My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 60C
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2020
>
09/15/2020
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 60C
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/15/2020 4:38:49 PM
Creation date
9/14/2020 11:55:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Item #
60C
Date
9/15/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Orozco, Norma <br />From:Anthony Johnson <anthony723johnson@yahoo.com> <br />Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 4:36 PM <br />To:eComment <br />Subject:Planning Commission Public Comment 9/15/20 <br />Good afternoon, <br /> <br />I would like to share my thoughts on some of the items that will be discussed today. <br /> <br />12A: while tourism is an important revenue stream for the city, we do not need to establish a separate district <br />for tourism purposes. At a time where members of the community are struggling to pay rent for the lodging in <br />their own homes, we should be focusing on them, not tourist lodging. How can the community members be sure <br />that the creation of this district won't further gentrifry their neighborhoods and make the rent at their homes <br />unaffordable? This district would be toward the benefit of hotels and to the detriment of the people who live in <br />the city, so it should not be established. <br /> <br />20B: for months, community members have spoken to the council and protested about reshaping the way our <br />police operate, including demilitarizing them. And still, these JAG funds are set to be allocated for additional <br />SWAT gear. How does this provide or assist in justice? These funds should be used for things that actually <br />decrease crime and pursue justice, such as public education, assisting those living in poverty, eliminating <br />homelessness, or drug and mental health treatment. I hope you reconsider the use of these funds and how many <br />better uses we can find for nearly $100,000. <br /> <br />Item 60B: on the subject of drug treatment and homelessness, I would discourage this proposed ban. While <br />several other nearby cities have placed these bans, we can lead by example and prove that we truly care about <br />our communities by promoting these programs. I would encourage you to read about the tangible benefits of <br />these programs shown by the ACLU. <br />https://www.aclu.org/fact-sheet/needle-exchange-programs-promote-public- <br />safety#:~:text=A%20study%20by%20the%20National,had%20never%20used%20an%20exchange. <br /> <br />Item 60C: further and increasingly criminalizing residents does not make our city safer, and it has been proven <br />for decades. Making these crimes felonies also unjustly targets our poor, Black, and Hispanic populations, on <br />the first day of National Hispanic Heritage Month nonetheless. We should be creating ways to decrease crime, <br />not increasing it, and this Act would neither reduce crime nor keep us safe. I hope you reconsider this <br />resolution. <br /> <br /> <br />Thank you, <br />AJ <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.