Freeze LAPD?
To address the city’s budget shortfall, Councilmember Bernard Parks argues LAPD should not be allowed to continue hiring officers while other departments face cuts. Mayor Villaraigosa counters that we must continue hiring police or risk jeopardizing public safety. Whose side are you on?
Labels: antonio villaraigosa, bernard parks
Posted by solomon @ 5/15/2009 08:36:00 AM
26 Comments:
Did you see Tony V's apoplectic meltdown surrounded by "cops" on tv last night?
He's foaming at the mouth that B&F would dare cross him on his 10,000 cop obsession.
Too damn funny!
Hope the clowncil sticks to their 38 specials on this one. Antonio has no clue what this City needs, and he apparently doesn't care.
I need to know more in order to answer this question.
The goal of hiring more officers is widely used by candidates and politicians who want to win the favor of voters. It's something that sounds good and can be easily sold to people.
Riordan used it to get elected in 1993. Now AV is using it.
Police chiefs go along with it because they can't afford to disagree publicly with their bosses.
But wouldn't it be interesting to talk confidentially to the police experts in the city and ask if hiring more cops and putting them on the street is singularly the most important thing we should be doing to make our city safer?
What about the support that those officers need?
What about a better crime lab, or more detectives with better resources to chase down the criminals?
What about the greater use of civilians and technology so cops can spend more time on the streets?
And so on.
Let's not forget, crime is falling in LA and there are no more officers on the street than in '05 when Villar started. The new guys/gals, we learned recently are doing civilian work.
So clearly the drop in crime is not tied to a specific Villar/Bratton policy and freezing police hiring won't endanger our communities.
DEJAVU? IN 2006 VILLARAIGOSA HIKED INCREASED TRASH TAX FOR 1,000COPS.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. ?
The Cop Tax
Or was it a trash tax, or no tax at all?
David Zahniser
Published on May 25, 2006
A FUNNY THING HAPPENED to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s plan for hiking trash fees — the proposal that soared through the Los Angeles City Council last week with remarkably little discussion. First it was billed as a way to hire 1,000 new cops. Then it wasn’t. Then it was again. Confused? Not surprising. The wordplay surrounding the fee increase was part of the city’s pirouette around Proposition 218, the highly restrictive anti-tax measure approved by voters in 1996.
Villaraigosa, mindful of his campaign promise to increase the size of the police department, offered the four-year garbage-fee increase as the cornerstone of his city budget in mid-April. When he first made the rounds to promote the higher trash fee, which would jump from $11 per month per homeowner this year to $28 in 2009, he handed out booklets portraying it as a critical step toward expanding the ranks of the LAPD. Council President Eric Garcetti and two of his colleagues responded by promising to create a “lock box” for the trash-fee revenue, to make sure it exclusively funds the city’s public-safety agenda.
But once the trash fee reached the council floor, Councilman Bernard Parks offered a more nuanced message. Parks, who heads the powerful budget committee, kicked off the seven-hour review of the city budget by insisting that the new trash-fee revenue — collected from roughly 500,000 homeowners and more than 180,000 renters in smaller apartment buildings — won’t go toward any specific purpose. Then, to make sure that everyone was paying attention, Parks repeated his words.
Parks said the council will ward off a lawsuit over Proposition 218, which prohibits tax hikes without a public vote but allows some fee increases, by agreeing to deposit the new trash-fee revenue in the overall municipal budget — which pays for streets, parks and other city services. “If we had earmarked it [for police] or put it in a special fund, we could almost be assured that we’d be sued for that,” Parks said. An hour later, Villaraigosa’s press team issued a slightly divergent statement on the unanimous vote. “Mayor Villaraigosa salutes council on historic vote to add 1,000 officers.”
Parks made his remarks on the south steps of City Hall, standing with his colleagues in front of an oversize banner titled “Wise Choices for a Safer City.” The sign was adorned with other leaden phrases, like “Open Government” and “Install Left-Turn Signals.” Always the droll humorist, Garcetti called it the “Mission Accomplished” banner, a sly reference to President George W. Bush’s ill-fated message on Iraq, delivered on an aircraft carrier.
And yet, the mission of hiring 1,000 officers won’t be accomplished any time soon. By July 1, 2007, halfway into the mayor’s term, the LAPD will have hired 308 additional officers — more than half of whom were approved when Villaraigosa was a councilman. By the time the mayor is sworn in for his second term in July 2009, the number of new cops will fall to just under 750. The LAPD will finally see its 1,000 officers by mid-2010, when the cost of paying for them will have outpaced the trash-fee revenue by nearly $55 million annually.
