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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

The apocalypse must be near. We agree about something.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I also think that the “local officers” argument for keeping PD’s doesn’t really apply: Sheriffs are assigned to patrol areas, too.

http://www.familywatchdog.us/