Guest Column
By John Conway
As a founding member of the San Jose Restaurant and Entertainment Association, I want to bring you up to speed on developments regarding the public-private partnership that is evolving to share the fair costs of a new policing model for our downtown Entertainment Zone.
As many of you know, I have been working with many bars, restaurants and nightclubs with our consultants on a plan that was presented to the Mayor and Council in response to the original city proposal signed by Chief Rob Davis.
I want to thank Mayor Reed and Councilmembers Liccardo, Kalra and Herrera for their memo which lays out a clear vision for where our downtown should be headed. I hope that every other interested organization can get on board and support this vision.
Our proposal is outlined below:
The days of dozens of police officers descending upon downtown for the purpose of herding people out of downtown at closing should now be behind us. Rather, we propose deploying police officers in downtown starting at 10 p.m. in the form of Community Policing Roving Patrols. Police officers would be visible and would interact with downtown patrons, businesses and visitors throughout the night. Even in this down economy, our association’s members are willing to pay a portion of the reduced costs for this new service.
To achieve this goal, we propose three Community Policing Roving Patrols (CPRP) consisting of six officers and one sergeant each (per current San Jose Police procedure) to patrol on foot Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays in the summer (32 weeks per SJPD). In the winter, (20 weeks per SJPD) we propose two CPRP teams to patrol on foot Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays.
Our proposed CPRP teams would be in addition to the base-line level of police service assigned to the Entertainment Zone and the Downtown Service Group and the special Garage Detail currently assigned to the Entertainment Zone.
In the summer, one CPRP would be assigned to each of the following geographically distinct areas: SOFA District, San Pedro Square and Historic Corridor from Third Street to First Street, and Santa Clara Street to San Fernando. In the winter, the two CPRP teams would be split between the three geographically distinct areas. Within these three areas comprise the vast majority of the nightlife activity in our downtown Entertainment Zone.
We further purpose that any officers or sergeants assigned to any CPRP teams should successfully complete a training program focused on entertainment zone hospitality, as recommended by the City’s consultant, RHI. Chicago and San Diego currently implement similar training models.
The CPRP teams would begin their assignment at 10pm and end at 2am on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. Our proposal puts more officers and sergeants on Entertainment Zone streets for a longer period of time at a much reduced cost to the City General Fund.
Our proposed model would utilize the San Jose Police Department’s Secondary Employment Unit (SEU). There are several advantages to using the SEU. Primarily, officers could be hired at “straight time” as opposed to overtime rates.
We understand that the Police Department is reluctant to use SEU for downtown patrolling. The stated opposition is due to an apparent “conflict of interest” between the business owners and the officers. This reason is simply unfounded. This, no doubt, stems from the previous practice of business owners directly hiring and paying “pay officers,” a practice which was abolished over a decade ago and one which we are not proposing.
Currently, there are 494 authorized employers of officers through the City’s SEU. The Police Department utilizes the SEU to provide security at other venues where alcohol is involved, such as Santana Row, the Convention Center, Westfield Shopping Malls, Music in the Park, and the Jazz Festival, just to name a few.
Under the proposal put forth by the San Jose Restaurant and Entertainment Association which represents 20 of the 26 targeted businesses, the officers would be funded through an assessment district made up of entertainment venues that would contribute directly to the City via the SEU and would not answer to specific business owners. Also, through utilization of the SEU, the officers in the CPRPs can be placed at any time on “active duty status” by an on duty supervisor in the case of an emergency. This is not a new practice. This is taking advantage of policies and procedures already used and in place by the San Jose Police Department. Santana Row and the Convention Center are ideal examples of this strategy already in place. Further, the City of Alexandria, VA uses this exact method, including the emergency activation of officers, in their successful model. Similar BID managed models exist in Chicago and Washington D.C. The result of using SEU will be more police officers downtown, for longer periods of time, at a reduced cost to the General Fund.
We believe that all revenue sources should be explored that will decrease the burden on the City general fund. This includes the City, the Redevelopment Agency (as already directed by Council), the Downtown Business Improvement District, and the Property Business Improvement District (PBID), in addition to night time entertainment business owners. Further, a fair cost sharing by business owners must be explored. Current efforts by the City have only explored businesses with an entertainment permit, leaving out dozens of businesses that serve alcohol and have late night activity. The result is a virtual checkerboard of “payers” and “non-payers” that appears arbitrary and unfair.
We continue to believe that an assessment district of some sort should be explored, which could be achieved through all stakeholders working collaboratively for a solution that truly improves the nightlife atmosphere. The recent editorial in the San Jose Mercury News along with the memorandum issued by Mayor Reed, Councilmembers Liccardo, Kalra and Herrera support the serious exploration and analysis of the major elements of our proposal. This was the result of a sustained public advocacy effort by many nightlife establishment owners and our consultants. The original staff proposal pushed by Chief Davis looks to be DOA.
