Deep cuts to SPD - crime rises (Sacramento, Stockton: crime rates, schools)

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

That makes sense. But on the other hand, entrenched/experienced politicians haven 't been much if any better. 'Tis a puzzlement!

In terms of local politicians, the ones backing harebrained ideas like the arena and the Strong Mayor Trilogy are either brand-new politicians that KJ's backers in the Metro Chamber put into power, or those who have already been part of the Metro Chamber's political machine. Basically the same businesses who have profited from other public-funded projects over the last few decades, who generally don't live anywhere near Sacramento and so don't really care much about crime levels in the city as long as they get paid.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by wburg

In terms of local politicians, the ones backing harebrained ideas like the arena and the Strong Mayor Trilogy are either brand-new politicians that KJ's backers in the Metro Chamber put into power, or those who have already been part of the Metro Chamber's political machine. Basically the same businesses who have profited from other public-funded projects over the last few decades, who generally don't live anywhere near Sacramento and so don't really care much about crime levels in the city as long as they get paid.

::::sigh:::: Business as usual!

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by wburg

Well, that's what the "CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT" mentality gets you. The plan is a tax increase, which, of course, has the CUT CUT CUT crowd screaming bloody murder. They also scream bloody murder when they are told that a police officer won't visit your house when you are burglarized because of staffing cuts, and you just fill out a report online.

Without money, no, there is no plan. Citizens' groups are doing what they can to pay attention and bring attention where it is needed, but the fact is that we need higher taxes to pay for more cops.

In a nod towards reality, it is also easier (as in, not impossible) to get a CCW these days.

Before any tax increases we need to get a handle on city counsels giving themselves $30K a year raises, university administrators giving themselves raises while raising tuition, stadiums, arenas, and on and on.

The tax increases wouldn't bother people so much if they thought the money would be applied the way it should.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

Before any tax increases we need to get a handle on city counsels giving themselves $30K a year raises, university administrators giving themselves raises while raising tuition, stadiums, arenas, and on and on.

The tax increases wouldn't bother people so much if they thought the money would be applied the way it should.

When did the City Council give itself a $30K a year raise? Answer: They didn't, Council salary has been about $60K since we started paying them anything a decade or so ago. How many university administrators in the city budget? (I didn't know the city ran any universities!) Zero. How many stadiums, arenas in current city budget? Zero.

[davidt1]

I don't know what crazy salary and perks SPD officers get, but a huge portion of a city's budget goes to the police. This link from the link provided by the OP shows how much police officers are paid/overpaid:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/ny...orce.html?_r=0

It's mind-boggling. An automatic 11% raise for being on the force for over 5 years! So much time off that this particular police department has 30% of its officers stay home everyday. Thanks to the unions.

Time is tough for everyone. Police departments and other government agencies are going through what the private sectors have been going through for years now. They just have to learn to do more with less.

[wburg]

In this case, "learning to do more with less" means fewer officers and more crime.

[davidt1]

Since the police control crime data, they can make it look as bad as they want to. Scare tactics are nothing new. The police will cry, "But there will more crimes...blah...blah...blah." The Stockton PD put out billboards advertising that their city is the second most dangerous. In doing so they also tell the world what an incompetent PD they are. If they have been doing a good job, that city would not be a dangerous city now, would it?

1. Cities can put more police on the streets by hiring new officers with a lower pay scale and less absurd benefits. Some old timers will whine and cry. Let them. In this economy they will quickly be replaced by hungry young people willing take their place with less pay for a chance to serve.

2. Use technologies to improve enforcement; a drone, for example, is a cheap and effective monitoring tool.

3. Deal with criminals aggressively. Send a clear message that criminal acts will not be tolerated.

4. Let the citizens help. There are so many people willing to help the police to protect their community.

[ryuns]

Originally Posted by davidt1

Since the police control crime data, they can make it look as bad as they want to. Scare tactics are nothing new. The police will cry, "But there will more crimes...blah...blah...blah." The Stockton PD put out billboards advertising that their city is the second most dangerous. In doing so they also tell the world what an incompetent PD they are. If they have been doing a good job, that city would not be a dangerous city now, would it?

1. Cities can put more police on the streets by hiring new officers with a lower pay scale and less absurd benefits. Some old timers will whine and cry. Let them. In this economy they will quickly be replaced by hungry young people willing take their place with less pay for a chance to serve.

2. Use technologies to improve enforcement; a drone, for example, is a cheap and effective monitoring tool.

3. Deal with criminals aggressively. Send a clear message that criminal acts will not be tolerated.

4. Let the citizens help. There are so many people willing to help the police to protect their community.

I agree, in a sense, that I wish the police department had been more aggressive about cutting costs without cutting service. E.g., I wish they'd pony up for part of their pension. I wish we didn't simply have to fire new, poorly paid officers and keep the older ones on in every case. I definitely understand that it's a job where experience is valuable, but it's also unfortunately when (as in one example in the NYT column) they fire young officers and demote detective and dock them 5% of pay. Detective to beat cop and you lose only 5%?

I also am not real attached to the concept of privacy. Google already knows everything there is to know about me, so I wouldn't really mind some drones buzzing around if it actually kept us safer. (That's slightly sci-fi right now, as there aren't any law enforcement applications of UAV's that I know of currently.)

I'm curious--what would citizens help with? Their role is mostly limited to alerting the police, right? Short of vigilante justice, we're mostly talking about neighborhood watch, and the like, right? Is there any evidence that those are effective?

What does it mean to deal with criminals aggressively? As the story points out, that's actually part of the problem--decades of long sentences for criminals has led to overcrowded prisons, which has shifted some of the burden from the state to counties.

[davidt1]

Originally Posted by ryuns

I agree, in a sense, that I wish the police department had been more aggressive about cutting costs without cutting service. E.g., I wish they'd pony up for part of their pension. I wish we didn't simply have to fire new, poorly paid officers and keep the older ones on in every case. I definitely understand that it's a job where experience is valuable, but it's also unfortunately when (as in one example in the NYT column) they fire young officers and demote detective and dock them 5% of pay. Detective to beat cop and you lose only 5%?

I also am not real attached to the concept of privacy. Google already knows everything there is to know about me, so I wouldn't really mind some drones buzzing around if it actually kept us safer. (That's slightly sci-fi right now, as there aren't any law enforcement applications of UAV's that I know of currently.)

I'm curious--what would citizens help with? Their role is mostly limited to alerting the police, right? Short of vigilante justice, we're mostly talking about neighborhood watch, and the like, right? Is there any evidence that those are effective?

What does it mean to deal with criminals aggressively? As the story points out, that's actually part of the problem--decades of long sentences for criminals has led to overcrowded prisons, which has shifted some of the burden from the state to counties.

Street patrol is the best deterrence there is. You don't need experienced officers to do it really. All you do is drive around or park your patrol car in view. Criminals will take their business somewhere else when they see a police car.

Police calls for air support in most pursuits. Search and rescue is done by helicopter also. It is every expensive to fly a helicopter to do this. A drone can do it for a fraction of the cost without putting officers at risk.

Criminals can be dealt with by a little old-fashioned street justice. Don't have to beat them up. Just chain them to the power pole in pink underwears in their hood for a day.

Let law-abiding citizens open carry and make CCW available to all qualified law-abiding citizens.

I admit some of my suggestions will require a policy change and attitude change of the public.

[wburg]

Poorly-paid, poorly-trained police, or some kind of volunteer militia, increased surveillance/decreased privacy, and increased aggression. Sounds a bit like the American Protective League--or the Sturmabteilung.