Posts tagged Rob Smoke
Brigham-Gate and Tom Carr's Past by Rob Smoke: Boulder Colorado
May 18th
Boulder’s City Attorney Tom Carr professes Seth Brigham a growing menace, progressing daily closer to violence against the Boulder city council. It’s an entertaining notion — Seth kidnapping council and turning them into his personal slaves would make a great horror-flick — however it is crap.
Interesting that Brigham-gate should touch on that issue of unpredictable violence, when the most discussed issue of Tom’s 2009 lost Seattle city attorney campaign hinged on the same issue in another context.
During Tom’s tenure as Seattle city attorney, there were extensive “excessive use of force” complaints against the police department of the city of Seattle. Imagine you’re the mom of a developmentally disabled
teenager who gets his face smashed by a Seattle police officer — an officer who had done something similar
on other occasions, but was still on the force because of corrupt internal review. Let’s be clear: Under
Tom Carr there were 400 back-to-back-to-back non-disciplined “excessive use of force” cases.
In other words, the officer was not held accountable with removal or suspension of his job — and in many cases, where an adjunct review board did recommend to Tom that he take disciplinary action, which Tom was actually
responsible for doing, he did nothing.
The Federal Justice Dept. came in, and the Deputy Attorney General of the Human Rights Division, Thomas Perez, cited the entire oversight process as broken. In point of fact, he could have cited Tom Carr, but instead cited everyone including Tom. It was, however, up to Tom to act if others wouldn’t — or at the very minimum,
act more appropriately on a case by case basis with victims of brutality. Google “Seattle police brutality”.
In other videotaped cases, an innocent hispanic man is kicked in the head by an officer while lying on the ground.
In another case, a pregnant woman was tasered multiple times by three officers and Tom appealed a Federal judge’s
ruling to allow the woman to move forward with a civil claim for damages.
Tom did not lose the 2009 Seattle city attorney’s race to a relative newcomer
by some weird accident, or, as he claims, because it was a “bad year for incumbents.”
No, he lost the race in an absolute landslide because people were sick to death of seeing reports about police brutality and suffering victims. Jon Kita, an asian restaurant owner, interviewed in the Seattle press about the videotaped “excessive use of force” assault he endured, put it this way, “How is it possible to get to 400 cases in a row with no discipline?”
Indeed, how is it possible? It must be noted, Tom absolutely oversaw the contracts for
civil claims defense of police officers alleged to have harmed people. During Tom’s tenure, the bill added up
to over $18 million dollars, which all went to one law firm which Tom helped choose. If at any time during those
400 non-disciplined cases there was a turnaround towards implementation of discipline, that would have caused the costs for handling those cases — the billings — to nosedive. Tom prevented that from happening. By the way, Tom’s replacement in Seattle, made it a first order of business to dissolve that highly questionable contract — and guess what? The firm itself has since dissolved.
The question remains, at what point in time did Tom become aware that the city of Seattle was receiving bad publicity for its brutality problems? Was it a year before the election? Could Tom have a rational understanding that he would lose — that in fact, the other side could nominate a doorknob, and he’d probably lose? In other words, what was the nature of Tom’s commitment to having this highly-paid bunch of lawyers defend brutal officers? Did Tom somehow feel that his own personal sense of justice and duty serving the city of Seattle was more significant than the information he was getting from the ever-growing list of injured residents seeking bare compensation or apology for their suffering?
Or did someone pay him to take his election loss with a smile and the “it was a bad year for incumbents” remark?
And how did the city of Boulder manage to hire him, at a pay increase of about $50k per year, without ever discussing
the 2-to-1 margin of loss in the 2009 election, and the brutality issues which always went unresolved and which were
lead stories in the local news, time and again — the hallmark of his term as city attorney?
Rob Smoke is a columnist for Boulder Channel 1. He writes about city of Boulder Politics
Watch Out For Boulder Boomerang Effect With City Park Ban On Homeless by Rob Smoke
Apr 2nd
….DOES the possibility of increased wilderness usage by homeless people —
people who may have been affected or influenced by Boulder’s new rules
banning people from parks at night — indicate a higher risk of fire?
In fact, there’s no other conclusion that can be reached.
It should be pointed out that stating an increased risk is not bashing the homeless.
If someone is outdoors and physically exposed, and there are limited options,
a fire is something very useful, even if it is in violation of an ordinance.
Also, the circumstances that can lead to a campfire turning into a wildfire
can be as simple as leaving the fire unattended when it appears to be out —
and it’s a phenomena that need occur only in an extremely small fraction of all
instances of people using an outdoor fire to create a disaster, which is not to call homeless people
as a group “firebugs.”
If I’m not mistaken, the Fourmile and/or Dome fires were considered likely to have
been caused by outdoor campfires, according to sheriff Pelle.
The city of Boulder, and soon to be city of Denver, it appears, are enacting
ordinances which essentially ask homeless people to disappear.
One has to consider the availability of “disappearable” locations —
our wilderness areas comprise, geographically, the largest subset of
disappearable locations. It should also be noted, the new rules and
regulations — and the anti-camping ordinances — are essentially a violation
of civil rights, putting people in harm’s way without recourse.
Whilst officials tell their constituents they are “cleaning up” the homeless problem;
facts are, a wildfire caused by a homeless person who might have otherwise
stayed in a city park, without a fire, but closer to basic services —
would be a horrible boomerang effect — not a small price to pay for
relying on law enforcement to solve a social crisis.
People need to open their eyes — not because the homeless
somehow threaten to burn down Colorado, but because
the risk of fire is substantial enough that the only prudent thing
to do under these circumstances is everything in our power
to lessen risk. It would be one thing if every homeless
person represented a lost tree. The mathematics of the risk, in this case,
indicate that it could be one non-malicious homeless person out of thousands causing
the loss of a forest or homes or lives. That increased risk, in light of the new
laws, is a serious issue. The risk situation is analogous
to nuclear power safety. It’s perfectly safe, except when it isn’t.
Put another way, although many thousands of matches
may be lit that do not lead to a forest fire, it still takes only one lit match.
Another aspect, of equal concern I’m certain,
is that putting people into the wilderness — which is simply an obvious possible
result of the anti-homeless ordinances — exposes them to a spectrum of dangers.
People die out in the wilderness all the time for lack of food, water, warmth
or emergency medical services.
The immediate solution is to suspend enactment of ordinances
banning people from public places. If Boulder or Denver residents find the presence of homeless
people inconvenient or unpleasant, then solutions that don’t involve making them “disappear”
must be sought.
Rob Smoke is a political columnist for Boulder Channel 1 often writing about city politics. Rob is a critic and one man watch dog of the council and has been for over 20 years. He has been a writer and journalist for many local papers. Tuesdays nights he can be found at Boulder city council meetings.