Descrizione
On or about February 7, the ability for members of the public to comment on most complaints filed in the city of Oakland on SeeClickFix.com was apparently disabled.
Prior to this, late last year, something similar happened with all complaints filed in Berkeley. And new complaints filed in San Francisco seem to have vanished from the site altogether.
Apparently, someone (multiple someones?) don't like ordinary people being able to use 311-related websites to discuss and give their views on community issues.
Is it okay for people to use the site to post anonymous reports seeking to have other community members cited, fined, arrested, or subject to other unwanted government action – at least in Oakland and Berkeley, maybe no longer in SF – with no accountability for filing false or malicious complaints, but not to defend the targets of such complaints, who are often homeless people, prostitutes, and other marginalized folks but also property owners, motorists, and businesses?
Is it okay to repeatedly close legitimate complaint tickets reporting potholes, trash on the streets, locked public restrooms, broken sidewalks, missing or overflowing trashcans, public trees in need of pruning, and other infrastructure needs, while neither addressing the issue nor giving any reason for why the ticket was closed, but not okay for people other than the complainant to discuss such issues or point out that they haven't been addressed?
This is the clear impression being given. Tell me I'm wrong? I'd love to hear I'm wrong. I'd love the responsible individuals to come out of the shadows and plainly tell us what is going on.
Is this how politicians in Oakland and Berkeley want their 311 systems to function? Without transparency or accountability? Is this what their constituents want – a website that enables snitching culture while shutting down public discourse and allowing government agencies to avoid any transparency or accountability?
Is this the approach that SeeClickFix.com (based in Connecticut), or CivicPlus (the company that owns the site, based in Kansas) are trying to impose on cities in the Bay Area?
Inquiring users want to know!
20 Commentos
GoodSamaritin (Utente registrato)
I agree, this is absolutely ridiculous. Already Oak311 is littered with requests that never go anywhere due to city mismanagement, and now the city is slowly disabling the ability to even comment on the requests, making it fully seem like they want to accept the requests, then never act on them or give the community the space to talk about them.
Just in my neighborhood alone there’s so many requests, repeated requests, over the past 2 years over the same vehicles, the same buildings, making the same offenses, and absolutely nothing happens. Talking with a contact of mine in the city transportation department, he said over the past few years the city has “restructured” departments and completely separated entities like parking enforcement and 311 from OPD, giving them little to no power to actually enforce laws, and to instead direct them to OPD. And we all know how effective OPD has been these past few years.
If the city is trying to say they support repeated criminal offenses, then they’re doing a good job. Making it harder for law abiding citizens to report, document, and converse about the crime and blight in their community is definitely a step in that direction.
D (Utente registrato)
GoodSamaritin (Utente registrato)
D (Utente registrato)
Starchild (Utente registrato)
Thanks, "GoodSamaritan". I hope it's a positive sign that someone's listening, that others (namely yourself, so far) are being allowed to comment on this ticket.
Both complaints about parking and buildings however, amount to complaints against the individuals who own those buildings and vehicles, complaints that can have legal consequences for them (however inconsistently enforced). I don't think anyone should be allowed to make anonymous legal complaints against others. It's an approach that invites false, malicious, and/or revenge-motivated complaints, as well as undermining trust and harmony in the community.
Unless a vehicle is causing a real problem, I say we should leave it alone. Parking is restricted in too many places, and any agency taking ticket money from people has a serious conflict of interest and incentive for abuse, if they get any of the money they're taking.
When there's not enough parking, largely because of unnecessary restrictions imposed in part to benefit some narrow special interest at the expense of everyone else, and in part to tax people more, the alternative to committing minor parking violations is to waste time driving around burning more gas and causing more congestion and potential accidents.
The annoyances caused by people misparking need to be weighed against all the extra pollution, injuries and deaths, the enforcement costs, etc., associated with trying to punish it.
With buildings, issues should be left up to the owner's discretion unless they are violating someone else's rights. The concept of "blight" is a subjective standard prone to classist abuse, and complaints.
If graffiti on a building bothers you greatly, you can always offer to the owner to buy some paint and help them paint it over. Don't try to make the owner, or the general public, pay to enforce your aesthetic preferences.
All the resources wasted on this kind of stuff – trying to police how other individuals use public space, how they maintain their own property – means fewer resources for the priorities that virtually everyone agrees on: Violent crime, burglaries, car and bike thefts, infrastructure maintenance, care for city trees, etc.
When too many things – too many people – are criminalized, when our lives are over-regulated, it tears a society apart. I believe it's one reason there is so much bitter partisanship, people trying to control government so they can use it against others and/or to benefit themselves.
Starchild (Utente registrato)
Oops, left off the end of a sentence – meant to write,
"The concept of 'blight' is a subjective standard prone to classist abuse, and complaints motivated by desire to protect or increase property values."
GoodSamaritin (Utente registrato)
GoodSamaritin (Utente registrato)
D (Utente registrato)
Starchild (Utente registrato)
Your opinions are duly noted, but you two don't speak for everyone. A public forum where people are weighing in with requests for the use of taxpayer resources is an excellent place to discuss these priorities. I'm well aware that the NIMBY mentality tends to be over-represented on sites where people go to complain about stuff, and I think it's important for other voices to be heard.
And no "GoodSamaritin", I'm not Pamela Price. Very ironic you should complain about her, when it is your preference for enforcing parking and aesthetic standards and stuff that's taking resources away from fighting real crime.
Your Biblical namesake by the way, wasn't motivated by obeying the law, but by helping someone in need, and they did it by personally lending a hand, not by forcing laws and regulations on them.
What I'm talking about is just live and let live, respect for everyone's individual rights, and devoting resources to what we can pretty much all agree on rather than weaponizing government against others in the community to fight divisive culture wars. That's not crazy. Some might call it common sense, or even dare I say traditional American values.
What's CRAZY is the vast criminal and regulatory system and sn|tching culture we've got now. Look around and see the results. The neighbor vs. neighbor approach doesn't work.
Starchild (Utente registrato)
Starchild (Utente registrato)
Chiusa GoodSamaritin (Utente registrato)
Chiusa GoodSamaritin (Utente registrato)
Gotta love “big word” scholars trying to dictate how the city operates…..those poor criminals, won’t somebody think of them?
Go stand on a soapbox on a corner if you so badly need a place to preach your ideals, this isn’t the place.
Starchild (Utente registrato)
If someone was standing on a soapbox on a corner in your neighborhood saying the kind of things I'm saying, "Good Samaritin", somehow I'll bet you'd be complaining about it.
You should be careful talking about "criminals" as if when we hear that word we should just throw reason and common sense out the window and focus on making people suffer.
With the vast criminal justice and regulatory systems in place, YOU could be the next one criminalized, for something you're doing that you value, and your neighbors could be sn|tching on YOU.
Reopened Starchild (Utente registrato)
Chiusa D (Utente registrato)
Reopened Starchild (Utente registrato)
Starchild (Utente registrato)
Chiusa D (Utente registrato)