Webster Supervisor suggests possibility of disbanding police department
Webster Town Supervisor Ron Nesbitt (R) recently suggested that it would be a good idea to look into disbanding the Webster Police Department - forcing the Monroe County Sheriff’s Road Patrol to provide police service for the town.
From R News:
“It’s never been voted on since 1928 when the police department first came on board here and I think the residents need an education,†Nesbitt explained. “I still think it won’t pass, I still support the police 100 percent, but as an elected officer I have to look at all the money details here and that’s where I’m at.”
Credit where credit’s due: Hats off to Ron for his willingness to explore this. It’s an extremely responsible and progressive position. Webster residents are getting billed twice for police services: once by the town and once by Monroe County. However, they do not receive Sherrif’s Road Patrol from the county - that’s reserved for towns without their own police departments (they do get other services from the Sherrif’s Office, like the jail, the crime lab, etc.)
Why should they pay twice? A fair solution would be for the county to charge back the towns that rely on the Road Patrol - a solution proposed by Democrats in the Legislature. Republicans refuse to discuss it. That’s not surprising, because the areas that benefit by leaching police services off of the rest of the county are predominately Republican.
Given that chargebacks aren’t likely to happen any time soon, Mr. Nesbitt is right to consider this - it could be a substantial cost savings - and he deserves credit for examining a potentially unpopular position. Too, he’s one of the few local politicians to realize that the Republican mantra of less government probably means fewer governments - especially in NY.
(Speaking of Nesbitt, you’ll remember that back in May he got in a bit of a tiff with the Webster Republican Committee.)
Update: I’d forgotten about this, but the Village of Holley is looking into disbanding their police department, too. There was an op-ed in the D&C today, saying essentially what I said: good for them, we’ve got too much government, this is a major redundancy, and we should look into ways to consolidate.
Mayor John Kenney is pushing to put the issue of abolishing the department before voters next month. If it were eliminated, police protection would be provided by the Orleans County Sheriff’s Office.
[snip]
Around Monroe County, where there are suburban police departments, there are also comparatively few serious criminal offenses. Yet town budgets are being eaten up by expenses for police salaries, health care and pensions.
In Gates, for instance, the town’s police department alone accounts for a healthy chunk of its budget. Yet the most common police calls are from shoppers at the local Wal-Mart who have locked ignition keys inside their cars.
More question than thought - has there been an analysis of how many police calls the Webster police respond to each year and the types of calls they are? Webster PD posts some info on their website (and I was surprised to see how many calls there were in 2006):
http://www.websterpolice.org/picknew.htm
I don’t know if these are small thefts from stores or home burglaries. I think the nature of the types of crimes and frequency should impact the decision. If the Sheriff’s patrols are not nearby, and add this area, will it take longer for response time?
Zone A of the Sheriff’s Department covers Penfield, Perinton and Pittsford, so I guess this would be a Zone A area. Here’s info on Zone A from the MCSO website, including recent police activity in that area:
http://www.monroecountysheriff.info/neighbor/AZone.html
I’m assuming that adding Webster to the MCSORP would necessarily cause a re-evaluation of the zone boundaries. They’d probably have to add a number of employees and officers as well (likely laid-off Webster police officers…)
As to whether Webster needs it’s own PD, one need only look to neighboring Penfield (for all practical purposes identical geographically and demographically) for the answer. Penfield is well served by the Road Patrol. There are no meaningful differences in public safety between the two towns.
From what I’ve heard, calling for road patrol to replace a local police department in towns surrounding the city is pretty much tantamount to requesting assisted political suicide. Apparently, some candidates have tried to make this argument, only to have it backfire in the voting booth. Its my understanding there is a strong sentiment in these communities that local police departments are necessary, because its believed by local residents that their towns act as a filter for crime seeping out of the city. At least, this is what I’ve heard from elected officials in these areas. However, I don’t believe Webster borders the city, so I don’t think this argument would be relevant.
For what its worth, I believe that if you ask residents in towns with the Sheriff’s Patrol, they are relatively satisfied with the level of service they receive. I sense this bugs officials in towns with local police departments. They know they could save a bundle of money by adopting road patrol, but voters on both sides of the isle aren’t comfortable with the idea.
I do think its funny when Republicans in these towns complain about their property taxes, when they would be the first to start howling if their local police department were to close.
