Aaron Klemz wrote:
"Mayor R.T. Rybak and others have suggested merging the park and city police as a cost-saving move. The merger would save at least $1 million said Laura Sether, a mayoral aide, and Rybak has offered to give it to the Park Board (Russell)."
I would suggest that Rybak's estimate is no better than most any other person's estimate of the savings at this point. Not because, as mayor, he might not be able to get better information, but because it's just an unsupported assertion at this point. Laura Sether does not say how it will save $1 million.
Opponents (on this list and elsewhere) to merging the Park Police and MPD cite the following arguments:
1) The Park Police are uniquely suited to the type of enforcement required in Parks, which is different from other policing.
Well, isn't it? Does the DNR and the U.S. Forest Service do a different style of policing in our state and national parks, or don't they? I think most people would say yes, they do. Is the Minneapolis park system similar to a state park (be careful when you think about the answer -- our park system is very large and contains a lot of open and natural areas, and there are some very urban, high-use state parks), or similar to an urban city?
2) The Park Police's dual role as school liaison and park enforcer brings them into contact with kids/juveniles, making them uniquely valuable.
Your point about the recency of this dual role is valid. But I think the synergy of having the same officer who sees the kids at school be the guy or gal they see in the park is fairly undeniable. Some kids are going to develop relationships and even friendships with those officers, and that is definitely a good thing.
3) Merging the Park Police and the MPD would lead to a decreased emphasis on park patrolling, since the resources would be siphoned off to other priorities.
Aaron argues later that this does not seem to have happened in other cities where the parks are all under one police force. First, I'd mention that the Minneapolis park system is rather unusual in size and scope compared to other cities, so most other cities don't face the same situation. Second, I'd note that the crime statistics in Minneapolis parks are lower than in Minneapolis as a whole (as Aaron mentioned), and that they are also likewise lower than the crime statistics for St. Paul's parks. I don't know how the statistics for St. Paul's parks compare to the rest of the city, but I bet they would be interesting to compare to our situation. Third, there are indeed examples where other park systems have law enforcement separate from the city in which they exist. In fact, recent Park Board superintendent candidate Cris Gears comes from a district that might provide such an example: his is a county-wide park district, and some of its many parks are located in cities in the county. It seems likely the county law enforcement, at least, is involved in policing those parks, irrespective of whatever the cities themselves do.
4) Why not just have a state police or the CIA take over?
I won't even address #4 (a la David Shove's post)
since it is so clearly a poor argument.
I think Aaron missed David's point -- or at least, that's not how I took it. Rather he was saying that those who think the departments should be combined have the burden of the proof. That is, advocates cannot simply claim that "more global" is better simply by being more global, otherwise his facetious argument that the state police or CIA would be even a better choice would be equally valid. Clearly we know that the state police or CIA are not a better, cheaper solution, and so therefore simply saying having one department instead of two because it will be de facto more efficient is no argument at all, either.
Practically
every city except for Minneapolis in the nation does
just fine with one police department.
Well, it might seem that way, but do you have any proof or numbers to demonstrate that to be the case? I've lived and visited all over the USA, and I am inclined to agree. But I know that even my broad experience is not a valid statistical sample, so without some good research, I'd be hesitant to make such a claim.
"Uniquely suited"
Is crime lower in the Parks? Sure, but I can come up with a number of more parsimonious explanations for that than the inherent superiority of the Park Police. Such as: 1) There are no (or few) permanent residents of the Parks.
But there are a lot more transients, and most areas (non-parks) with lots of transients see a lot more crime of certain types: car theft, theft from cars, vandalism, theft from businesses, breaking and entering, etc. That is what the Mpls. police regularly told us when I live in ECCO, because of its proximity to Lake Calhoun and Uptown, where there were lots of transient visitors.
Does the transient increase in crime exceed the decrease due to lack of permanent residents? I have no idea. But the problem is not cut and dried.
2) Areas surrounding parks tend to be higher income and lower crime areas.
On the surface this would also seem true, but I don't think we can be sure of it as a system-wide reason for lower crime in the parks. After all, there is a city park within 6 blocks of every home in the city (except right downtown). Also, see my remark above about the higher crime rate in ECCO.
I can't really say with certainty that Scott Vreeland is wrong when he claims that the MPD has a "paramilitary" organization in contrast to the kinder, gentler proactive policing of the Park Police, but I think that smacks of overgeneralization. Like all police forces, the MPD has a variety of approaches and functions. The CCP/SAFE program is very different in function and purpose than the SWAT team, for example.
Isn't the CCP/SAFE program a victim of budget cuts and pretty much a has-been at this point?
There's nothing essential in the organization of the MPD that prevents a park unit or beat that doesn't adopt similar or identical approaches to what already exists. Such an enforcement approach could be preserved in a merged department.
And that's what I would support if the two departments were merged.
Note that I'm not even necessarily in favor of keeping them separate. I'm still trying to decide about that. I just want to be sure that reasons for change are good enough for making the change. Unless there are clear and sure benefits for changing, it's usually not advantageous to do so.
Thanks for continuing the dialog on this issue.
Chris Johnson Fulton
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email 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 City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