We want to pay a fair and equitable portion for a new policing model downtown. If you have traveled anywhere in the world and been out past 11 p.m. then you know that how our downtown is policed needs a serious overhaul. We encourage the city to crack down on operators that are not playing by the rules and to work toward a solution that puts more police on the street for a longer period of time and allows private businesses to pay a fair portion for a new beginning for our downtown.
John Conway is the owner of Britannia Arms and founding member of the San Jose Restaurant and Entertainment Association (SJREA).
I live Downtown and can’t wait for these changes to be implemented. The police make my neighborhood feel like a police state. Thank god someone is advocating for change.
If you all think this will work, well you live and work in Downtown San Jose, and you have the right to set forth how your area should be policed.
An incident occurred that was told to me by a Cal alumnus who was in downtown and stopped to by some fast food. A older man had purchased an item and took it out of the bag and then threw the bag in the face of a young woman who was working the counter.
The Cal guy made a comment that this was rude and completely out of line, and the older man began threatening and berating the alum.
The alum demanded that the restaurant call the police and the restaurant wanted to naturally diffuse the situation, but the fact that the old man was shoutng slurs, and anyone subject to a slur no matter what their ethnicity is going to get angry.
The alum attempted to back away from the older man who was acting completely out of reality, sort of a version of Steve Hazel, but a little mellower. (Steve Hazel is the local Santa Clara wacko that talks about nuclear bombs, machine gunning council members, and being against the stadium, all in that order).
Anyway, it does not make sense to anyone that young people working in restaurants should have these wackos yelling at them or their customers.
Hazel only goes crazy at council meetings, but these guys get drunk in downtown and then go into fast food places and make them the scenes of trouble.
YO!!
I don’t know if this will work or not, but it is refreshing to see a new approach to an old problem. Lets wait and see the results.
5/6- Exactly why police will never have a chance and exactly why they should not subsidize this. Why should they be paid less to be scrutinized by segments like yours whom have already decided they are guilty before they set foot on the streets. Exactly why I described the assignment as thankless, highly visible, and politically charged. Now they are to be paid less and subsidize this?! More proof of why they should and will not.
outsourcing peace officers, is it what the solution is all about ?
The law enforcement should be maintain within the city/state/federal boundaries.
SJPD might lack some flexibility and be brutal but private security hired by the hour no thanks.
SJPD just need to be less aggressive in general and intransigent on obvious drunk driving and fighting downtown.
It’s about time we got a new approach on downtown policing and some new leadership stepping up.
Thanks for taking the bull by the horns on this issue. I’m sick and tired of the same old faces crying the same old song.
And it’s good to see the Mayor and Councilmembers embrace a good idea. Let’s hope the rest follow suit.
John, nice effort, but I do see a fundamental problem in police compensation here. Without getting into a lengthy discussion about the albatross that is SEU compensation, a longtime sore point for officers, attempting to reduce the compensation for officers working this assignment will not work. This aspect of your proposal will meet serious opposition from officers and the POA. Officers are fairly paid an overtime rate in this assignment from 10pm-2am. As well I think we can all agree that officers in this assignment work a thankless, highly visible, politically charged assignment. Taking money away from these officers is untenable and will be received as insulting. At an overtime rate, after having worked an earlier shift, it is barely worth the four (4) hours.
Assuming it might somehow, someway clear opposition at the PD, the teams on this assignment will see a large influx of less experienced officers. Senior, more experienced officers, will pass on the headache. That will bring another challenge, not insurmountable, but obvious. Based upon what is being asked of these officers I think we need more experience in this assignment, not less.
Regarding the “Active-Duty Status” you refer to, it is a moot point. When there is an emergency not a single officer chooses not to respond or assist because that officer falls into a work assignment classification. In an emergency officer(s) respond to help, it is instinctive. Classifications are symantics when lives are in danger. A report of a shooting or officer down requires no formal order, rank, or bureaucratic switch for officers to react.
Finally, while I think aspects of your model have potential, it is definitely not fair and equitable for officers. Why should officers subsidize this? And while I am sure many consider it cliche, the police officers responding to these emergencies have the most to lose, and I am not speaking of just of money…
Reality asks, because officers will be paid regular time versus overtime, “Why should police officers subsidize this?” Ignoring, for a moment,that “the officers would be funded through an assessment district made up of entertainment venues that would contribute directly to the City via the SEU and would not answer to specific business owners” and that the officers would work only a four hour shift, I think I can answer the question. They wouldn’t be subsidizing anything, they would be doing their job.
