On Sunday, in four cities across the country, four police officers were shot; one died, and three others were wounded. In a press conference on Monday, the San Antonio police chief addressed the motive of the man who shot and killed a detective on his force, Benjamin Marconi: “I feel we were targeted,” said the police chief, William McManus. “I think the uniform was the target, and the first person who happened along was the target.”

Otis Tyrone McCain, 31, shot Marconi at point blank range as he was in his cruiser writing a traffic ticket on Sunday afternoon in San Antonio. As McCain was being escorted out of the police department after being arrested, he offered an explanation of why he killed Marconi: “Society not allowing me to see my son…I’ve been through several custody battles and I was upset at the situation I was in,” he said, saying he “lashed out at somebody who didn’t deserve it.” He added: “I’m sorry.”

Marconi, 50, was the 58th officer killed in 2016, which is on pace to be the deadliest year for officers since 2011. According to the non-profit group Officer Down Memorial Page, 1973 saw the most officers killed, with 144 officers killed while on duty. A number of police killings of unarmed citizens this year has sparked protests, outrage, and demands for reform. According to The Washington Post’s police shooting database, cops have shot and killed 844 people this year so far, including 16 unarmed African-Americans. For more information on officer deaths in the line of duty, check out Law Street’s Police in America coverage.

Sunday’s shootings, three of which were drive-by attacks, underscore the tense mood between officers and the communities they police. From Philando Castile in Minnesota to the ambush on police in Dallas, this year has seen a number of high profile police killings of unarmed black men, and of retaliation attacks on police.

On Monday, during his press conference addressing the killing of Marconi, who was on the force for 20 years, McManus, the San Antonio police chief said: “He was a great guy, a great investigator. He was just a solid guy and I can’t describe the loss to the police department and the community.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Chief on Detective Who Was Killed Sunday: “The Uniform Was the Target” appeared first on Law Street.

Do you need to order a quick ride in Austin, Texas? You may now be out of luck, or forced to call a cab, because both Uber and Lyft are pausing their operations in the city for now.

This big move comes after voters in the city rejected a ballot measure that would have loosened regulations on the kinds of services ridesharing companies provide. The regulations were adopted late last year after the legislation was passed by Austin’s City Council, but the ballot measure was posed to Austin’s voters this Saturday. While both Uber and Lyft lobbied hard for its passage and spent a combined $8 million plus in lobbying, 56 percent of Austin’s voters cast their ballots against the measure.

The Austin regulations essentially required Uber and Lyft to be treated more like taxis. One of the biggest points of contention was that they required that the companies run the fingerprints of the drivers they hire–Uber and Lyft pushed back against that regulation because both companies conduct their own internal background checks. According to the Wall Street Journal:

Austin also prohibits drivers from stopping in traffic lanes for passenger drop-offs and pickups, includes requirements for identifying vehicles for hire and imposes data reporting on the ride-hailing companies.

Austin is a major tech hub with a recent large influx of young people, so the fact that Uber and Lyft would rather give up that market than comply with the regulations makes quite a strong statement. Uber has additionally threatened to leave Houston, where similar regulations are under ongoing debate. Both companies also followed through on their threat in San Antonio, after that city made fingerprinting mandatory. Neither operated within San Antonio limits until the city made fingerprinting voluntary instead of required.

Statements from both companies echo these sentiments. Lyft’s spokesperson Chelsea Wilson said:

Lyft and Austin are a perfect match and we want to stay in the city. Unfortunately, the rules passed by City Council don’t allow true ride-sharing to operate.

Uber’s Austin general manager, Chris Nakutis, talked a local news outlet and stated: “Disappointment does not begin to describe how we feel about shutting down operations in Austin.”

Uber and Lyft are now in a game of chicken with Austin–and there’s really know way to tell who will swerve first.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber and Lyft Pull out of Austin After Voters Keep Strict Regulations in Place appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past couple days I’ve seen a post floating around on Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media. It shows a blue strip of paint on a curb and is accompanied with an explanation of something dubbed the “Safe Harbor Initiative.”

