate will stop paying attention to you. Maybe that's what you want. I get you have a bias, that's why I read your site. I like to hear the other side. But c'mon...

    Cue the attacks ...
  • howardx
    great post lbresident!
  • lbresident
    I appreciate the sarcasm.
  • Guest
  • Venus: I realize that I risk offending you (once again) by responding directly to your comments, but since you saw fit to name me, personally, I figure you’ve opened that door.

    If offering what I believe to be pertinent, reasoned, reasonable and, by the way *factual*, information concerning the City or its Police Department, or by simply asking pertinent questions concerning topics that relate to either, makes me an “unofficial PR Department” so be it. But if you were familiar with more of my comments, here and elsewhere, you would also see that I am quite critical of the City and all of its Departments when such critique is warranted. Here, though, I don’t believe that it is.

    I would respectfully caution you against believing everything that you read here, or anywhere else, to be irrefutable truth. Your comments on this topic seem to indicate that you believe what you have read here to be truth, rather than the rumor Dave has reported it to be.

    You assert that “the annual arrival of the Long Beach Grand Prix triggers a roundup and relocation of the downtown homeless by the Long Beach Police Department”. I believe that assertion to be false. The LBPD PIO Office issued a statement to Dave denying this rumor, twice, and I don’t feel that anything anyone else has said on the matter has sufficiently refuted this denial.

    The quotes from Dave’s article that you highlight in your comments have not been corroborated. Dave never corroborated them, personally, during his research and no one he spoke with seemed willing or able to do so either or, if they attempted to, they were not willing to go on the record as having done so.

    This is unfortunate because to be credible, refutation must be based in fact, rather than rumor, and such facts must be attributed. If this situation is truly a problem, then it should be addressed…immediately…but we can’t reasonably demand action on it without facts.

    Do you have any? Maybe we should uncover some before writing to the Mayor and Police Chief with nothing more than rumor and non-corroborated allegations from some who, in some cases, feel themselves to be “victims” of a City that in fact spends millions and millions of taxpayer dollars each and every year to provide programs and services for them.

    Your assertion that “LBPD Officers Joe Seminara and Merle McGee who comprise the Quality of Life unit that patrols the homeless population based at Lincoln Park only round up everyone with warrants and sends them to jail once a year during Toyota Grand Prix race” is false and unless you have definitive and attributable proof that this is the case, you really should avoid lodging such false allegations of either our Police Department or any of those who serve our community within it.

    I feel you would be better served to seek out the *facts* on the matter and, if they prove to support the rumors Dave has reported, here, then disclose those facts to others and then ask them to communicate with City officials and demand action. Demanding public policy action based upon rumor is counter-productive and, in fact, does far more harm than good to the concept of good and responsive City government.

    Do the taxpayers of Long Beach help to fund lawsuit settlements involving LBPD? Of course, but in settling lawsuits we rarely acknowledge culpability; we simply decide that it’s cheaper to settle than to litigate. This is often a decision those directly involved do not agree with, because in many cases they know they did nothing wrong and they would like a duly-constituted court to take judicial notice of that. But such decisions deprive then their day in court.

    This is a circumstance that I would think anyone who purports to be “a civil libertarian who is actively concerned with the protection of civil liberties” would take *great* exception to. But, strangely, we don’t hear much from them when public employees are thus victimized.

    I wonder why that is?
  • Mike Ruehle
    Hello John,

    Why is it the information YOU “believe to be pertinent, reasoned, reasonable and, by the way factual”, are only the facts you choose NOT to ignore. I guess you missed the part of Dave’s story that said the “story came to me from representatives of homeless aid agencies, and they told it adamantly, in detail.” How about the part where Dave writes, “Hell, Officer McGee already told us—the Grand Prix is coming in, and everyone with a dollar warrant is going to jail,” says a man named Jay. He told me to tell all my friends. In actuality, somebody got taken to jail yesterday.” These are people who have actually witnessed and felt the police action. Apparently, their experiences do not qualify as facts to you because they haven’t been corroborated by you, a Long Beach Police Officer, apparently intent upon protecting your own.

    You appear quick to discredit a person’s opinion about eyewitness reports as being “false and unless you have definitive and attributable proof that this is the case.” A fact does not require a person to fill out a police report and risk retaliation as mentioned in Dave’s article. As you well know, tons of crimes go unreported in Long Beach. Calls for police service are many more times the number of crimes reported. Are you asserting that a crime not reported “on the record” never occurred? Must it be on a police report to be a fact? Does not reporting in the news media constitute going “on the record?”