Republicans do indeed like to complain about taxes, but my experience has been that they’re completely unwilling to consider actually making do with fewer services. “High Taxes” to them immediately conjures up Reagan’s Welfare Queen. It’s always other people’s services that they complain about. Apologies for the stereotyping, here.
Anyways, that’s why I thought it was at least a little courageous for Nesbitt to broach the subject BEFORE the election. Granted, he wasn’t facing strong opposition, but I steill think he deserves some credit for courage.
Holly has also been considering this move. Across the county and across the state, this has been a fever. I would think that the county could do itself and the towns a favour by coming up with some sort of solution, but as you say, with Republicans in control this is unlikely to happen.
Personally, I do wonder to what extent this affects local sovereignty: towns get to elect their own sheriffs, get a very up-close-and-personal local police department to reflect their values. What those values are may be in question for some, but to me, the farther government gets from the people, the less responsive it becomes. I do take your point and agree that Nesbit deserves credit for putting all the options on the table, and sometimes need demands less than perfect solutions.
It’s an interesting trend I haven’t had much time to dig into.
“Towns elect their own Sherrifs” ?? what are you talking about?
I think they meant counties…like Seneca (oh boy!)
But that’s immaterial to this discussion.
I disagree with disbanding local PD’s. Take a look at crime statistics. We’ll disband locally, only to increase on a County Level and give Maggie an even bigger reason to steal from someone else.
Local officers know the community, know the pocket areas, and work for cheap in comparison. Sometimes dedication has it’s rewards, and with local officers, it’s truly a labor of love.
The FBI put out a study a few months back on crime increases, which was pretty eye-opening.
Here’s the story from the D&C:
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070925/NEWS01/709250337/1002/rss01
And here is a link to the report itself:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/index.html
I think it’s something Democrats should look into as a long-term strategic objective. I will explain this fully in a later post.
I also think that the “local officers” argument for keeping PD’s doesn’t really apply: Sheriffs are assigned to patrol areas, too.
Jiminy:
The apocalypse must be near. We agree about something.
And before you’re willing to disband, type your address into this, and look at where your kids go to school, and tell me you’re willing to change. Just make sure you’re sitting down first:
http://www.familywatchdog.us/
I’ve seen that before, it’s pure sensationalism. The spatial distribution isn’t significantly different from that of any other social health indicator. Children in poverty, property values, lead paint poisoning, median income, whatever. All the same.
Hell, it’s not even really that different from a population density map - they’ve totally failed to make any effort to control for density (or even to display density…)
“Perverts want to kidnap your babies!” Please, Jiminy, you’re too smart to buy into that stuff. It perpetuates right-wing stereotypes and gives them power. You should be speaking out against that web site.
Darn it, now I’m all cheesed off about stupid “family watchdog”. I might have to do a post about that, too.
Well I would have felt that way Itchy, had it not been that the face of one of the perbs goes to the same post office I do everyday. And given that fact that he sells toys…it disgusts me.
Then looking around my neighborhood, these people are there. So it’s hardly sensationalism.
I would rather know, than not know. Sorry you feel the way you do, but I really feel that local police officers know the community better than a shift change at the county level. Perhaps if County level officers were located WITHIN the community I’d feel different.
As far as you being “cheesed” off about family watchdog - honestly Itchy…none of the information in there is fabricated. I’m glad the internet provides a method for knowing this data and having it readily available.
Your elected officials will tell you all is fine in Dodge, but the truth hurts.
So you feel that children who live in towns without their own police departments are at a substantially higher risk of being abducted by a stranger? That the Sheriff’s office does an inadequate job of protecting children in Penfield from sexual predators? I disagree.
Think, too, about how the access to information like this feeds parent’s paranoia about their children’s safety. Those monsters have always lived amongst us, the only thing that’s different is that we now know where they are (more accurately, where they’re supposed to be living.) There are more control systems and tracking systems in place now than at any time in history. If you’re going to use the “pervert-next-door” argument, then it’s LESS applicable now than in the past. Maybe at one time the Greece police department could keep track of them - now YOU can.
I’m not completely opposed to making that information available to the public. I am opposed to the presentation, because it doesn’t accurately portray the threat and freaks people out. I’m sure you know that most sexual abuse occurs within established relationships. The specter of stranger abduction is blown way out of proportion. Who benefits from pervasive fear and paranoia? Who benefits from a witch-hunt mentality? Mostly Republicans, that’s who.
