In vaguely chronological order:

Here is an article by the Seattle Times on the Council's Public Safety Committee hearing yesterday.  The main misinformation here is that it is comparing apples to oranges:  it makes it sound like this initiative is trying allow East Precinct communities to redirect the internal priorities of the Police Department, when in really the initiative would allow us to bootstrap ourselved into purchasing additional police services using off-duty/overtime exactly the way the Downtown Seattle Association, Pioneer Square, and now the U-District does.  I suppose we need to develop a response (i.e. a letter to the editor or something).
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001866639_publicsafety27m.html

Yes, I read the article and realized that it was not slanted favorable for us.  It was interesting that there was a North Prct. Advisory Council member on hand to testify(?) or provide a quote for the newspaper..you think that a Police staff told him about the meeting?   It is also interesting how the Police are taking the charge on this matter and the Mayor's Office is staying away from publicly attacking the 400K budget item (MKB editorial thought - shrewd and gutless)
 
Some thoughts on how we should respond:
 
We should, collectively, generate an opinion editorial (op-ed) that focuses on this overall issue. I know that I have talked about this in the past and I apologize for not getting off the dime.  Brad Tren did a great editorial for the capital hill press (thanks Brad) and so I will now step up to the plate and create draft,  anyone interested can jump in with edits, suggestions etc.  
 
Some things to hit on are:
 
1. In talking with the Seattle Times editorial staff it was suggested that we need to present our case on a broader level, as the latest article only focused on Capital Hill and made it easier to show it as a 'special interest'. To avoid that and change the point of view we need to discuss Capital Hill, Miller Park, and the overall Central District. 
 
2. We should use the police own stats that show the crime rate in key areas of the Central District is the reason for further funding. Also it would be interesting to point out that the East. Prct. Police Station is right next to Cal Anderson Park (Just on spot with problems in our area) and the C.H. Neighborhood still had to raise a stink to get some action.   How hard is it for the different patrol shifts to drive by the park as they leave the garage???
 
3. We should also point out that a bicycle patrol idea, came from the success rate in the downtown area and that they bicycle patrol would establish greater personal contact between the police staff and the Central District citizens, which is now a mix of minorities, families, single people, college students, couples,  yuppies, and some disadvantaged homeless people.  A majority of the citizens in the Central District feel that there is racial profiling and the bicycle patrol would be one way to start to break down that barrier, as the police are then physically interacting with citizens versus driving by in the patrol cars with no true human contact.
 
So I will get a draft out...this weekend (I Promise) and I look forward to folks input! :)

Some thoughts - take what you like and leave the rest:

1. This council initiative is not using new money to benefit the East Precinct to the exclusion of other precincts, and it is not taking money away from any other precinct or community, nor is it taking money away from the Police Department. It is using funds that were already going to spent in the East Precinct on a capital project (i.e. Bobby Morris Playfield resurfacing) and redirecting them.

2. This council initiatie is a trial project. If it is successful, it can be extended to the communities in other precincts.

3. The Downtown Seattle Association has for years purchased $70,000 to $80,000 a year of "extra" bike patrol services above and beyond what the Police Department ordinarily provides. The Pioneer Square Chamber also purchases "extra" bike patrol services. This is the essence of this East Precinct initiative: it is helping East Precinct communities "bootstrap" ourselves into to being able to purchase "extra" police/bike patrol services in a sustainable way that relies on private dollars, not city dollars. All of these "extra" services use what we would refer to as "off-duty or overtime" police officers. These "extra" services are apart from the regular work assignments that each Precinct makes and controls. It is exactly like a store hiring an off-duty officer at night to provide extra security, except on a larger scale.

4. The purchase of "extra" police/bike patrol services has worked so well for the Downtown and Pioneer Square that the Mayor's Office used their model to broker a deal in the U-District last year. The Mayor's Office worked with several major institutions to commit to 2-years of funding in order to purchase "extra" bike and foot patrols to provide extra police presence on The Ave.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/162346_park27.html

Subject: FW: RE: E Precinct public safety: Times Article

Hello Friends and Neighbors,
Well, just to let you know, the issues we worked so hard on last summer
regarding public safety and assistance for the disaffected youth on our
streets and in the park continues. Some of us spoke at City Council
hearings yesterday in support of a plan that came out of the Seattle
Neighborhoods Group process through January and February, as directed by
City Council when we were able to get the $430,000.00 last fall. The fight
is far from over.
Following is an exchange of thoughts following articles in the Times and
PI today. There is some serious effort to fight against our efforts by the
Executive's Office and police leadership.
I know this fight is exhausting and demoralizing. And I know that we all
hoped that our burst of good citizenship had been rewarded with the funding.
But it is clear to me now that the issues are bigger than just Cal
Anderson Park, or Capitol Hill, or the East Precinct. There is a city-wide
problem and our grassroots efforts has exposed it and we need to continue to
fight for solutions to the issues here in the East Precinct.
Please, again, write the City Council, the Mayor's office and the PI and
Seattle Times with your thoughts and ideas. Please remember that the issues
are larger than just Cal Anderson Park and Broadway, that this is a
PRECINCT-SIDE EFFORT, to give a valuable and effective tool to policing
efforts. We are not taking something away -- we are giving something of
good.
Perhaps we need to convene another neighborhood meeting and we can update
each other more broadly that I am able to do through email.