Safe Harbor Initiative – a blue line on your curb to show support to your local police #SafeHarborInitiativepic.twitter.com/3vYzByXz8G

— Caitlin Gold (@shaolinmomma) September 16, 2015

The original Facebook post, which appears to have originated from the account of a San Antonio man named Anthony Welichko, explained the purpose of the blue line, saying:

To all law enforcement who see this line, know that the residents of this home appreciate your service and dedication to keeping the peace. Know that when you enter the neighborhood and see these lines that you are not alone or without “back-up”. We do not need the media to make our voices of support for our police and emergency services heard ( though it would be nice). Lastly, if you are in my neighborhood and mean to harm a member of law enforcement, know that decision may be hazardous to you health as someone has that officers back!

Please share.

As of right now, the original post has over 80,000 shares, and will probably continue to grow.

It’s a nice gesture, in theory. But it’s also important to recognize that despite being well intentioned, this could actually end up being a really fantastically bad idea. Police officers aren’t just civilians who pick up guns and badges are suddenly equipped to deal with emergency scenarios. Instead they go through serious and intense training–much of which emphasizes the need to protect civilians and secure a particular area. Suddenly having civilians barge in as “backup” could potentially be a distraction, and way more harmful than helpful.

As Snopes, the famous online debunker of viral claims, put it:

Police departments across the United States are consistent and firm in their guidance on this matter: civilians should not intervene with crimes in progress, especially when police are already on the scene. Those who do may end up injured (potentially fatally), and untrained intervention poses severe risk to both other civilians and responding officers. This reason alone is enough to be extremely cautious about spreading the “blue strip” rumor, as the police require cooperation with the commands they’ve issued to bystanders more than they need encouragement for the public to act as crime scene cheerleaders.

The post is being lauded as a great way to show support for our nation’s police officers. But concerns that the social media campaign is misguided are incredibly valid. There’s a lot of ways to support police officers in the community, including donating time, money, or resources. But encouraging vigilante support is fundamentally a  bad idea–keep that in mind before painting a strip on your curb.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Viral “Safe Harbor Initiative” to Support Police Officers May Be a Bad Idea appeared first on Law Street.

When a football player lands a big tackle on an opposing player during a game, a congratulatory slap on the back is pretty typical. However, when that person being intentionally pummeled into the ground is a referee, the outcome could be criminal.

This is the current reality for two San Antonio high school football players, who could potentially face criminal charges after deliberately targeting a referee during a game Friday night.

A video of the assault captured the two defensive backs from John Jay High School inexcusably retaliate against a ref during the tail end of a 15-9 loss in Marble Falls, Texas. In the video the unidentified referee is seen being completely blindsided after the first player makes a beeline for him, slamming into his back and knocking him face forward into the turf. Then moments later the second player dives on top of him–helmet first.

Just before the referee was hit two Jay players, including the starting quarterback, had been ejected from the game on separate plays. According to the San Antonio Express News,

Marble Falls was looking to gain the yards required to extend its possession and effectively run out the clock and called for a handoff toward the left side of the line of scrimmage. The penalties stemming from the incident gave Marble Falls a first down.

Afterwards both players were ejected from the game, and have since been suspended from the team and the school. Austin Football Officials Association secretary Wayne Elliott told the Washington Post that the referee was “very upset” and “wanting to press charges.” A prosecutor has already been contacted by investigators and is reportedly open to filing charges against the boys. If that happens they will most likely be looking at charges of assault, with the severity depending on their age–individuals 17 and older are considered legally adults in Texas.

The University Interscholastic League, which oversees athletics in Texas public schools, tweeted out the following statement.

UIL statement concerning actions in San Antonio Jay football game: pic.twitter.com/QhPH8rskzc

— Texas UIL (@uiltexas) September 6, 2015

NFL Referees Association executive director Jim Quirk also released a quick statement addressing the hits saying,

These types of actions against any game official at any level are inexcusable. We fully support the suspensions of the players involved, along with a full and complete investigation by the Texas University Interscholastic League (UIL).