Garcetti and Councilwoman Wendy Greuel said they came as close as legally possible to creating a lock box for police by winning approval of a policy statement that designated the hiring of cops as the city’s top budget priority. One homeowner activist found that language unimpressive, saying it offers no guarantee that the council won’t siphon the money into other programs if the state economy goes into the tank and city revenue is scarce.
“I’m concerned that they didn’t put it into legally binding language,” said Richard Close, president of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association. “They want the ability to take the money and use it for other purposes.”
Words were pivotal to the budget deliberations in other ways. Garcetti, for example, strenuously avoided calling the funding proposal a fee hike, pointing out that homeowners and renters in apartments with four units or fewer have long avoided the full cost of municipal trash collection. When the trash bills go up, those homeowners and renters will see a “reduced subsidy,” Garcetti explained.
Regardless of the nomenclature, the trash-fee proposal brought together some political opposites. While Close said the council ignored the financial needs of homeowners, Manuel Criollo of the Bus Riders Union voiced dismay that the revenue will go toward 1,000 cops. “What we need to talk about is how do we get 1,000 more librarians,” Criollo told the council. “How do we get 1,000 more park and recreation directors? How do we get 1,000 more buses?”
The council devoted 10 minutes to discussion of their new public-safety policy. A day later, council members spent three times as much time on a plan for tripling the fees charged to telecom companies that attach their cable to city-owned utility poles. With lobbyists watching closely, the council kicked the proposal back to the Department of Water and Power for more discussion.
COP TAX PAGE 2
VILLARAIGOSA AND PARKS rightly received much of the credit for making the budget process so smooth. But the council also may still be exhausted from last year’s emotionally draining, election-year free-for-all over the previous plan for adding 1,000 officers — former Mayor James Hahn’s proposal for a half-cent sales-tax hike. Hahn, who had immersed himself in the issue of public safety, only devised the last-ditch plan after he repeatedly failed to expand the size of the LAPD. His plan prompted a political bloodletting, with Villaraigosa denouncing the proposal on the council floor and preventing it from reaching the ballot by a single vote.
The Cop Tax
Continued from page 1
Published on May 25, 2006
The debate was viscerally unpleasant and yet thrilling to watch, with council members and the public showing a rare emotional stake in the outcome. At one point, the son of a murdered Korean merchant fought back tears as he begged Councilman Jack Weiss to put the police tax on the ballot. At another, the fire chief broke into sobs while talking about how crime has hurt his boyhood neighborhood. Villaraigosa trounced Hahn by 20 percentage points a few months later, and it was hard not to wonder — could he have pulled off his landslide victory and won passage of a public-safety tax at the same time?
Council members still must approve an ordinance hiking the trash fees over the next three years. They also face a vote on a series of other fee hikes contained in the budget, including one to increase the cost of parking tickets by $5 and another to charge a $10 admission fee to patrons at the Watts Towers and Barnsdall Park starting in late 2007.
Close has no intention of showing up on the council floor for the vote on trash fees. And with the expansion of the LAPD debated for so many years, even the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association vouched for the city’s intentions. “They’re in so deep on this that they probably can be trusted” to hire the officers, said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the taxpayer group. “If they don’t hire the officers, the extent of the embarrassment and political backlash will be significant.”
If crime in LA is at its lowest levels in decades, then yes, I think it's acceptable to have a hiring freeze on the LAPD -- and it would be politically safe for the mayor to do this as well. When the economy picks up, he can lift the freeze at the LAPD first (before all other city departments).
I’m with the three council members on this one. One of the things that made Bratton so attractive when he was applying for the job of L.A. chief was "CompStat." "CompStat" is a program officers must contribute to daily by filling out a form on crime specifications so that the information can then be put in a computer system and crime statistics can be generated to target high crime areas.
If these forms are filled out (which sometimes they are not), the city's crime figures are easy to figure out. The chief will know where the high concentration of crimes are, therefore he can deploy officers from other stations to aide the area.
If "CompStat" is working, as it should, a "stop hire" should be fine. Everyone else is making sacrifices and crime stats are low. The Police Department is costly to the city and it’s not like adding officers to department is a cake walk.
Some of you haters are amazing. You bash the mayor for not having used "every penny" of the trash fee hike for the 1000 extra cops we need, but when he's sticking up for that promise instead of letting Parks, Smith, Rosendahl and Zine swipe that money into the general fund because they weren't doing their jobs in the first place as fiscal watchdogs - then you turn around and say "stealing the trash fee hikes is good!"