I very much want to be proud of our police officers as I know they have a difficult job. But throwing up roadblocks based on self-interest to a genuine attempt to find a solution to a longstanding problem smacks not of the dignified, selfless, duty bound ethics I know most San Jose officers hold. Rather it smacks of the self-indulgent, me-first, not unless it’s okay for me attitude of a few who, I dare say, wouldn’t speak for most officers. It’s the kind of entrenched politics that us ordinary citizens are sick and tired of. It’s the same attitude that has served this city so well for years that has swallowed its finances into a black hole so that nothing of any value ever gets done.
“The CPRP teams would begin their assignment at 10pm and end at 2am on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights.”
Huh? Their shifts end just as the venues are spewing forth hundreds of people?
John,
I am glad to see that we are moving in the right direction. The City has been driven by fear from SJPD. Its time for change, maybe its time for a new chief? Someone with an open mind, that really willing to listen and not trip over himself with false statistics.
I look forward to the NEW downtown San Jose!
Mr. Conway,
I thought your article was very interesting and could tell you spent many days working on a policing model for downtown. You are an excellent family law attorney and from what I can determine an honest restaurant & bar owner. I have visited your establishment many times. However, I don’t believe you or most of the other owners you represent live downtown. Many of the owners live in Los Gatos, Santa Clara, and other high end communities in the Bay Area, not having to deal with the clean up of urine, vomit, blood and broken glass. The damage left behind many Friday, Saturday and Sunday mornings are caused by the customers your association serves an overflowing amount of liquor to.
I understand that you believe your businesses are overtaxed. The sales tax revenue received by the city is $183,000. When I see club operators which whom have no other reported sources of income driving Rolls Royce’s, Jaguar’s, BMW’s, Corvette’s and are living in Los Gatos I tend to believe they are under reporting their mostly cash only sales of alcohol. If the club operators want to dictate the policing model of downtown, then in a similar fashion to what is going on in Washington D.C.; you must open your financial books to be audited by the City Manager’s office.
As a downtown resident and worker, I hope the city counsel, and mayor takes your arguments with a grain of salt. You are a political lobbyist trying to keep as much liquor flowing to keep your businesses growing. The mayor and city counsel must acknowledge that on this matter, the interests of the public (i.e. downtown residents) far exceed those of your special interest group that profits on the sales of alcohol.
I think it is unwise for the City to allow your organization to determine the policing model of downtown San Jose. Last I checked there were almost a million residents of this city, who are represented by a mayor and council people. To allow you dictate the policing model of downtown is like allowing the automotive industry to set pollution emission standards
Very interesting proposal.
I would support the adoption by the City Council of this proposal for the following reasons:
1) It shows that the interests of someone other than the Police Chief, the Mayor, and the City Manager can be taken into account when setting policing policy… maybe someday expanding to include public input beyond business owners
2) The proposal shows a recognition of responsibility by businesses in the downtown for how their patrons are treated by the police on the street, and advocates on the behalf of those patrons and potential patrons. The owners and managers have commented to me that potential customers are intimidated by the police shock-and-awe aesthetic in the entertainment zone, and this is a proposal that might help.
Questions/concerns
1) This proposal suggests a goal of having 3 roving squads of police (6 plus a Sargeant)… would that be a ceiling for the police presence? I would not support a plan that budgets new money to form the roving patrols in addition to the police presence that already exists.
2) This plan does not address the need for citizen oversight of the police to ensure that police are held accountable for individual acts of abuse like wrongful arrest and also for organization-wide issues like racial profiling that the SJPD have proved that they cannot solve for themselves, even with their Internal Affairs team and “Independent” Police Auditor. SJPD’s denials and Community Relations officers cannot smile these problems away and the Downtown Business proposal doesn’t address them either since their concern is the bottom line of their businesses.
Fair enough.
Thanks for a thoughtful proposal.
Colin, how is it selfish for the police to ask for fair compensation? Following your logic, these selfless officers should simply volunteer their services for this fine cause. Maybe then you would proud of them? If the city chooses to compensate an employee at an hourly rate why shouldn’t they be rightly paid for said overtime? Would we ask any other city employee to do this or portray them as self-indulgent if they resisted?
If they are taking a pay cut for this, it is, for all intents and purposes, a subsidy. Giftwrap it as you see fit but you will generate no goodwill from the rank and file by telling them that they should essentially keep quiet and just go do their job. That seems to be your bottom line.
And whether you choose to be proud of them or not makes no difference to the officer on the street. They are no less worthy of our pride whether they donate part of their salary to this fine cause or the next one you deem worthy.