    Furthermore, you claim “the LBPD PIO Office issued a statement to Dave DENYING this rumor” of police actions to move the homeless. That is untrue. If you read the PIO’s response, it DOES NOT say the police do not move the homeless during Grand Prix week. It says, “It is not our PRACTICE to move the homeless.” According to Webster’s Dictionary definition, PRACTICE means it is not customary. That wording by the PIO does not rule out the possibility of its occurrence. Moreover, the PIO statement did not specify when their PRACTICE applied or if it applied to the week of Grand Prix. The PIO statement would still be true if the police rounded up the homeless the week of Grand Prix but not the other 51 weeks of the year. If the police HAVE NOT and DO NOT move the homeless at certain times, WHY DIDN’T THE PIO SAY EXACTLY THAT? Moreover, why do you twist the PIO statement into a flat denial? It’s a FACT that they did not “deny” (declare untrue) the rumor as YOU say.

    I wonder why that is? Oh, I forgot. There is a code among fellow police officers.
  • Mike Ruehle: Thanks for the feedback.

    Because a person or organization makes a claim, does not make that claim true. I feel that factual corroboration is necessary if we are to condemn others (cop or not) and still remain intellectually honest. Comments from “representatives of homeless aid agencies” might, indeed, be seen as corroborative if only they would be willing to go on the record, which they were not willing to do. Perhaps in your haste to condemn me “you missed that part” of my comments.

    I was in no way “attempting to protect one of (my) own” primarily because no one has made any statements against them that they needed to be protected *from*. Please note this excerpt from my earlier comments: “…. If this situation is truly a problem, then it should be addressed…immediately…but we can’t reasonably demand action on it without facts.” Perhaps in your haste to condemn me “you missed that part” of my comments as well.

    I “discredit (no) person’s opinion”. People; Venus, you and me included, have every right to entertain any opinion they like. But when a person forms an opinion about a rumor, as Venus and now you appear to have done in this case, and assert it as fact, without offering corroborating facts to support those rumors; then you fail the test of intellectual honesty. I do not discount, out of hand, what any of these folks claim, I simply ask for proof. Seeing none offered I then rightly question their stories.

    Dave is the professional journalist in the room so I’ll defer to him to define “on the record” for us. My only comments along these lines were these: “If someone wants to lodge an allegation of misconduct against any City Department or employee, shouldn’t they be willing, in fact, eager, to put their name to their story? Even if their story is true and they honestly fear some sort of official retaliation, don’t you feel that remaining anonymous lends a flavor of disingenuousness to the allegation?”

    Of course I’m not “asserting that a crime not reported ‘on the record’ never occurred.” Of course, a crime must not be “on a police report to be a fact”. But if one is to allege misconduct on the part of the City or any of its Departments or employees -which is what I was talking about- one must be willing to be attributed so that their claim can be properly investigated and, if possible, corroborated. Is that really so hard to understand?

    Your interpretation of the official PIO statement that Dave received is just that; your interpretation, and mine is another. Our interpretations differ. So be it.

    My interpretation is based upon several things: 1. The context in which the response was offered…that context being the question that was asked: “Can you confirm this rumor”, the comments I read were, indeed, responsive and denied the rumor. 2. My personal knowledge of the Officers in question both of whom are extremely professional, dedicated and compassionate. They *volunteered* to work the Quality of Life Unit (which does far more than “(patrol) the homeless population based at Lincoln Park”, by the way) because they desire to *assist* our city’s homeless as best as they are able, not to marginalize or victimize them and 3. My over 24 years of personal experience with Department policy and procedure concerning the homeless…policy and procedure that has *never*, to my knowledge, been as those in the story describe. That’s what I base *my* interpretation on, Mike. You, on the other hand, appear to be basing yours upon unsubstantiated information and uncorroborated rumor.

    I may very well be proven wrong in my position, Mike. And if I am I am ready to fully acknowledge my error and apologize for it.

    Are you prepared to do the same?

    If not, which of us will prove to be the more reasonable and intellectually honest, I wonder?
  • Mike Ruehle
    John, I don't have a position on this matter one way or the other. I am questioning the honesty of your analysis and the verbose way you twist an argument around. If Webster's definition of the word PRACTICE is not a reliable source, please provide another definition that you can hang your hat on.

    The point I was trying to make is the police did not deny gathering up and moving homeless people had not occurred as you REPEATEDLY said. You have a tendency to take people to task for miniscule interpretation of wordings. I thought I'd throw it back at you to see how you liked it.
  • PatBryant
    John's response makes sense to me. He has a position (rightly or wrongly), until proven otherwise. He's looking for more "facts" before he is willing to change his position.
  • Mike: The sum of your comments tends to indicate that you do, indeed, have a position on this matter. But I readily admit that I may have misunderstood them in that regard if I did misunderstand, I apologize.