There IS a compromise path which Antonio proposed in the first place: let the cops agree to a one-hour/ week furlough like the other unions. That would allow the extra cops. But no, Zine and his BFF Paul Weber of the Police Protective League wouldn't hear of it, they'd rather cut cops so they can blame the mayor for somehow not "fulfilling his promise."
This is all a game of partisan lying, assuming the partisan blind hatred and sheer stupidity of many people will trump logic and decency. Wake up people.
Shut the hell up, Ace at 10:16.
Go spin on your own dirty finger.
People who argue that we can do with fewer cops because crime is down are making no sense. Crime is down because we have more cops and are deploying them more wisely thanks to Bratton's CompStat system of "dots on the hot spots."
But Bratton made it very clear to Rosendahl at the huge Town Hall meeting in December that reducing crime further and keeping it down means moving some cops into new stations like Koreatown and West Valley. To replace the cops lost will mean MORE cops total.
Bill Rosendahl demands the extra cops in his district but doesn't want to pay for them or push the Police League to agree to the very modest one-hour/week furlough which could make it possible for both sides to get what they want.
Think people. Try not to give into Zine's propaganda to make this all about "get the Mayor" even where he's lying through both sides of his mouth to do it.
OK...
Shut the hell up Parke at 10:42.
Or which one of Tony's/Jackass's freakin' spinholes you are.
Both are right, but what's best public policy? Gotta side with Parks on this one,. Sorry Tony, times are tough
10:39/11:17 etc.: So much hate and bile so early in the day, all day every day. Nothing else to say but hate hate hate bile bile bile, not a shred of logical argument. YOU are the last people who should be telling us who to vote for.
You, Zine and the other haters who want to steal our trash fee hikes promised for cops just out of spite WHILE having spent the last year bashing the Mayor for "not putting every penny of it into more cops" (when he HAS pushed to do that in the face of opposition from your Zines) are a sorry bundle. All hate and no brains.
NO to your Zines/ Trutanich's and other liars and demagogues.
Parks told council this morning that the $200 million collected so far from trash fee hikes "was spent on a variety of needs including police" needs. He's siding with Smith and claiming that the fee was never intended for more cops, but to offset the "subsidizing of private homes' trash fee pickup."
As he said last year during budget discussions and the battle to keep cop hiring from being cut, Parks is insisting that it would be "illegal" to designate the funds for this purpose, the purpose that was PROMISED to the people.
NOW some of you people are more intent on hating the Mayor than doing the right thing. Most everyone from the public testifying today told the Council they want the trash fee hikes to go for cops as promised. If you haters are going to put blind hate above truth and integrity, and public safety, you are going against what the vast majority of us want and demand.
Parks is talking about furloughs, which is fine and something the PPL's Weber and his political arm Zine SHOULD agree to, not fight. The cops are only being asked for 1 hr/week to prevent reducing the force and to maintain training at the academy to replace attrition.
Zine, the PPL's Weber especially ought to be ashamed of themselves, playing partisan politics over the good of the police rank and file. WHILE squandering their union dues to further their personal political ambitions. Disgraceful.
Oh no 8:45 AM - the mayor is using something that Riordan used? No way.
I can't imagine why.
Every single election, when the general population (not blogging activists who are involved) is polled, the number one issue is... public safety. Every single time.
So didn't this mayor give you all what you wanted? Granted it was on the backs of homeowners mostly, but regardless, crime is down. Gangs are getting busted, graffiti is disappearing and our streets are safer.
I'm going to vote for Jack Weiss as a protest vote against all of you here.
Whenever I feel the least bit pissy with Jack Weiss, all I have to do is come here and read your comments and that reminds me again of why Trutanich must suck.
Jeezus - how much does Antonio pay you to sit here and post comment after comment of pure spin for him?
Speaking of loser. Oh wait. Hater. You like that word.
You all sound like a bunch idiot assholes just like Bitter Bernie and the idiot smith.Wake the hell up. If the asshole Mayor would have wanted more cops back 5 years ago we wouldn't be in this mess. Unless you become the victim of a crime then you all seem to careless. Take a ride in a black and white sometime in south LA and see what the officers have to put up with being shot at and thrown things. Then know that maybe on a good day there are 4 patrol cars in one division. sometimes less then 1,000 officers are patroling weekends to cover 4 million people. Don't forget bitter Bernie made us lose 1,000 cops cause they couldn't stand his ass. La always has to have a crisis to react. I pray that doesn't happen in order for you to 'GET IT.
You're wrong on both counts. One, Antonio pays me nada to sit here and spin. I do it for free. He doesn't even know I'm doing it.
Two, you're right in a wrong kind of way. I "hate" the word hate. I do call you all haters almost every time I come here. But I personally, am not a hater of much. Stupidity.