They’re right that it is inexcusable. Any big sports fan will tell you that rarely do they agree 100 percent of the time with every one of the officials’ calls. Regardless of whether or not this high school referee did make a bad call, physical violence shouldn’t have been the answer. Unfortunately this incident sheds yet another negative spotlight on the sport, which seems to have been plagued by its fair share of public scandals over the past year.

It’s unclear how the official is doing after the hits, but he easily could have been seriously injured. Just last night Virginia Tech Hokies starting quarterback Michael Brewer suffered a broken collarbone after receiving a massive hit from 290 pound Ohio State lineman, and unlike the blindsided referee, he was wearing pads. These boys better hope he wasn’t seriously injured or else  they can pretty much guarantee they’ll have their day in court.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas HS Football Players “Targeted” Ref, May Face Criminal Charges appeared first on Law Street.

Julian Castro has long been promoted as one of the rising celebrities of the Democratic party. Formerly the Mayor of San Antonio, now the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, his name has definitely been floated by those who are familiar with the who’s who of the Democratic party, but hasn’t quite hit the national stage yet. It leads to a lot of questions: who is Julian Castro? How did he end up leading the Department of Housing and Urban Development? And what is that department doing under his leadership?

How did Castro become HUD secretary?

On Friday May 23, 2014, President Obama nominated Mayor of San Antonio Julián Castro to replace Shaun Donovan as secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Donovan, who had held the post since January 2009, became Secretary of the Office of Management and Budget, as Sylvia Matthew Burnwell moved on to head the Department of Health and Human Services, a position from which Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had recently resigned following the botched roll-out of HealthCare.gov. Julián Castro, 39, who had served three terms as Mayor of San Antonio,  faced the daunting Senate confirmation process and passed. Castro is the second former Mayor of San Antonio to direct HUD, after Henry Cisneros who was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993.

Catro’s Qualifications

Since declining President Obama’s offer to lead the Department of Transportation in 2012, the top HUD job became a prime opportunity for Castro to gain national-policy experience. And as a Latino on the national stage, Castro could potentially appeal to a growing Hispanic voting base, shoring up the Latino vote for Democrats in future elections. “Having his understanding of the needs of the Hispanic community—having a cultural affinity about that—will lend quite a bit of depth to his policy and understanding of the role,” said Javier Palomarez, CEO of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Indeed HUD plays an increasingly vital role for underrepresented populations, as Latinos and the black community continue to bear the brunt of inequitable urban ‘revitalization’ across America. “We are in a century of cities,” Mayor Castro explained on Friday May 23, following the announcement of his nomination. “America’s cities are growing again and housing is at the top of the agenda.” He vowed to “do housing right,” implying a change from previous HUD policies, which primarily entailed large grants to cities spawning private investment and exorbitant costs of living without protections for the poor.

Castro’s track record is good, but not without blemishes. One instance of ‘revitalization’ in San Antonio under the Castro administration took place in the city’s historically impoverished Eastside neighborhood, once the heart of the city’s black community. In 2012 Castro successfully wrangled a $30 million HUD grant with which he demolished the Wheatly Courts Public Housing Project, and redeveloped the area for moderate-income families and market-rate households. With renovation costs exceeding $1 million, the program didn’t adhere to the affordability requirements. In January 2014, President Obama subsequently selected San Antonio’s Eastside as one of his first five anti-poverty “Promise Zones.”

Similarly, through city fee wavers and tax abatements, Castro revitalized San Antonio’s downtown district, drawing 11.5 million visitors and generating $3.1 billion annually. Since 2010, developers have completed or are building 2,700 housing units within five square miles in the downtown area, though few low-income families could afford such prime real estate and have been subsequently pushed to periphery of the city center. Indeed, San Antonio ranks forty-second in City Lab’s report of the most gentrified cities in America, and seven percent of San Antonio’s low-price tracts have been gentrified over the last year.

