On 3/6/05 2:39 PM, "gemgram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So let's say you hire fifty "new" street cops at 3 million per year. Then > assign fifty seasoned Minneapolis police officers to a task force to > directly attack gangs and street crime. Would that make a difference if > they came to work each night with the sole purpose of hunting drug gangs and > street criminals? Would fifty additional "eager seeker" cops hunting > criminals in a small area like that "two square miles" that Dennis talks > about make a difference? I bet it not only would, but if the police then > moved to stay with the crime wherever it next appeared, we might actually > drive these criminals out of our City. How much economic development would > such a responsible investment by our "leaders" generate? We know that > property values for both commercial and residential property is degraded by > the perception of that area as dangerous and crime ridden. The additional > tax revenues would probably pay for the investment directly. Maybe try Tax > Increment Financing. Have the increased tax revenue pay for "Public Safety" > like they pay for real estate development.
I read the Skyway News article about Chief McManus and the 150 additional cops he wanted. He said with that number, he could add 20 cops to each precinct and have 50 more for "special gang or narcotics units or other special patrols." That sounds pretty good to me. However, Jim Graham's proposal for paying for these cops seems a bit optimistic. Given that most of the city does not really fit the description of being "degraded by the perception of that area as dangerous and crime ridden," how much of an increase in property tax revenues can we expect from the areas that are? And until we erase those perceptions, how do we pay for those cops in the meantime? The absolute last thing we want to do is return to the charge card mentality of the previous administration since that's a big part of why we're now in the financial mess we face. > As Dennis says we can find 150 million for a new library (and I don't know > how much for Elm trees), but can't find 3 million for additional (still not > adequate) policing? Something is just wrong with this picture. Our City > leaders remind me of someone reviewing architectural plans and paying a > contractor to build a three-season porch onto a house that is on fire. And > when questioned about it saying it is alright because the credit cards are > overdue and your pay was cut. I think it is time to cut the bull! I think > the "leader" should show a little of that "Executive" responsibility and put > out Minneapolis' fires first. If they do not have at least that level of > responsibility then we should simply "hire" new executives that do > understand their jobs and responsibilities. I think what's partly wrong with this picture is the continuing inability for folks to recognize that the city's budget is not one single pot where we can take money from parks or libraries to spend on cops. How did we "find" the money for a new library? Answer: a bunch of folks worked to get a referendum together and then worked even more to get voters to approve it. That's an oversimplification, but essentially that's what happened. So perhaps folks desiring more cops could learn from that model. Get together (this forum is a good way to advertise!), decide on an approach for how you want to pay for additional cops and then work to get it approved. Personally, I like the half-cent sales tax idea. If I recall correctly it would raise about $25 million a year, enough to add back the 150 cops that Chief McManus wants, plus it should bolster the Fire Department enough to fully staff each rig when it goes out on a call. I think there might even be a little left over that could hopefully be used towards paying off the mistakes of the previous administration when they were doing stupid stuff like bonding for police cruisers and other equipment. Another benefit to this approach is that it spreads the burden a little more than property taxes could. I think I remember reading somewhere that something like 200,000 people come in to Minneapolis daily from surrounding communities. Since they all presumably expect police protection while they work or play in our city, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to help a little to pay for that. And I really don't think that many people would suddenly start avoiding Minneapolis to save a whole penny on every $2 purchase. Maybe some of the members of the Tax Evaders League would do that, but I think most people are smart enough to figure out that they'll spend way more on gas by going out of their way than they'll save. > Michael Thompson asks for a definition of non-essential services and > contends that "services" are some how equal. Michael, "essential service" > are those that are mandated by law. I am sorry to be self centered, but > stopping my neighborhood kids from being offered drugs and threatened with > guns is just more essential than "summer art camp"! The real problem in > Minneapolis is someone could even make such a comparison. Public safety > (including fire and police), sewer and water, are essential services. They > are essential to the safety and health of the residents. Everything else is > an extra. We should take care of the essentials first, (for everyone > equally) then deal with other issues. We in poor neighborhoods know we will > never get the amenities equally, but please do not compromise the health and > safety of our children. We are tired of being containment zones for crime > so that the rest of Minneapolis can feel more secure. I think this is a mischaracterization of what Mike Thompson said. I don't think he was attempting to equate summer art camp with hunting drug dealers. He was simply making the point that if you choose the approach of paying for more cops by cutting something else, there's always going to be somebody who complains when their thing gets the ax. I don't have children, so it probably wouldn't bother me that much if summer art camp went away. But I can guess an awful lot of parents would be pretty peeved, especially those who do not live in the areas where bullets are flying on a regular basis and so cannot fully appreciate with folks like Jim Graham are living with. > The number of Cops we need is the number adequate to stop open drug dealing > and crime, so that ALL neighborhoods and residents are equally safe. OK - so how many is that? 938? 1,000? 2,000? One thing that struck me in the Skyway News article was when McManus responded to the question "So how many officers does the city need to be safe and still fiscally prudent?" His response: "There is no magic formula - if you were to walk into some police precinct, everyone would have an authorized number. If you ask someone 'How did you come up with that number?' no one would be able to tell you. This is from my experience back in Washington DC. You just know you need this number - because that's what it's always been." > When you have that level of safety then go ahead and allow attrition to lower > the number of officers. Until then it is irresponsible management to allow > gangs and open drug crime to rule certain areas of Minneapolis. Add more if > we have another crime wave. It is called resource management and good leaders > and executives should exercise such management for a change. Clearly they > have not, or we would not have the problem. Minneapolis needs to establish > a reputation among the crime business world as a very bad place to do > business. It certainly established the reputation as one of the best places > a few years ago. Then and only then will we need fewer cops. Again, it's easy to say "we need more cops" if you're not the one who has to figure out the budget. Here's the city budget: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/city-budget/2005adopted/index.asp What would you change? > Minneapolis needs a lot more beef and a whole lot less bull. Agreed. Just not so sure I agree on where the bull is coming from... Mark Snyder Windom Park REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
