Firing of Santa Monica Police Chief Batista

Dear Council,

This is a long one, sorry. But like many people in the city, I'm trying to understand the sudden firing of Chief Batista. It's obvious he was fired despite all the niceties mouthed (except "he wants to spend time with his family"). No reason has been given, and as far as I can see there isn't one. So I ask the council this question: Do you really think you can find somebody who is moderate and temperate enough for your delicate natures? Somebody who will put up with your consistent lack of support while still persistently pursuing (and slowly accomplishing) what he knows works? You must have some narrative cooked up, so which of the following stories are you telling yourselves?

Chief Batista was too tough.

Can't be it, because you relentlessly tried to tie his hands. As a reminder, Chief Batista came into a demoralized department, with historical staffing lows (177 versus, 231 today), and a council that was (and still is) mainly anti-enforcement-despite mouth noises about "supporting our police." Remember, after we were looted mercilessly, when the police were told to stand down because they might hurt the feelings of the looters, current Councilperson Caroline Torosis made it her mission to start a police oversight commission because... yeah, that was the problem, our police were too tough as they were forced to watch criminals set fires and destroy downtown. Rather than solving our real problems, the council aped the national mood and cried "police brutality" in Santa Monica, a lie I outlined at the time in "Fake Problem, Real Problem." Chief Batista also had no excessive force issues in four years, something the council rightly demanded, but wasn't a problem here.

Another reminder of the times: Gleam Davis, former mayor and sitting council-member at the time, told me: "We can't have police patrol the promenade, some of our residents wouldn't like it because it would make them uncomfortable." She also famously said Santa Monica just "has a little grit," as the city was overrun with criminals, encampments, and people sleeping and defecating on a daily basis in our carport. Another councilperson actually said the homeless were "unhoused residents." Yes, Oliver, welcome to SantaWackiness! And don't forget Jesse Zwick famously said he wouldn't "feel safe" and "wouldn't visit" on the promenade if there was even one armed supervisor for the promenade's security team. As an aside, this is a decision that should be revisited given that two kids recently got shot in a Waymo downtown (and then a police officer several days later). If an active shooter shows up on the promenade before the police can get there, the victim's blood will be on this council's hands, which halted the Covered 6 deployment of former policemen the day before they were to start.

I only bring all this up to remind people of the headwinds Chief Batista faced in a city council that is defined by luxury beliefs, because they are not the victims of crime we living near downtown experience, most of it arising from the homeless population. And don't claim that you have seen the light or that anything has changed in your lack of police support: two months ago the council voted not to hire the 5 new officers the chief said he needs to tackle our crime wave. Unlike neighbors like Beverly Hills or Redondo Beach, you've tied his hands while expecting the impossible. Because face it, deep down you DO NOT THINK OUR TROUBLES ARE AN ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM and all these thousands of addicts and criminals need are free needles and a lollypop.

Chief Batista wasn't modernizing enough.

Not supported by the facts. The chief immediately set about modernizing the force, adding a drone program that puts police on scene in a minute, something I experienced first hand as I was attacked in broad daylight a block from my house. Literally, while I was still describing the person who tried to knock-out punch me to dispatch, they said: "We see you. We see the person you're talking about." I was confused because I saw no police cars until she said the drone, operated by a police officer, was already hovering above. Chief Batista also launched a new computer-aided dispatch and records management system, secured a $6 million grant to establish the city's first Real-Time Crime and Information Center, and beefed up cameras around the city. I could go on and on about what's changed, but even though it might start to feel like it, this isn't a book.

Chief Batista wasn't prepared or proactive enough.

Nope. Two recent events put the police to the test, which they passed with flying colors: the Palisades fires, and the "No Kings" protest. The fires were met with preemptive planning, a tough response, an early request to deploy National Guard as a precautionary measure, and a robust attack on the burglary gangs and copycat arsonists inundating SM while we were evacuated. The "No Kings" protest, which I attended, was moved out of downtown, entrance ramps from the freeway were monitored or closed, and innumerable preventive measures were taken to ensure the safety of the peaceful protest, which was feisty, jubilant, and local. Compare that with the 2020 incursion of criminal gangs that looted our city while our police were instructed to stand down.

The chief also changed the culture of the demoralized department, which were famously disincentivized to "get after it." Now, putting an emphasis on proactive policing, in 2024, 50,000 officer initiated contacts were made, in addition to 128,000 responses to calls and 2800 arrests. I've long said these officer initiated contacts for public drug use, trespassing, harassment, and other "quality of life" issues give the police an opportunity to run warrants, confiscate weapons and drugs, and check for parole status. Many wanted felons with outstanding warrants were picked up this way. Can we do even more? Yes, and we need to. Because the ONLY solution to what's happening on our streets is doing what Bill Bratton did in NYC-a zero tolerance, broken windows approach where public drug use and minor lawbreaking is not tolerated. This takes more cops, and real support from a council for tougher policing, neither of which the council seems ready to do.

Chief Batista wasn't transparent, connected to the community, or DEI enough.

