PERSPECTIVE | An Open Letter to Councilmember Suzie Price: We Demand Community Safety Not Safety Theater

5 minute read

The views expressed in this perspective piece do not necessarily reflect the views of FORTHE.

Dear Councilmember Suzie Price,

You may remember us. We are your constituents from District 3, who, with the Anti-Surveillance Coalition, attended the City Council meeting on Oct. 4 to comment on a major public safety issue affecting our city. We sat there for nearly five hours, patiently waiting for the agenda item that drew us to speak. Finally, we presented our comments, explaining our fears about dangers that are already harming Long Beach residents and tearing at the fabric of our city. We were there to resist the militarization of the Long Beach Police Department (LBPD), which continues to arm its officers with military weapons and surveillance equipment.

Last year, the California legislature passed AB 481 in order to reduce the militarization of police departments around the state. As a prosecutor, you should understand the burdens of proof. Under AB 481, prior to allowing LBPD to purchase new military equipment or continue to use its weapons of war—which, as they presented, includes large caliber rifles, thermal spy cameras, flash-bang grenades, and armored personnel carriers—LBPD was required to prove that the equipment was the only option and that their arsenal would protect our civil liberties. 

Given that LBPD admitted to spying on protestors during the 2020 uprisings with the very military-grade thermal camera you approved, we don’t see how they could possibly have met this burden. You were also required to place legally enforceable strictures on LBPD’s use of any military equipment and impose transparency and accountability measures.

This is a serious duty because, as the state legislature recognized in passing AB 481, “the acquisition of military equipment and its deployment in our communities adversely impacts the public’s safety and welfare, including increased risk of civilian deaths, significant risks to civil rights, civil liberties, and physical and psychological well-being, and incurment of significant financial costs,” and, because the equipment “is more frequently deployed in low-income Black and Brown communities…the risks and impacts of police militarization are experienced most acutely in marginalized communities.” LBPD is no exception, but rather one of the most violent police departments in the country

You cannot arm for safety, especially if you are arming LBPD.

At least five residents from District 3—your constituents—spoke out against approving LBPD’s cache of military weaponry and its proposed Special Order, which is so weak that it functionally releases LBPD from the oversight and accountability that the police department and the City Council owe residents under AB 481. The council disappointed us when it voted unanimously to approve LBPD’s continued use of military equipment, against our objections and with little more than conjecture into the equipment’s necessity, thus abdicating its responsibility under AB 481. 

However, the council’s tepid deliberation still exceeded your complete lack of response to our public safety concerns. You disrespected your constituents by declining to acknowledge our concerns and those of the other commenters on this issue, who unanimously spoke against LBPD’s use of military equipment.

We could not help but notice how much warmer your response was to property owners and business interests Downtown than to some of your own constituents. You introduced the agenda item about the Metro stopping Downtown and actively participated in a lengthy discussion on that topic. You continued to spend ample council time on this item, even after Councilmember Cindy Allen (District 2), who formerly represented Downtown, explained that the data she collected showed that your agenda item was a non-issue. 

Tomisin Oluwole
Coquette
Acrylic on canvas
18 x 24 inches

Click here to check out our interview with Tomisin Oluwole, a a literary and visual artist based in Long Beach.

Instead of gunking up our site with ads, we use this space to display and promote the work of local artists.

Moreover, Councilmember Mary Zendejas (District 1)—who actually represents Downtown and the area surrounding the Metro stop—voiced opposition to your proposal. Your respectful, rapt attention to the District 1 residents and businesses lingered over an hour for that agenda item. You even gave them a thumbs-up after the discussion on that topic had closed. 

However, when it came time for the council to discuss the impact of authorizing military equipment for LBPD, you rushed the process. You seconded the motion to approve the item quietly, despite the microphone you used with such gusto earlier in the evening. We, your constituents, did not hear a word from you about the substance of our comments.

