- by Sureyma Gonzalez Rios
It is well known that Oakland, California, a historically Black city, has changed throughout the years. What used to be a city made up of a 50% Black population, has now dropped to 28% over the last ten years. I know. Being a native I have witnessed it. Who would have thought that with the influx of new professionals, young families and well off hipsters from the suburbs, would ever step in the streets of the city with the “highest robbery rate in the nation”(Color Lines). It is enticing, chic and edgy to be surrounded by this. But this excitement is soon replaced by fear and the need to bring order and safety to these individuals who come from a place where they were surrounded by order and safety.
Not only is gentrification taking place, but these new residents have now experienced some of Oakland’s notorious crimes. Such crimes include what is called, the “casual car pool” robbery--in which individuals in cars cruise, stop the car, rob an individual and get back on to drive away (Color Lines). These events have pushed the new residents to organize a system of private policing. It is interesting that as a community, members have come together to talk about the issue that they face to come up with a solution that they know which is to hire private policing.
Private policing is an expensive private security that patrols and polices neighborhoods. The only individuals that are able to afford it are the well off new residents flowing in. Many have mentioned that another reason for acquiring private security is due to the, “short[age] of police staffing”.It is true; for the numbers for the numbers of police have gone down from 835 to 611 in the last five years (Color Lines).
The counter argument made from older residents who know the city’s original ethnic demographics and culture, state that private policing actually implements segregation, militarization of the neighborhood and racial profiling on the youth of color. Not only are schools in Oakland segregated by different Socioeconomic statuses and neighborhoods, but the implementation of private policing in neighborhoods will only increase segregation in larger public areas of the city, such as certain neighborhoods, parks, etc. This also militarizes certain neighborhoods: one will be unable to walk freely without being policed, or questioned of their motive of being in a certain place. And lastly, the bigger issue on this is the racial profiling that the private policing induces. Many young people of color who are from low-income neighborhoods travel to better parts of the city to obtain a better education, and they are at a very high risk of being profiled and suspected of wrong doing.(Color Lines)
With a change of the population in Oakland, a culture of fear and discrimination develops. This new culture of fear affects the new residents’ view of Oakland and its former residents. This makes them take actions to take care of the crimes that occur, which stresses them to take action such as hiring private security to police their streets—stimulating their conquering mentality that creates distinction and separation between class, race and color lines.
Source:
http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/11/oakland_private_security_patrols.html
This is a very good personal account of processes taking place in Oakland. It gives a clear image of the issues that arise as a result of gentrification and transition from traditional forms of policing (community/patronage) to the modern ones (professional/private). It is understandable that older residents stand against changes to their routine, however, high rates of crime cannot be simply ignored and professional policing might be an adequate response to the crime in this case.
ReplyDeleteAlexander Solodovnikov
I also grew up in Oakland and growing up my family was the only asian family in our area that was mostly black and hispanic. I've witnessed gentrification occurring as well even as it spreads into my neighborhood, which now has a different demographic. I think it's ironic in that a lot of the people who are new to the city take pride in that they're living in the "hood", but a few months later when they begin to realize they're actually in Oakland, they get scared and demand from law enforcement what many natives have been demanding for generations. The only difference is that many of these gentrifiers are getting what they want at the expense of the natives. Their excitement at living in what these natives have created and suffered through has led to fear and things like gang injunctions that are essentially "banishing" them from their own city. Like you mentioned, it's segregation. To take it as far as hiring these private policing patrols is sending the message that "we want to come and enjoy the benefits of your city that the diverse low socio-economic community has created but while we're here, please stay away".
ReplyDeleteAfter today's lecture on gang injunction, it is refreshing to see that you've provided both- the new-comers' and the natives'- perspective on the rise of private policing in your neighborhood. Emotionally, it seems unfair and almost unsympathetic of the new-comers to barge into new territory without fully understanding the culture, whether it be unimpressive and maybe unacceptable, and expect change. The only way I would be able to relate to this issue is the rapid gentrification of San Francisco and the rising cost of living that make it almost impossible for me to move into my dream city post college. However, is it reasonable that I hate the tech companies and the techies for doing what they do? No, because, logically, they have every right to be there. Returning to the issue of gentrification and privatization of safety in Oakland, I have to say that both sides have reasonable arguments in which a middle-ground must be found. It's not reasonable to frown upon the new-comers for wanting safety in their sanctuary, and if they can afford it, great. However, private policing must be regulated by constitutional laws and stricter policies.
ReplyDelete-June Shin
Sureyma,
ReplyDeleteYour blog post brings about the idea of private v. public variations of policing a community. With the introduction of private policing, it establishes its own set of procedures on how to maintain law&order within the neighborhood. It differs than the public law enforcement because the police functions by an established legacy of professional protocols. Hence, this idea of privacy v. public immediately made me think about the concept of 'privacy paradigm' and the question about the legitimacy of the private task force that govern a particular community where the public police patrols all over the city. Within a community, the private police does establish its own sphere of patrol and its own sets of procedural guidelines/enforcements to ensure the safety of the community. However, the idea of legitimacy is an important to consider in order to examine the effectiveness of the private community policing because with the issues you raise, they all question the legitimacy of the private police.
-Jiajun (Michael) Huang.
I thought this article did a good job of illustrating the continuing emphasis on private policing. If I remember correctly there is a similar type of police force that USC pays for. I do think older residents do have good reason to be ticked off at the private police, especially since private police aren't as limited in their powers as public police (as far as profiling goes).
ReplyDeleteDerek Chin
I enjoyed this post and found it very informative. I think you really tackled the issues of privacy policing and brought out many good arguments for why it can have a negative impact on certain areas. Racial profiling and segregation are two things our country is trying to steer away from, but gentrification might make this impossible. I appreciated your story as a platform for these issues, so thank you for sharing. Overall, I think you did a great job laying out the pros and cons of private policing. -Brooke Arthur
ReplyDeleteYou did a good job of laying out what private policing is and how gentrification can create more of a private police presence. Your post reminds me a lot of the book “Banished” we have read in class, as the private police which is hired by those of money such as businesses can monitor and keep away those who look suspicious. I would argue that the use of these private police forces is given too much power, as they now have the discretion to stop anyone who in their eyes looks suspicious. More often these private police forces are targeting people of color who they believe may be causing crimes, when many of these individuals are simply living their daily lives in their neighborhoods.
ReplyDeleteMichaela Acebedo
The view you present from your empirical experience as a resident is vivid. I like how you provided the background for the shifting moods about the demographics of the area. You detail the gentrification process and the presence of private policing very well, providing a great look inside what what on in your neighborhood. It will be interesting to see how the situation in Oakland will play out in the near future.
ReplyDeleteAlejandro Castellano