By the way, I have several young children, and I live in an area with it’s own police department, and I would be comfortable disbanding the police department - assuming appropriate levels of policing by the Sheriff’s Office.
I don’t see why Webster needs it’s own police force — it’s a tiny town, population 5,200. There are plenty of towns much larger then that which rely either on state police and/or county police to patrol them in case of an emergency.
For example, the Town of Peru in Clinton County, population 6,370 has no police department, nor does Town of New Scotland in Albany County, population 8,626.
These small towns lie outside of larger center cities (Plattsburgh, and Albany, respectively), yet they don’t have serious crime problems. When there is an incident needing police response, the county or state comes to help out.
My opinion is in small towns (less then 20,000 people) and small villages, local police only serve the purpose of traffic patrols and little more. Police in these areas, are often ill-equipped to do much more, and they are a drag on local budgets.
What is missing in all this back and forth is that it is a voters choice via the budget process. Brighton has its own police force. I believe the residents are comfortable with it. Like Webster they pay for it.
Still there are Brighton resources that are used in across the county w/o some form of compensation.
A consolidation of police forces only works if -
You have the same level of service - so if 10 officers patrol a district then when you consolidate - there should still be 10 officers patrolling the district.
Much of savings is in back office type activities - payroll, property and such. These can be easily scaled.
At issue is when you replace 10 officers with say 5 officers. Then I believe there are issues.
I would also add don’t underestimate the power of a local force knowing the residents. There is value in that as well.
stlo7:
You hit the nail on the head.
The real agenda regarding consolidation is not cost savings, it is reallocation of resources. Today, there are 4-5 cars per shift patrolling the Town of Gates. If there is an “expanded” Sheriff’s patrol or metro police, we will be lucky to have 1 or 2.
Former Gates and Brighton police will be patrolling the higher crime areas of the City of Rochester. Suburban taxpayers will be paying for “Operation Zero Tolerance” because the City can’t afford the level of policing it needs. There will be little in the way of reduced costs but there will certainly be reduced service.
Thanks - So double apocalypse? You and Jiminy agree and we are agreeing as well. WOW.
There are cost savings in consolidating, however, it can’t be through fewer police patrols or officers. It can easily be attained by consolidating back off ir property functions.
Then the savings might not be as great as say laying off an entiore police force but they can be had. The key is how the resources are allocated and exactly what the savings can had
Finally - Those who are of the opinion that all local forces are good for is catching speeders. Well - Next time there is an accident in Brighton or some moron speeding through a school zone like the one I passed on my way to work I say at least the cops are there.
Also - Patrolling the city of Rochester assuming county integration with Sheriff and RPD. I’m not sure that happens.
But most importantly I’m willing to pay for that service - via taxes.
Are my taxes in Brighton higher that say if we didn’t have a local police force? Sure - But - I’m willing to invest in the community in the form of taxes to ensure we have a local force.
It is a given that there is always a search for doing things more efficiently but I’m willing to invest in our local forces.
Right John? Are we still in agreement?
Check the astrological charts, we still agree!
I, too, am willing, like most residents in Gates, Brighton, Irondiquoit, and Greece, to pay extra for that extra service. There are a number of cooperative efforts that allow for savings in local government without abolition or total consolidation.
The argument that we in towns with police are “double taxed” because we get little Sheriff’s service, is true to a point, but is a red herring, since most residents willingly pay the extra cost. We did a survey last year regarding town services. 80% wanted the same or increased police service, cost notwithstanding.
The D&C loves metro but it is going to be a hard sell.
It might help too if the Sheriff O’Flynn would do his job, instead of politic all over hell and creation for the GOP. I used to think that cops were sacred…now even Judges are fair fodder.
Seriously though…the biggest burden to supporting local police is the cost of insuring them. And insurance reform is long over due in most professions. It’s hit doctors hard. Liability is popular to sue upon, and as such, towns are charged huge amounts to protect themselves from such actions by officers.
As well, all towns that have their own police also have to pay into the county for the sheriff as well. Let’s face it, it’s all mucked up, and until someone is willing to take on the task of making a plan that makes sense, it’ll always be a chew toy for puppies to knaw on.