John,
Why don’t you and the other entire club owners and supporters try this money savings plan:
You guys come to DT, leave your thousand dollar suit at home, wear jeans and a tee shirt, can be purchased at Target, and clean up the urine, the vomit, the garbage, the used condoms, and patrol the streets for drunks, and troublemakers? That way Police Officers wouldn’t have to keep cleaning up your messes, and we citizens wouldn’t have to listen to your self centered, unfair ideas of punishing the Police for the fall out of your lousy businesses and your clientele?
If you run into trouble with any of these drunks or thugs, you can do what the rest of us hard working taxpayers in San Jose do, call the Police and wait until they drive clear across town, or when they have the time to get to you for help. Now that sounds like a fair and balanced plan don’t you think? It should save the City millions!
John,
Is former Gonzales staffer and current lobbyist Joe Guerra one of the consultants working for ya.
People go out to have a good time. That often involves booze. Unfortunately, many of those folks don’t know when to say “when”, when it comes to alcohol consumption. Yet, even when they have imbibed too much, most poeple still behave within socially acceptable norms. It’s the few bad apples that cause most of the problems.
It is not in the financial interest of owners, bartenders, or cocktail servers to cut folks off when they have had “enough” to drink. Owners lose profits, bartenders and servers lose tips, their lifeblood. So, there is a HUGE disincentive to cut off folks, despite the fact that most bartenders/servers are well aware of when their customers have had enough/too much.
Alert/aware owners (presuming they’re not absentee)also know, or can easily ascertain, the small percentage of their customers who cause a large percentage of the problems. Those folks need to be cut off, and if they get nasty, 86’d. Unfortunately, many are probably regulars, who you don’t want to piss off, ‘cuz if you do, they’ll drink elsewhere thereafter. Absentee owners deserve ZERO consideration in this debate/dialogue re how to deal with obnoxious/violent drunks.
So, it seems to me, we are getting bogged down with enforcement/policing issues generated by a relatively small percentage of troublemaking drinkers. The “solution” so far by most accounts, is to come down hard on everyone still out after 1:00 a.m., instead of concentrating on the troublemakers.
Repeat troublemakers should be identified and barred from drinking. If we can establish a program that identifies known gang members and get injunctions against them meeting in public places, surely, with the combined effort of owners and the police, we can identify and interdict repeat obnoxious/violent drunk offenders. Yeah, yeah, I know they’ll just go elsewhere, but we have to start somewhwere.
Some may call this profiling; but, if the profiling is based on behavior, and not skin color, it’s perfectly acceptable.
The proposal above by the author, and all other proposals I have heard thus far, attacks the issue AFTER it has become a problem. The only real solution is to attack the issue BEFORE it becomes a problem.
I’d wager that identifying and 86-ing the few troublemaking boozers would be far cheaper than a lot of taxes on establishments and police overtime.
If I lose that bet, it’s only because the problem is larger than I realize—there are far too many abusive drinkers out on weekends. If that is true, I prefer the hard line approach against the malefactors. Cops don’t need to presume that everyone out at night downtown is someone that needs to be put down somehow, but they need the ability to come down very hard on problem people, especially repeat offenders.
Reality – Thank you for your response. It seems to me that if this program does not violate wage laws and the officers are paid at their regular rate, they are not subsidizing this project because they don’t get overtime. If paying the officers at their regular rate under the program does not violate the law, why should the officers get paid overtime? Getting paid what they are owed under the law is not “taking a pay cut.” That this policy would also, apparently, inure to the benefit of the City’s general fund I would think may help get the police the additional recruits everyone seems to acknowledge they need.
And I’d rather not get into a he said/she said about it but I never said I wasn’t proud of our police force. I very much am.
Colin: I suppose it is fair to assume that many individuals here would not know how officers are paid are varied assignments. I can tell for a fact. The CSJ “Entertainment Zone” assignment for SJPD officers currently is paid as overtime. It is above the scheduled 40 hrs. Negotiating from the OT rate down to the standard hourly rate would appear to be a take away. Maybe I am missing something here?
The needed officers is another story completely. With re to the pride issue, fair enough. Glad to hear we agree on that.
Kathleen: I could not agree more.
Our Police Department is already under staffed. That is why OT is being given to Officers working DT.
Dude I swear to God, I would love to see one discussion without all the Pigeonholing. If you go downtown at night you are either A) a thug, or B) a drunk. Jesus!!
At what point is it the responsibility of the club owners to limit the intake of alcoholic beverages? Isn’t it against the law to serve alcohol to obviously intoxicated individuals? It seems to me that the ABC could have a field day with some of these clubs and bartenders…