HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/2/2025 Item 6c, Cooper
Allan Cooper <
To:CityClerk; E-mail Council Website
Subject:Letter to the SLO City Council
Attachments:308_31_25...lettertocouncil.pdf
Dear City Clerk -
Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the SLO City Council?
This letter pertains to the City Council's September 2, 2025 review of Consent
Agenda Item #6C titled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo, California, accepting the 2024 Military Equipment Use (Assembly
Bill 481). Annual Report and Renewing Ordinance No. 1712 with Findings of
Ongoing Compliance with City Policy and State Law”.
We would also like this letter to be placed in the City's Correspondence File.
Thank you!
- Allan Cooper
1
To: San Luis Obispo City Council
Re: September 2, 2025 Meeting:Consent Item 6C: “Adopt
a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California,
accepting the 2024 Military Equipment Use (AB 481)
Annual Report and Renewing Ordinance No. 1712
with Findings of Ongoing Compliance with City
Policy and State Law”
From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo
Date: August 31, 2025
Honorable Mayor Stewart and Council Members -
The increasing militarization of our cities in an era where
world-wide popular opinion is shifting toward fascism is not a 1
topic for discussion that should be buried within the consent
agenda of your upcoming City Council meeting.
Of particular concern is your September 2, 2025 City Council
Consent Agenda item 6C titled “Adopt a Resolution entitled “A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, accepting the 2024 Military Equipment Use (AB
481) Annual Report and Renewing Ordinance No. 1712 with
Findings of Ongoing Compliance with City Policy and State
Law”.
Four in ten Americans are susceptible to authoritarianism per a new PRRI survey of 5,000 1
Americans.
Multiple studies indicate that a militarized police response to
protests is likely to escalate tensions and increase the chances of
violence. This occurs through several mechanisms that
fundamentally alter the relationship between police and the
community during a demonstration.
Since the passage of AB 481, and for the above reason, cities
and counties across California have enacted different levels of
control over the use of military equipment, including:
•Davis and San Jose: As far back as 2014, these cities
moved to get rid of armored military vehicles (Mine-
Resistant Ambush Protected armored vehicles) that their
police departments had acquired for free.
•Culver City and Hayward: City councils in these
communities have heard extensive public comments on
their military equipment use policies, with activists calling
for demilitarization and increased transparency.
•In 2021, the Antioch City Council voted to ban the police
department from acquiring surplus military equipment from
federal, state, and private sources. The council acted as
part of a campaign for law enforcement reform and a push
to reduce police militarization.
•Oakland: In 2021, the city council restricted its police
department from acquiring additional military equipment.
An earlier debate arose in 2022 after the police department
proposed a policy that would allow "armed robots" to use
lethal force in emergency situations. The plan was later
withdrawn after public backlash.
•National City: In 2023, the city council approved the police
department's purchase of military-style equipment despite
public criticism about the increased militarization of the
police force.
Per the passage of AB 481, this item should not appear on the
consent agenda but rather should appear in an “open session”
(as specifically stated in AB 481) thereby allowing for
community input and debate on how and whether such
equipment should be used within the City of San Luis Obispo.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this important
matter.