Do you think Colorado Springs is lax on crime control? (Denver: appointed, sales)

[midwestecon]

I think Colorado Springs has sort of become lax in it's crime fighting efforts. The city was one of the safest cities in America in the 90s. They had a larger police department on a per-capita basis, police helicopter and I remember that they had mobile policing units in the Prospect Lake area.

Colorado Springs through most of the 80s and 90s averaged around 15 homicides a year, the city had one of the lowest robbery and motor vehicle theft rates in America also. There were years in the 90s when the city had single digit homicide rates. In 2004, Colorado Springs had 12 homicides and Denver had 87 homicides. So far this year Colorado Springs is at 14 and Denver is at 16.

I find it shocking that the number of homicides went from 12 to 32 with-in the course a 7 year period and yet the response of the city was to cut the number of police officers per-capita, have property crime reports filled online and selling the police helicopter.

I can understand why Colorado Springs fundementals like economy and property would cause a higher crime rate then say Boulder and Fort Collins but it seems as though there has been no response to the massive rise in the last several years to increased crime rates by the city.

What is also interesting is how Colorado Springs has much more concentrated crime then many other western cities but yet the police don't really seem to concentrate there unusually low amount of funding and resources to those hot-spots.

[ryanek9freak]

Go buy a gun. Get a ccw permit. Police not needed.

[ryanek9freak]

Oh and I for one and damn glad those irritating police helicopters are gone. Waste of taxpayer dollars.

[colobill]

You get what you pay for. Colorado Springs residents have made low taxes a priority. Compared to other cities of similar size and population our taxes are very low. When you consider the growth over the last 15 years, the city budget has not increased proportionately.

[McGowdog]

Originally Posted by ryanek9freak

Go buy a gun. Get a ccw permit. Police not needed.

What? You're going to go around and shoot criminals?

How's that working?

Blame the under-staffed and under-funded police force.

Now if you want to be Barney Fife and go shooting bad guys, that sounds perfect.

Nice post and thread, OP. Welcome to City-Data.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by ryanek9freak

Go buy a gun. Get a ccw permit. Police not needed.

No matter what the issue, I am always disappointed by people who think that the only reason you do or do not do something is because of the price tag.

[cjmeck]

I have only lived in the Springs for nearly 4 years but I too am shocked by several things... First, I've lived all over the United States in cities of similar size as the Springs (and other cities considerably larger) and this online reporting of property crime that goes on here is crazy! I don't think this area is anymore dangerous than other towns, but the police response to it is different. Our neighbor stupidly left her car running in her driveway to warm up, the car was stolen one morning. They didn't even send out a police car! And then a few days later, the car was actually found abandoned somewhere, yet they don't run prints on it...??? Now I'm not blaming the cops at all. Although instead of setting speed traps maybe they could do some actual safety patrols in certain areas? But this all comes down to taxes. You get what you pay for. And if the citizens continue to pay for this level of service, they will get more of the same.

[McGowdog]

Originally Posted by cjmeck

I have only lived in the Springs for nearly 4 years but I too am shocked by several things... First, I've lived all over the United States in cities of similar size... I don't think this area is anymore dangerous than other towns...

When I think of cities the size of CoSprings I think of Albuquerque and Wichita. COPS filmed on location in Albuquerque made for good TV. Maybe now, it should be filmed on the corner of Academy and Atrizon, Constitution and Union, Widefield/Fountain, Fountain Fort Carson for that matter.

Dog The Bounty Hunter has been to Pueblo before, but that was at MCC... not to be confused with MIT, so no big surprise there.

All I'm saying is that the breaking story by Chucky's Bride over at Channel 5 is getting pretty interesting thanks to you guys up there.

Bad boys.... whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you...?

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by ryanek9freak

Go buy a gun. Get a ccw permit. Police not needed.

The same Constitution that gives us the right to own guns, also, gives everyone the right to equal justice under the law. So while I support the right to have a gun I, also, don't want to live in a town where the motto is "get a gun, police not needed."

[lurtsman]

The theory "you get what you pay for" is the most cliche and misinformed saying in existence today. Often times, you do not get what you pay for. Muggings are a perfect example. When I lived in Iowa, the crime rate was similar. The taxes on income were almost twice as high, the sales tax was roughly equal, and the property taxes were three to four times as high. Quite simply put, while living there I found I did not get what I paid for in any way. It's true that our city could use more police, however our current situation is not paying and not getting. While we might prefer to pay and get, it is better than paying and not getting -- which was the case in Iowa City.

I'd love to see an increase in the number of cops and see them really crack down. There is economic evidence that adding police officers saves on total expenses because the cost of damage done by criminals exceeds the cost of having more police to stop the criminals. It's just a question of paying through taxes or paying through repairs. Given the human damage that can occur, I'd favor paying through taxes.

If we really want to reduce the crime rate, a "revitalization" project that cleaned up some of the areas where houses are crap but land values are high would be able to pay for itself. (This can not be under taken without eminent domain because once word gets out the remaining owners will try to demand 3 to 10 times market value for the property) A city limit that prevents the construction of any new trailer parks would be vastly more useful than other "smart growth" initiatives. These areas are usually hot beds for crime, and the residents pay exceptionally low taxes in all forms despite contributing to the need for police at a higher than normal rate. - One useful place to do this would be next to the hospitals, such as memorial. The house values are high, but the house quality is not. There are constant complaints of violence, and the area has a natural draw. Employees of the hospital would bid up the price of the property, if the houses and culture were to their liking. A revitalization project that turned those into million dollar houses would be profitable for the city even if they paid significantly more than market value for the older properties they were tearing down. This would require remaking several blocks to change the culture, but it could certainly be done. To provide housing near work for more people, it would be wise to also put in a large section of semi-luxury apartments/condos. The draw for nurses and techs would be outstanding, and their presence in the area would help change the culture. (If it seems like this wouldn't work, consider how many people want to live in the old north end neighborhood--which is a great example of a very nice downtown area.


This is how to prevent crime, but many people do not have the stomach for it.

PS. Preventing trailer parks won't cause the people who are less likely to pay taxes and more likely to commit or be the victim of crime to change their core behaviors. It would however prevent them from moving here. To change the core behaviors would take a massive nation wide effort, and an attempt to do it only at a state level would massively dilute the effects. By grandfathering in the existing parks, no one would be losing their home. It would just alter the growth pattern for the city in the future.