Notes from LA

On days like these, I’m thankful that Bernie Parks didn’t make the Big Leagues. When it comes to city budget battles, he’s the only councilmember with the cojones to call BS on Villaraigosa and Bratton. … And, boy, is the Chief ever full of it today. DN:

[Bratton] noted that voters this year approved a hike in the city’s trash fee to pay for more police officers. The mayor hopes to add 1,000 officers to bring the total force to more than 10,000.

“It’s unfortunate there are those who would blame the city deficit on the hiring of police officers,” Bratton said. “For them to renege on the city’s promise to hire more police officers … I will be happy to remind the voters of that.”

While he reminds you of that, here’s a reminder of what the trash tax was actually spent on.

If you caught Joel Rubin’s profile of Chief Bratton on Sunday, the complete interview he conducted with veteran LAPD officer Jack Dunphy is a good follow-up.

In the Times piece, Rubin describes Dunphy as “one of the chief’s most outspoken critics” and prints Dunphy’s sharpest barb. The full interview, however, is informative and balanced. It turns out, Dunphy’s biggest beef with Bratton isn’t that he’s “remote and aloof,” it’s that the chief is slow to defend his officers when community leaders and the mayor rush to convict.

[Rubin:] Do officers feel like Bratton has their back, for lack of better way of putting it?

[Dunphy:] They most definitely do not think Bratton has their back. Bratton came to town with a lot of political capital, but he’s been unwilling to spend even a bit of it in defense of his cops. Recall the time, early in his tenure, when he said, “Control your kids,” when talking about the gang problem. That shouldn’t have been seen as all that controversial, yet it appeared to us that he was taken to Villaraigosa’s woodshed after that, and he’s been as meek as a little lamb ever since.

Full interview

A new book is out detailing the “inner workings, secret meetings, and elaborate murder plots” that make up the Mexican Mafia’s daily routine, written in cooperation with Rene Enriquez, an Eme boss-turned-informant.

The Black Hand, by Chris Blatchford

Wally Fay—editor of In The Hat, and author of his own book on the subject—says this one is required reading for policymakers:

The people who should be forced to read this book, or have it read to them while jetting around the country or riding in the back of chaufered limos are the politicians and policy makers. Policy decisions and laws cannot and should not be made based on information filtered through staff panels, social scientists, mis-informed or biased “advocates, ” or groups who have a financial interest in the outcome of policies.

Enriquez holds “prisoner rights” advocates directly responsible for the organization’s growing muscle and warns that while the feds have made steady progress in the streets, local pols and law enforcers are out to lunch. For a major eye-opener, listen to the interview below in its entirety.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Audacious:

Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton waded into the contentious U.S. presidential campaign Thursday, recording an automated telephone message on behalf of Democrat Barack Obama.

The message challenged Republican John McCain’s “record on policing issues and extolled Obama’s,” Bratton said in an interview.

Is a county employee posting politically incorrect blog comments and whitewashing Gloria Molina’s Wikipedia? (H/T: Mayor Sam)

Also:

• Wow, 3 earlier Metrolink survivors were on #111 (LAO)
• Public Safety Officials to Endorse Prop A (LAist)
• Boks’ crew still nipping at his heels (DN)
• California budget almost finished (LAT)

Walter Moore wrote yesterday that LAPD — and by extension, Mayor Villaraigosa — are understating the city’s crime rate by using an inflated population estimate. When I saw the number — 4,220,260 — it looked suspicious so I decided to do some digging.

I pulled population estimates for 2000 through 2007 from both the US Census Bureau and the California Department of Finance, and compared them to the figures LAPD uses in its crime statistics reports. Here’s what I found:

Not once between 2000–07 were LAPD’s population estimates anywhere near the Census Bureau estimates — not even within 100,000 people. In fact, LAPD’s estimate was consistently 3% greater than the Census Bureau’s until 2005, when it more than doubled to 7%. Then, the following year, it shot up again, to 9% — nearly 400,000 more LA city residents, according to LAPD, than estimated by the Census Bureau. In other words, more than the combined populations of Burbank, Glendale, and Santa Monica.

The California Department of Finance’s numbers were closer to LAPD’s, but still failed to explain the threefold spike between 2004 and 2006. What’s more, it appears LAPD actually used the DOF estimate in 2000, before increasing it significantly for subsequent years’ reports. Perhaps strangest of all, LAPD’s estimates remain unchanged from 2003–04, and again from 2006–08.

None of the population estimates in LAPD’s COMSTAT reports are sourced.

I’m not charging crookery here, but at face value, this is all very odd. Considering that these statistics have been published by our local press, and will undoubtedly feature prominently in the mayor’s reelection campaign, voters deserve to know LAPD’s source and/or methodology.