    I like words, Mike, and I believe that they have meaning and that meaning can change depending upon the manner in which words are used. This is why I try to take great care to be as precise as possible with my words and why I sometimes take others to task when they do not.

    I make mistakes in this are and so do others. Am I the only person to be taken to task for doing so?

    I believe it has become pointless to argue further with you concerning the PIO statement. I’ve acknowledged that your interpretation is among at least two that are possible. Are you able to acknowledge the same of mine?
  • Fisch
    lbresident:

    This is nothing unique to Long Beach- pretty much all cities spend the majority of their general fund dollars on employee salaries. The 2% that the employees contribute to their retirement may sound like a pittance, but that is actually 25% of the total contribution (8%). Most cities pay the entire 7 or 8 %!

    The problem with Long Beach isn't the employees, it's the unions that represent them and allow some people that wouldn't last a week in the private sector to enjoy exorbitant salaries for the work that they do (or don't do). It seems like almost everytime the City gets good, talented employees, they leave after a few years because they become frustrated with the way City Hall is run.
  • LBFamily
    Lets apply pro-airport expansion logic to the situation, shall we?
    "Screw the homeless, they new there was a race track nearby when they decided to camp there."

    And on a serious note, although off the subject, LBresident makes a good point in his/her rant, I would like to know how many city employees live elsewhere and "export" their incomes. Of course, I am a hypocrite because I import a government income.

    See you all at the race (unless you are homeless and in jail)
  • lbresident
    It's not just that they export the income. It's that they have no vested interest in quality of life. They don't care as long as they keep getting a paycheck. They would gladly trade fixing sidewalks, trimming trees, storm drain filters, for a 3% raise and a pension paid by yours truly.

    and I do like to rant.
  • Dave in Alamitos Beach
    I love the rant, and even though it's off-topic, I think you have a good story idea with city employees living outside of the city boundaries a la, oh I don't know, Conway was it? ;-)

    Since I don't think you can legislate where you require people to live, can the city offer a 5% salary increase to those employees who live in the city? Or better yet, since no one's got any money these days, how about they won't LOSE 5% if they can prove they live in the city?

    Now back to the homeless story - um, why are these people being allowed to live in the park during the other 51 weeks a year?
  • lbresident
    they are allowed to live in the park because the police and city mgmt all live outside of long beach. it doesn't affect them. And they don't care what the public thinks because their main customers are the unions that represent the employees.

    you're right, you can't legislate where people live. but it would be great if the public knew how everytime they elect a democrat/union owned council person they are choosing salaries and pensions and social services over streets, sidewalks, and clean beaches.
  • howardx
    how would a republican councilperson be different? owned by interests you approve of rather than the nasty evil unions?
  • lbresident
    I don't care if they are or are not republican. I just want them to prioritize infrastructure over city employee unions and social services. I've yet to see a democrat do that. Do you know of any?
  • howardx
    so you agree that a republican councilperson wouldnt do anything differently. good to hear.
  • lbresident
    that's not what I said. it depends on the republican. but most would put taxpayers ahead of unions and social services. the current republican on the council certainly does.

    good to hear you agree there are no democrats that represent tax payers.
  • howardx
    believe it or not i am not a democrat, havent been since 2004 so i have no trouble with what you say about them, what i do have trouble with is the notion that some how republicans would do a better job, the last 8 years belies that argument. who is the current republican on the council? delong im betting, you have been singing his praises a lot here lately. unless you are one of his big money buddies i wouldnt coubnt on him in a pinch.
  • lbresident
    real republicans haven't been in charge the last 8 years. or at a minimum they have not behaved as such.

    i have no money and delong has his faults but would take delongs votes and actions over any of the other clowns on the council.
  • PatBryant
    DeLong voted against the recent Miscellaneous Employee contract (along with Rae Gabelich).
  • PatBryant
    I like this "off-topic" rant. I think lbresident is on to something here. Maybe you can't "force" employees to live in Long Beach, but you sure can Directors and above. Guess who DOESN'T live in Long Beach - Pat West, Suzanne Frick, Mike Conway, Dave Ellis (Fire Chief), and most others. I know Chief Batts lives in Long Beach, and I'm not sure about Craig Beck.

    It isn't THEIR city, it's just a job . . .
  • Dave in Alamitos Beach
    I work in Century City, but live in Long Beach. Guess which city I care about? I'm not posting on any Century City websites...
  • income_importer
    Dave in AB...I'm a bit late to this comment party, but snap snap to you! GP weekend is proof that the city can deal with its homeless problem the same way most of our neighboring cities do.

    Let's chase them out of the city the rest of the year.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.