Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbouteComments ReportCity Council Meeting Meeting Time: 05-04-21 17:00 eComments Report Meetings Meeting Time Agenda Items Comments Support Oppose Neutral City Council Meeting 05-04-21 17:00 28 3 0 3 0 Sentiments for All Meetings The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown. Overall Sentiment City Council Meeting 05-04-21 17:00 Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral 7. 21-0121 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED for May 4, 2021 3 0 3 0 Sentiments for All Agenda Items The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown. Overall Sentiment Agenda Item: eComments for 7. 21-0121 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED for May 4, 2021 Overall Sentiment Pedro Rios Location: 91911, Chula Vista Submitted At: 3:32pm 05-04-21 Chula Vista's dismissive approach at community concerns about its use and expansion of the ALPR program is reproachable, and does not represent actual democracy in practice. The wanton disregard for these concerns has created a larger fissure in trust of public officials elected to represent their constituents. As a 17 year resident of Chula Vista, I am concerned by this direction in leadership by City officials, and see a Chula Vista no longer honoring its designation as a Welcoming City, which further undermines its commitment to protecting civil liberties. Margaret Baker Location: Submitted At: 12:12pm 05-04-21 Chula Vista’s RUSH to expand its ALPR program has eroded community trust in its governance, especially regarding its commitment to Welcoming City goals. For months, we called for an end to the program. In December 2020, over 20 human rights organizations & dozens of concerned community members asked for four listening sessions & open dialogue; the City held one, which was a failure, due to both technology and format: only nine people were able to call in; no questions were answered; community comments were not translated into Spanish; & it was dominated by a lengthy police presentation. While touting its state-of-the-art surveillance technology, Chula Vista failed to provide community-friendly technology for public comment. The cumbersome eComments system has left many frustrated, & eComments are not read aloud. For over a year, our voices have been literally muted! Even more distressing, City officials have repeatedly blamed community members for creating fear by voicing our concerns. These statements create the antithesis of a Welcoming environment. The Council vote disregarded the well-substantiated facts and concerns presented at its April 20th meeting - which was the first time community members could address the Council directly. Council members missed an important opportunity to show accountability for the problems with its surveillance programs. Going forward, our Council needs to show openness to opposing points of view and to demonstrate it values community input. Mike German Location: 91902, BONITA Submitted At: 1:51pm 04-30-21 I'm gratified to see and support - the considered comments of my fellow citizens unanimously opposing the location of this mental health facility. They represent not just a good cross-section of CV residents, but several people particularly educated and experienced in disciplines directly connected or closely related to the facility's purpose. The folly of deinstitutionalization, itself urged by the same "mental health advocates" who support locating this facility where proposed, has been obvious since that policy was adopted several decades ago, and it stands to reason that their urgings here are equally faulty. Especially is this so in light of the proposed provider's dismal record and reputation in regards to its operations. To my lawyer's mind, which for nearly a decade was dedicated to successfully representing California's Board of Behavioral Sciences in its disciplinary actions against its wayward licensees, approving this project would not be in the best interests of protecting the public, but could instead serve as a potential basis for liability against CV when the problems so clearly foreseeable by Acadia's record come to pass. CV should abandon this proposed project in its entirety. If CV chooses instead to proceed with it, it should be relocated to an area near the prison and jail, as another commenter has wisely proposed, if anywhere at all.