This is about the safety of Long Beach residents. If you care about our safety as much as you appear to when talking about the Metro policy Downtown, you would listen when we say weapons of war do not belong in our city. 

We address this letter to you as your constituents, whom you and the rest of the council ignored. A council that includes you and Vice Mayor Rex Richardson, who are both vying to become Long Beach’s next mayor in next month’s election. The entire City Council failed when it approved the LBPD’s use of military equipment on Oct. 4 and when it voted to approve the rules LBPD wrote for itself on Oct. 18.

No matter who wins the upcoming election, we need leadership that will stand up to LBPD. Long Beach needs real community safety, not safety theater. 

Caitlin Bellis, Helen Boyer, and Caspian Nash
District 3 Residents  

Caitlin Bellis is an attorney who works on immigration policy for a national nonprofit. Caitlin clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and is a graduate of Yale Law School and Reed College. She lives in Long Beach with her partner and their dog. 

Helen Boyer is a Long Beach resident and an immigration attorney at a local nonprofit.

Caspian Nash is a Master of Social Work student at CSULB and the co-founder of a Long Beach-based nonprofit.

Contact The Author

[1] Militarily demobilized. Since WWII—which was both the death knell of European colonial empires as well as the starting shot of the American neocolonial era—Europe has had notoriously scant standing armies, and has been able to consistently slash government military spending domestically and as a percentage of their contributions to international diplomatic bodies such as the UN. This is because nowadays European nations very rarely find themselves in situations where they need to independently send their militaries abroad in order to secure trade routes, foreign resources, or privileges within markets overseas; the U.S. has been fulfilling that hard-power obligation for them for over half a century. The social results of Western Europe’s decreased militarization are striking, especially when contrasted with the U.S.: there is not a single country in Western Europe without universal healthcare, labor rights and welfare systems are strong, value is placed on corporate and financial regulation, environmental policy is lightyears ahead, and, not least of all, there is a robust governmental approach to curbing digital surveillance and reining in tech monopolies. Japan enjoys a similar arrangement with the U.S. in which it, too, is militarily demobilized yet is given full access to, and prominence in, the global economy. In the last decade there has been a reversing trend of remilitarization in some of these nations. That trend was hastened during the last four years as a result of Trump’s ultranationalist politics, but is likely to continue even after his departure in large part due to the growing bipolar geopolitical climate of competition between superpowers.

The “owner” bit of home-“owner” appears in scare quotes throughout the text for reasons that will shortly become apparent.

Nothing signals trouble quite like consensus.

More on them later.

And, anyways, what exactly remains “obvious” in an era “post-truth”?

I take as my starting position that even the “obvious” must be won.

It’s like Lenin said, you know…

Whether directly, or through a chain of investments, or through the wider speculative market in real estate.

I use “banks” in this piece as a stand-in for several sources of income that derive partly through the mortgaging of property and/or investment in institutions that have the power to mortgage property.

That is just its “ideology.”

The Ricardian “law of rent” explains that any location with an advantage over another location, can accrue an economic value, called “rent,” to the owner.

This happens without the owner needing to pitch in to create the advantage.

If the owner does pitch in, then the value accrued from that advantage cannot be called “rent.”

“Rent,” in economic terms, is only, precisely, the value accrued from that portion of the advantage for which the owner is not responsible. That is what we mean when we say, “Rent is theft.”

This does not mean places with lower property taxes ipso facto have higher property prices—and that is because the property tax is only one of the contributing factors. You could have zero taxes on land in Antarctica, for instance, and it would still sell for $0. This is why the introduction to the analogy controls for such variables.

This is the logical conclusion of believing two premises:

(1) All humans have an equal right to the Earth.
(2) Vaginal birth is a lottery system

Prop 13 is rent control for home-“owners.” You can learn more about its history and impact here.

“Hamlet” by William Shakespeare. Act 4, Scene 5

This is why the lobbyists who spend the most money to support the mortgage interest deduction are bankers, mortgagers, and realtors.

Term

Definition