Regardless of where you locate yourself on the spectrum between libertarianism and collectivism, and no matter how much reasonable people may debate about what the proper functions of government are or should be, I would hope all can agree that basic police protection is at or near the top of the priority list. If you’re going to tax people for only one thing, shouldn’t it be for a proper police force?
Apparently not. Exhibit A:
Facing a budget crisis, [Detroit] Police Chief Ella Bully-Cummings announced plans Monday to lay off 150 police officers and merge the city’s 12 police precincts into six district stations.In addition, the department’s command staff will be downsized, with those savings used to allow 35 to 40 police officers to keep their jobs.
…
Detroit currently faces a $300 million budget shortfall and a takeover of its finances by the state. Initially, the city officials had estimated that the cuts would require 600 police layoffs. …[T]he department of 3,500 already is operating with 721 unfilled positions.
I dread to think what sort of things Detroit spends so much money on that it can’t pay for police officers (officers whom Detroit certainly needs).
Dozens of recruits have been forced out of the [New York City] police academy after failing their first test — a new component of the NYPD’s curriculum.
…
Police officials have acknowledged it will be challenging to find new recruits when the starting salary drops to $25,000 next year. This class came in under the old contract and will earn $38,000 to start.
I also dread to think what my beloved city may start to look like if it is being protected by people willing to work for only $25,000 per year. My father’s pension is almost that much (he’s a retired NYPD officer).
Detroit and New York are forgetting a simple lesson: you get what you pay for, and you don’t get what you don’t pay for.
Let’s just hope these two fine cities are spared any future incidents of Exhibit C.
UPDATE: Exhibit D.
3 responses so far ↓
Link Andrew Cory // Aug 30, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Something to consider: the city may well be trying to get tax increases through. After all, if taxes are specifically going to be spent on emergency services, they become more palatable. Think of it then not as a service cut, but a tax shift…
Link Alec // Aug 31, 2005 at 2:05 am
This is interesting. It is also politics at play. Let me give you the context of this change:
-These layoffs were forced by the city council. The council passed a budget, surely hoping to force the mayor to make the unpopular cuts right before the primary.
-Instead, the mayor waited until nearly a month after the primary but about two months before the general election.
-The mayor is tainted by charges of frivolous spending, using a city charge card to pay for extravagant trips (over 200K charged in last three years, all for travel expenses, including personal dinners for the mayor in excess of a thousand dollars); all this while the city is facing bankruptcy
-The police union has endorsed his opponent
-The Detroit police force is extraordinarily corrupt (well known for it, actually)
-Recent studies suggest Detroit is the poorest of major cities (cities with a population of 250,000 or more)
-The state legislature is dominated by Reps, who argue that Michigan's (black) cities need to be more fiscally responsible, while continuing to run a deficit and refusing to compromise with the governor.
I could go on, but I think you get the picture. I am not terribly surprised by the turn of events, as it sounds like city elections are once again around the corner.
Link Matt // Aug 31, 2005 at 2:55 am
Consolodating precincts and downsizing the command staff may in fact be _better_ for Detroit than just throwing more money at the problem. (Certainly there are lots of things on which the city spends money that could be better spent hiring cops…but a department whose command staff has enough deadweight that downsizing it can save the jobs of 35-40 patrolmen is, I think by definition, a department whose ability to handle money well is at least as questionable as that of the city it serves.)
Sometimes bureaucracies have to be starved into correcting themselves. It would surprise me not at all to find that the Detroit Police Department is in that situation.