It is an interesting counter-attack, I believe, for the city to attempt to
re-frame the arguement to justify their inaction. There were a number of
misrepresentations at the Council hearing and an obvious attempt to divide
and conquer by bringing in people from other precincts to protest the
efforts and the funding. This is clear obfuscation of the issues and the
process and my little conspiratorial heart is beating fast as I ponder what
their next step will be.
Initially, the fight was against the idea that this was a specific hot spot,
Cal Anderson Park and its cranky homeowners around the park. So we enlarged
the support group and scope to include other neighborhoods and community
organization and worked hard to build a coalition with the human services
organizations that serve the disaffected, addicted, homeless, youth and
others who were perceived as problematic but in need of assistance. We
recognized the multi-layered issues and complexity, agreed that law
enforcement was not the only solution. We worked with the Parks Department
in attempting to clean up the physical spaces in the parks and continue to
work at establishing legitimate activities for ALL citizens in the parks.
AND WE HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE! We got great press and support in City Council.
And now the city and police department counter with "its not fair to other
precincts in the city at large.
Well, excuse me, but other precincts damn well better get organized and
exert the pressure, too. This city is in trouble in terms of adequate
police services and the Mayor, in spite of his stated commitment to
neighborhoods and public safety, is doing everything he can to silence us
and discredit our efforts. Everyone should be angry about this and say so
loud and clearly.
Citizens should not be challenged for calling their government and leaders
to task. The city is squandering an incredible resource in its volunteer
citizen groups by not listening, not participating with us and by doing
end-runs around us with unnecessary and appeasement-oriented process when
they have no intention of implementing any of our suggestions.
In the process run by the Seattle Neighborhoods Group, Bob Scales said
clearly, "Now is the time to think outside the box." Well, we did and came
up with some great ideas (grantwriter position to help us get more funds),
and the city poo-pooed it, saying they already have grantwriters and the
money recieved must be controlled through the city. That's not true. There
are a lot of money sources for demonstration projects and citizen
initiatives to improve quality of life, safety, education, and on an on.
The argument is weak and lazy.
I think its time to expand our coalition to other precincts. This city
needs an overhaul of leadership and we need to work together rather than let
the city leaders and police leadership divide us and pit us against each
other for badly needed resources. The city must be made to see, city-wide,
that there is something seriously wrong and that we will demand solutions
and to be heard. We aren't stupid.

Subject: RE: RE: E Precinct public safety: Times Article

I think a good strategy would be to pressure/demand the Police Chief
submit a 5 year plan that outlines short and long term goals to the
Mayor and City Council with budget requirements to bring our police
force up to the size it should be, including several bike squads for the
various precincts, gang unit budget, mental health and community officer
funding, etc. -- in our letters we can cite to the increases in
break-ins, homicides, etc.

And keep exposing the outright lies of the Mayor as to public safety
being his #1 priority

The rank and file police are to be commended for doing as good as they
do in their beleaguered state. We had a domestic violence incident in
front of my building Sunday night. Two men on another -- a knife was
involved. One left in a car and two came into our building (security
entrance) when they saw the first patrol car arrive -- it ended up with
3 patrol cars, 5 officers and the canine unit. The victim and
perpetrator were in a unit (a rental unit) that has been the source of
constant and escalating trouble -- the dog went straight there -- should
have heard it once it found its prey and the pounding on the door
because this so called "friend" of those involved (by the unit's owner)
refused to open it -- it was all very unnerving resulting in many losing
sleep not just that night but also subsequent. Anyway, the irony is
that the owner of that rental unit is also a police officer and he has
refused to believe any of the complaints about his renter -- saying it
is always one of his friends -- a nuisance is a nuisance and should be
dealt with -- especially as many of the situations have been violent.

Anyway, my hat off to those in blue Sunday night -- they arrested two
people and were here over an hour investigating.

Michael,
I commend you for committing the time and energy to this op-ed piece.
I agree with your perspectives and how the piece is developed. I urge a
stronger point of view.
The mayor's decision to cut the $400,000 flies in the face of community
mobilization designed to support our neighborhoods. It is decisions like
this that drive voters from the polls and make the rest of us ask, "Why bother
having public hearings?" What ever happened to democracy?
As you articulate well, this program is for more than Capitol Hill,
including areas the City has historically left to fend for themselves. If the
voices of residents in our neighborhoods are organized and committed enough to
call for action where it's needed, the City would be wise to pay attention to
our voices. The question the Times should be asking is, "What would the City
of Seattle do if voices like these were quieted?" What does this budget cut
say about the value of public input?
Feel free to use any language you feel comfortable taking from this
email. I urge you to use this opportunity to voice a strong opposition against
the tyranny of the mayor's decision -- as well as the Seattle Times narrow view
of community action.
Thank you.