What were the concerns over Castro’s nomination?

Aside from Castro’s history of questionable urban policy, he lacked actual executive leadership experience. Unlike the strong-mayor governments of Chicago or New York, San Antonio’s is a council-manager system: a council is elected to serve as legislative branch and it appoints a manager to serve as the executive who has the authority to execute laws and the administration of the city government. The Mayoralty is merely a ceremonial post, a figurehead, and has no real power over the council. Castro was elected to city council in 2001 at the age of 26–the youngest in history–serving two consecutive terms. During his tenure on the city council, he successfully curbed urban sprawl by defeating plans for a PGA-approved golf coarse and suburban development outside the city in 2005; he has no executive experience in the city government, though, which could be problematic.

Castro did a “fantastic job” revitalizing San Antonio by “planning thousands of housing units downtown, attracting hundreds of millions of dollars of investment,” President Obama reasoned during his announcement of Castro’s appointment. In reality, though, Castro’s mayoral tenure was less than laudable, specifically pertaining to the urban minorities whom he supposedly seeks to help. In 2008, congress approved an $8.6 million HUD grant to San Antonio as part of the National Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) as a means to ameliorate the escalating rate of foreclosures at the height of the 2008 financial crisis. With the grant, the program stipulated, cities must buy, refurbish, and resell homes left vacant after eviction; a 2012 HUD Inspector General report concluded, however, that between 2009 and 2011, $1.1 million was allocated to houses that were then sold at market-rate and not reserved for low-income families as the HUD program demanded. It is fair to say that the HUD grant package was awarded before Castro came to office, but the infections to the program nonetheless took place under his leadership.

So, how has the HUD fared under Castro?

So far, so good, but given that Castro has only been in the job a few months, there’s still a lot that needs to happen before anything resembling a final judgment can be made. However, Castro and his administration have absolutely had notable success–for example, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) is no longer in debt after the severe problems it experienced during the 2008 financial crisis. Although that won’t automatically lower loans for people seeking them from the FHA, it’s certainly a step in the right direction. Overhauling struggling institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have also taken top priority for Castro. Overall, it seems like he’s finding his place at HUD.

Conclusion

Calling Castro a rising Democratic star probably isn’t too far from the truth, but it’s still tough to predict who will fight their way onto the political landscape in years to come. After all, President Obama’s rise was almost meteoric–most people did not know who he was just a few years before he accepted the nomination for President from the Democratic Party. Whether or not Castro will end up living up to his potential can only be told by time.

Resources

Primary 

Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland: Gentrification and Financial Health Report 2013

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of Inspector General, Memorandum NO: 2012-FW1804

White House: President Obama Nominates Julián Castro as Next HUD Secretary, and Shaun Donovan as OMB Director

Additional

Latin Post: Julián Castro HUD Secretary Nomination Endorsed by National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals

Inman: National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals backs Julián Castro to lead HUD

Bloomberg: Castro Move to HUD Sets Up Possible VP Selection in 2016

Politico: For Julián Castro, Plenty of Challenges at HUD

Texas Monthly: Alamo Heights

Politico: Julián Castro’s San Antonio Misused HUD money

Washington Post: Julián Castro Nominated as HUD secretary

Monitor: Commentary: Should Julián Castro Go to DC to Head HUD?

New Republic: Why Would Obama Put a Rising Democratic Star Into a Cabinet Backwater?

CityLab: Why Julián Castro’s Record as a Mayor of San Antonio Doesn’t Necessarily Tell Us Much About Hist Future at HUD 

NPR: Obama Taps San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro For HUD Secretary

LA Times: Obama Picks San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro to be Housing Secretary

Washington Examiner: Barack Obama Names Julián Castro for HUD, Shaun Donovan for OMB

Washington Examiner: If Chosen For HUD, Julian Castro’s Work, Big Payday Could Face Scrutiny

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Julian Castro’s National Democratic Star Still on the Rise? appeared first on Law Street.