HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - 20C
Araiza, Fatima
From:Erik Varho <erikvarho@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 8:32 PM
To:eComment
Cc:Pulido, Miguel; Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza, David; Solorio, Jose; Bacerra, Phil;
Mendoza, Nelida; Villegas, Juan
Subject:Public Comment on 20B, 20C, 60B, & 60C
Hello, my name is Erik Varho, and I am a resident of Ward 1. I would like to make public comment on a few
items on the agenda for Tuesday. I have watched a few recent meetings live, and I am still unsure of how email
comments are being considered at them. Can you please get back to me with how email comments are
addressed? Thank you.
The items I would like to comment on:
Item 20B:
I do not support this item. I understand that this is a federal grant, and we need to use this money or it will go
away. But according to the overview on the website, the JAG program states that funds can be used to support:
"a range of program areas including ... indigent defense ... education ... drug treatment ... mental health
programs ... behavioral programs."
ESPECIALLY if we are not spending our own City dollars, why wouldn't we use a gift like this to address root
causes of crime in our community? Instead you want to throw more money at the most militarized wing of law
enforcement, the SWAT team? We keep throwing more money in that direction, yet crime doesn't seem to be
going down, people don't feel any safer.
Item 20C:
Similarly, I understand this is a grant, and not coming out of City pockets. I don't think we should accept it,
because I don't think we should be increasing the size of our police department. Using federal money to hire
more police will still mean higher financial costs for the city in the long term. But if you absolutely have to use
that money in hiring more police, consider hiring people who can make the police department smarter and more
effective, instead of simply putting more bodies with guns in the streets.
Item 60B:
Prohibiting Syringe Exchange programs in Santa Ana would be a HUGE mistake. It would do NOTHING to
discourage or prevent drug use from happening. Drug addiction is a mental health issue, people will continue to
use drugs but in an unsafe manner; meaning dangerous and deadly diseases will more easily spread throughout
our community. You may think you are far removed from our brothers and sisters who struggle with
drug problems, but in actuality you aren't. They are our neighbors, friends of friends, family. Allowing
preventable diseases to propagate in these communities endangers all of us by proxy.
Item 60C:
Look I know it plays well with certain constituents of yours but it's 2020, it's time to stop the "Tough on Crime"
one-upmanship. Lets instead be smart on crime. Reverting certain misdemeanor charges back to felonies
essentially means putting more people in prison. And I get that that's the point, but there is so much research
and literature out there that shows that prison is not a very successful deterrent in preventing crime. Changing
certain property crimes into "wobblers", meaning they can either be determined a misdemeanor or felony leaves
that discretion to a judge. That leaves too much room for bias to come into play - and you know full well that
1
means black and brown folks are going to bear the brunt of which of these crimes are deemed "felonies". They
say the safest communities are not the ones with the most police, but the most resources. Crime generally stems
from a lack of resources, putting those who commit property crimes in prison will convert them into hardened
criminals. Stop being so short sighted, stop thinking about your next election, think long term solutions, think
about your legacy.
Thank you,
Erik
2