Studies that I can't put my hands on right now, even if I had the time, have shown a weak correlation between the number of cops on the street and crime.
The reason is that there are so many other factors such as the economy, and the use of crime prevention measures by residents and businesses.
But because it works politically, we are led to believe that there is a direct correlation.
So you kind of get a choice here. You can do the best job possible to make the city safer, or you can pad the resumes of the politicians.
Tony V spinholes say No No No.
Majority of votes say Yes Yes Yes.
Suck it, spinholes.
12:39 WHAT A SPIN! WOW! WHAT A SPIN! IM STILL DIZZY!
"WHILE squandering their union dues to further their personal political ambitions. Disgraceful."
YOU GOTTA ASK VILLAR'S BUDDIES TO SHOW YOU THE MONEY.
Villaraigosa's leadership is about denial
By Doug McIntyre
Politically, the mayor has a giant problem. He wants to be governor but what record does he run on? Imagine this commercial: "Hi, I'm Antonio Villaraigosa, mayor of Los Angeles. I was the front man for Measure B which lost. I'm a big supporter of Measures 1A through 1F, which are going down in flames. I barely got 55 percent of the vote against amateur politicians with no money, and my city has a billion-dollar budget deficit and leads the nation in poor, homelessness and the uninsured. Vote for me so I can do for California what I've done for Los Angles."
L.A. Daily News
http://www.dailynews.com/ci_12194907?source=rss_emailed
In some neighorhoods crime has gone up. There have been several shootings in Highland Park, Cypress Park, Glassell Park and even Atwater Village.
More police are needed. And people would be suprised to learn how few police are on the streets in cars at any one time.
Ed Reyes lied in several meetings saying the increase in trash fees were going for more police officers. That was a lie. Since most of the council members are now termed out, they do not care what they do now. And, Bernard Parks should know better that this city needs more officers. So, shame on all of these politicans that do not have to live in bad crime neighborhoods.
Ok, we can't afford to hire "new" police officers for now, but, we must find a way to replace the ones that are retiring.
I agree that the Mayor may be using the issue as a polical ploy, however it doesn't change the fact that we need to keep classes going in the Academy both for continued training and new recruits.
We are losing many of our seasoned officers particulary, at this time, because because they are on the "Drop Progam" which was implemented when Chief Bratton came on board. At that time, we had a big shortage of officers because they were all bailing out for greener pastures to cities who they believed would treat them fairly and with respect, plus some planned to retire early.
Because LAPD was losing officers, the Drop Program was created to keep those officers and allow time for the LAPD to recruit and train new hires.
Now, because of the terms of that program. after their five years is up, many officers who enrolled in the program are required to retire. Most of them are among the top organization staff such as Captain, etc., and they have to be replaced by officers under them. As as result, other officers will proceed to move up the chain of command and it will leave field officers who are in patrol and/or specialized unit positions vacant. That will be disasterous for us and our neighborhoods will be less safe. We could possibly lose our Lead Officers again as well. Also, if officers are required to be in one man patrol cars or without proper training by a Training Officer, their lives will be in jeopardy too.
Reminder, we have had a large increase in population over the last fifteen years due to the increase in development, particulary multiple unit residences. Our public safety and infrastructure has not kept up with with the population growth of our city .
Stopping the training and/or hiring of officers that we will lose through attrition is wrong. Please take the time to study this very important matter before jumping on anyones bandwagon.
I must admit, I am personally concerned because in 1993, I was a victim of a crime by 14 gang members who knocked out every window in my house out with a shower of rocks. Because of the screw up by 911 and the lack of police in my area, there was a delayed response, which was over 20minutes from beginning to end of the attack. I experienced the most terrifing event in my life as every window in my house and vehicles were shattered and I only place in my house without a window was a little hall!
I want you to understand how critical it is to have protection from these type of monsters and people who are intent of making you a victim. These kind a situations should never happen to anyone! Support our LAPD for your own safety!
WERE BROKE FRIENDS!! NO MONEY !! WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO ADD DEBT, DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. THESE PEOPLE IN CITY HALL MUCH LESS THE STATE ASSEMBLY HELPED CREATE THIS MESS. BUT VOTERS PUT THESE PEOPLE IN OFFICE. SHARED FAULT, SHARED BLAME!! MANY PEOPLE DON'T VOTE AT ALL IT'S THERE FAULT TOO!! APATHY IS NO EXCUSE. PEOPLE HAVE TO STEP UP AND FIGHT FOR THERE RIGHTS OR WE WILL LOSE THEM!! IT'S A FACT!!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home