The real deal: Violent crime is down significantly across almost all of California | Opinion
The whole picture
“See crime trend for communities in the Sacramento region,” (sacbee.com, July 21)
This article skews the truth by conveniently leaving out the fact that violent crime is down significantly across almost all of California in 2023. By focusing on a small spike among a decades-long trend of lowering violent crime rates, this piece is fueling dangerous fear-based narratives.
Newly released data compiled by the Major Cities Chiefs Association, an international association of police executives, show that violent crime has declined across California in the first three months of 2023 compared to the same period in 2022. The drop in violent crime so far this year is greater in California than in other parts of the U.S.
Twisting data to produce fear-based rhetoric is dangerous for our community, and helps to push public opinion toward ineffective ‘tough-on-crime’ strategies that continue to fail us.
Liz Blum
Sacramento
Help is always available
“988 suicide prevention hotline launches in CA, what it means,” (sacbee.com, July 24, 2022)
988, the nationwide mental health crisis helpline, is one year old. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 98% of people who connect with 988 are helped by a trained crisis counselor (without involving 911).
This service is free, confidential and available 24/7, 365 days a year. It connects individuals experiencing a mental health, substance use or suicidal crisis with trained crisis counselors. Access is available through every landline, cell phone and voice-over internet device, with call/text services available in Spanish and interpretation services in over 150 languages.
If someone you know is experiencing an emotional crisis or thoughts of suicide, call 988 or seek help at a licensed behavioral health facility.
Tami Brooks, LCSW/MBA-™
CEO, Sierra Vista Hospital
Yannis Angouras, MHA
CEO, Heritage Oaks Hospital
Lindsay Lopez, LCSW
CEO, Health Link Now
What went wrong?
“Sacramento and developer Paul Petrovich complete settlement,” (sacbee.com, Aug. 3)
The city agreed to pay $26 million to a developer after a state appeals court ruled in 2020 that the city denied the developer a “fair hearing” regarding his Crocker Village residential development. The article goes on to state that the “ruling now serves as precedent for establishing thresholds for personal bias in California.”
Residents might recall the eight-year legal battle which cost city taxpayers $2.3 million for the city to defend itself against a suit brought by the developer. Who at the city level was responsible for this “unfair hearing” and personal bias? It was the mayor and several members of the current council — including a council member who is no longer in office. Yet there was no mention of that pertinent information.
What went wrong?
Bill Motmans
Sacramento
Ultimate irony
“California Sen. Feinstein seeks more control over her late husband’s trust to pay medical bills,” (sacbee.com, July 20)
It is a towering irony that Sen. Feinstein’s opposition to universal medical care coverage with a publicly financed, single-payer health care system, would be the solution to her serious illness and hospitalization costs. Despite her enormous wealth, she now faces the onerous (unspecified) costs that terrify every ordinary individual’s ability to pay, when sick, instead of having guaranteed quality and security of coverage, which is ethically due to all residents of California and the U.S.
It’s time we transformed our aggressively privatized and profit-driven, class and race-distorted, alienated medical system into a comprehensive, compassionate, publicly accountable, affordable and population owned ‘utility,’ including the Senator as just another one of us.
William Bronston, MD
Carmichael
Protect franchise owners
“Fast food spent $4 million fighting California bill holding them accountable for employee abuse,” (sacbee.com, Aug. 7)
As a local franchised restaurant owner, I’m deeply troubled by Assembly Bill 1228, which is an attack on the rights of local restaurant owners.
AB 1228 will upend fast food franchising in California by forcing national fast-food corporations to exert more control over the operations of local franchised restaurants. It does this by making the corporations legally liable for local employment decisions at our restaurants and taking control away from franchisees like me. Ultimately, the bill could lead to fewer franchising opportunities altogether.
The franchise model — and fast food restaurants specifically — have a much higher percentage of minority ownership than other comparable sectors. AB 1228 will cut off this pipeline for thousands of underrepresented and immigrant families to become small business owners.
The legislature should protect local restaurant owners and reject AB 1228.
Jay Hazari
McDonald’s franchisee
Sacramento
Never meant to be farmed
“California must raise Shasta Dam to increase water supply,” (sacbee.com, Aug. 6)
When completed in 1947, Shasta Lake flooded over 90% of the Winnemem Wintu Tribes’ historical village sites, resource-gathering sites and sacred sites along the McCloud, Pit and Sacramento rivers.
The enlargement of Shasta Dam would inundate the few remaining sacred places, burial sites, resource-gathering areas and villages that the Winnemem Wintu Tribe still use today. A thousands-year-old culture would be destroyed by more flooding of the McCloud River. What writer Tom Birmingham really cares about is to get even more water for Westlands Water District down in the arid San Joaquin Valley, a region with soil never meant to be farmed.
The proposed 18.5-feet rise of the dam would leave little water for fish, and much more water for diversion. It is all there in the plan.
Gary Mulcahy
Government liaison, Winnemem Wintu Tribe
No underage drinking
“Can parents legally give underage kids alcohol in CA?” (sacbee.com, July 25)
Regardless of whether it’s legal for parents in California to allow underage drinking at home, it is dangerous and unhealthy for those under 21 to consume alcohol. The brain is still developing during the teenage years, making it more vulnerable to the harmful effects of drinking. Not only are learning and memory impaired, but studies show that drinking alcohol during early teen years raises the risk of developing an alcohol use disorder later in life.
Given what we know about underage drinking, the focus shouldn’t be whether parents who provide alcohol to their own kids are abiding by the state’s laws. It should be whether or not it’s safe for them to do so.
Leslie Kimball
Executive director, Responsibility.org