This doesn't ring true either. When the chief arrived, we were a city under siege. He struggled to get control of the situation, all while adhering to the "values" that our council likes to talk about, from equity in hiring to historic transparency with the Blue Notebook to a ton of community outreach through the "coffee with a cop" program. This police force is available to the community in word and deed, often showing up at community meetings and hearing people out. He and his officers slowly and steadily rebuilt support and trust within Santa Monica, putting in long hours meeting with residents and building community. He also hired officers who are so diverse that they look like a Benetton ad (25% women).

Chief Batista wasn't tough enough.

Nope. And a hilarious reason, really, considering the council's history and opposition to all things enforcement. The naked hostility and indifference of the council to the police in general, and to Chief Batista in person during his city council reports, is breathtaking. You take a professional who knows what it takes to solve our problems, you hamstring him and his department with a persistent threat to remove pre-textual stops (which have yielded wanted felons, guns, dealer-lever amounts of Fentanyl). You constantly deliver lectures about "our values" and how our police can't be too harsh, while claiming that enforcement won't really make a difference, and then you're saying he's not tough enough? Nah.

I'm out of ideas. Because none of the above reasons make sense, and I can't think of any other besides petty politics, of which I don't want to comment on because I recently ate lunch.

Advice to Oliver Chi: rescind this decision

Oliver, despite plans to, we haven't met yet, but I've got to say, this is not a good way to start in a city. It's only been 5 days, and I suggest you take a breath and immediately rescind this decision (you won't, but I'm ever the optimist). I would then go on a listening tour to really understand what the Chief was dealing with the past four years. This will prevent you from shooting from the hip and falling prey to politics and historical ignorance because you've only been here five minutes. Mainly the fact that this council, and the former city manager, have not been supportive of the police, and show NO SIGN of beginning to understand what the core issues are regarding restoring our downtown and tourism industry, (beyond adding booze and fast food joints). If you thought the Chief needed adjusting, it would have been wiser to give him a review and say something like: "I know you've had to deal with a council and former city manager who inherently doesn't believe in your mission beyond lip service. Those days are over. You have my support, and should consider this as the reset. I will do everything in my power to get you what you need, but I will hold you accountable as well. You've got six months to show me you can turn things around."

Given your recent other firings, I know you might want to signal that change is here (and believe me there needs to be a shakeup of staff), but do not stick with this hasty dismissal on the eve of the World Cup and the Olympics, disrupting the Chief's careful planning for both. There's a human being here who has sweated blood working for the city. Reversing this decision would take real balls, but the chief deserves a chance to meet your mark, whatever it is. And we deserve the continuity it will bring to the city.

One final note: you wrote three years ago about implementing "professional crisis response teams of medics and mental health workers" to handle calls involving the homeless in Huntington Beach. How'd that work out in a city without a train mainlining them in? I don't know where you stand now, but fyi, we've tried it, and it has failed with the service resistant populace inundating our streets off the train, many hiding wanted criminals. Unless you pair social workers with a cop that is running warrants and finding a reason to pressure addicts to accept services (or remand them back to where they are wanted), the social workers will tally their "contacts"-the BS way they all measure success, (rather than people off the streets)-and move on. Carrot needs to meet stick here.

Advice to the council: Do your job

To this council of social justice warriors trying to right every wrong as if they were living in the year 1970, which of the above stories are you telling yourselves? Because none of them track. So, here's an idea, instead of all the petty palace intrigue, why don't you do what only the council can do?:

Figure out the train problem with LA county so we can stanch the never-ending influx of the criminal, the crazy, and the addicted (nothing will change until you do).

Immediately move SamoShell out of downtown which will reduce the number of zonked out zombies walking around our beleaguered tourism zone.

End the plan to put fully supportive housing (at $1.25 million a pop!!) smack in downtown at 4th and Arizona, which will embed dozens of severely unstable people a block from the promenade. I mean, this is just common sense, right?

Focus on the encampments above and right before the Lincoln exit and clean the waterfall of trash from them, so the first thing people see upon entering Santa Monica isn't a garden of garbage.

Find some money out the 50 million we spend on failed homelessness boondoggles and hire more cops. Support, REALLY support our police department, so they can continue to change our reputation to from "easy pickings" to "not worth going there" on the crack hotline.

Oh, and power wash and repair sidewalks citywide while you're at it, which are a mess. You're failing at basic small town governance.

BONUS: Start by dismantling the Police Oversight Commission (wtf do they actually do?). It's BS and you all, deep down, know it.

These initiatives would actually be an accelerant for change in Santa Monica, from which good things could waterfall, including tax money from a thriving downtown which will never recover without safe and clean streets (because surprise, businesses don't want to invest here).

And make public why you fired our Chief, because NOBODY is buying that he suddenly decided to up and quit. We, as a city, deserve to know instead of allowing you to hide behind a cowardly silence. And to Chief Batista, thank you for your service. It must be such a gut punch and I wish you had made them fire you instead of quietly leaving, yet another time you acted in the interests of the city above your own.

I'm reminded of the Yeat's poem, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Yeah, that's about right. The council is too passionately ideological to act in the best interests of Santa Monica, which is to keep the chief.

Shame on you. All of you.

Arthur Jeon