>>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron Klemz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Aaron> I won't even address #4 (a la David Shove's post)
Aaron> since it is so clearly a poor argument. Practically
Aaron> every city except for Minneapolis in the nation does
Aaron> just fine with one police department. Suggesting the
Aaron> same for Minneapolis is not the same as advocating the
Aaron> centralization of all police functions in the state or
Aaron> federal government
Actually, I think New York City has at least 3: Police, Traffic and
Transit. At least they did the last time I checked. Don't even get
me started on Washington, DC, which has Metro cops, capital police,
secret service, etc., etc.!
Aaron> "Uniquely suited"
Aaron> Is crime lower in the Parks? Sure, but I can come up
Aaron> with a number of more parsimonious explanations for
Aaron> that than the inherent superiority of the Park Police.
Aaron> Such as:
Aaron> 1) There are no (or few) permanent residents of the
Aaron> Parks.
Yes, but there are also tons of places where there is a lot less
visibility into the park territory than there is on a normal city
street. Every so often we get to hear a horrific story about someone
being raped on one of the jogging paths, because they can't be seen.
I don't even know how you would beging to assess the claim of
different crime rates since, as Aaron points out, people don't live
there, so there's bound to be less property crime, etc.
Is it possible to frame this "lower crime" question in some way that
would be clearly answerable? I'm not sure how one would do this.
Aaron> 2) Areas surrounding parks tend to be higher income
Aaron> and lower crime areas.
Is claim #2 actually true? Sure, maybe around the three lakes in the
SW, but in general?
Aaron> I can't really say with certainty that Scott Vreeland
Aaron> is wrong when he claims that the MPD has a
Aaron> "paramilitary" organization in contrast to the kinder,
Aaron> gentler proactive policing of the Park Police, but I
Aaron> think that smacks of overgeneralization. Like all
Aaron> police forces, the MPD has a variety of approaches and
Aaron> functions. The CCP/SAFE program is very different in
Aaron> function and purpose than the SWAT team, for example.
Aaron> There's nothing essential in the organization of the
Aaron> MPD that prevents a park unit or beat that doesn't
Aaron> adopt similar or identical approaches to what already
Aaron> exists. Such an enforcement approach could be
Aaron> preserved in a merged department.
Aaron> "Dual Role"
Aaron> A number of claims have been made, such as by Bob Fine
Aaron> in the 1/12/05 Southwest Journal, where he claims that
Aaron> the Park Police were the only agency capable of
Aaron> dealing with a gang problem at Armatage Park, since
Aaron> they "...went to homes in the area to investigate and
Aaron> handled it well." He then poses the following
Aaron> question: "How can a merger with the city's Police
Aaron> Department keep our children as safe as the present
Aaron> Park Police system?"
Aaron> I don't have definitive answers to this question, but
Aaron> the logic that underlies this implies that MPD is
Aaron> incapable of investigating crimes well, and in
Aaron> particular, that the "unique" dual role of the Park
Aaron> Police as school liaisons makes them uniquely suited
Aaron> to park enforcement. However, this arrangement is
Aaron> recent (2003); does this mean that the Park Police
Aaron> have only recently become "well suited" to address
Aaron> this problem through the dual role? Does that mean
Aaron> that previously the MPD was "uniquely" suited to
Aaron> conduct such an investigation? And am I wrong in
Aaron> assuming that the Armatage Park investigation that Mr.
Aaron> Fine speaks of predates the school liaison program?
Aaron> I have asserted earlier that many of the officers
Aaron> currently serving as school liaisons transferred from
Aaron> the MPD to continue as school liaisons after the Park
Aaron> Police assumed that role. I've been trying to track
Aaron> down a source on that claim, and have been unable to.
Aaron> Can anyone tell me if that is correct? If it is, it
Aaron> seems to undercut the logic of both the artificial
Aaron> division between the police forces (both of whom are
Aaron> represented by the same union) and the unique role of
Aaron> the Park Police created by their dual role.
Aaron> "Resource siphoning"
Aaron> This seems to me to be the most important argument
Aaron> made by advocates of preserving the Park Police as an
Aaron> independent entity.
Aaron> Certainly the independence of the Park Police
Aaron> preserves the MPRB's ability to direct enforcement
Aaron> resources to maximize park safety. But other cities
Aaron> without independent Park Police, such as St. Paul,
Aaron> preserve park safety while maintaining a balance
Aaron> between park enforcement and other public safety
Aaron> needs. The idea that a merger would leave Minneapolis
Aaron> parks without police coverage is clearly a strawperson
Aaron> argument.
Aaron> But I find myself asking many of the same questions as
Aaron> other listmembers, such as "would it be so bad to
Aaron> shift some of the personnel to higher crime areas that
Aaron> are currently underserved?" For every anecdote
Aaron> provided by advocates of independence, there are other
Aaron> stories, such as those about the value of one officer
Aaron> in the Franklin / Bloomington area.
I'm confused. Isn't this precisely an argument *for* the resource
siphoning that people fear? I.e., aren't you both agreeing and
disagreeing at the same time here? I'm not sure I follow...
Is your argument that there wouldn't be resource siphoning, or that
there would be, and that's OK?
[...snip...]
Aaron> 3) And this is just my opinion, but it seems to me
Aaron> that the REAL threat to the independence of the Park
Aaron> Board will come from the refusal to consider
Aaron> cooperative arrangements like this one rather than
Aaron> through some slippery slope of cooperative
Aaron> arrangements leading to the eventual "swallowing up"
Aaron> of the Park Board into the city. What I mean by that
Aaron> is that the current push (who knows what "legs" it
Aaron> has, as of yet) to revisit the Minneapolis governance
Aaron> struture will be more likely to threaten the
Aaron> independence of the MPRB if voters perceive the
Aaron> current arrangement as wasteful and inefficient. If
Aaron> property taxes are going up (and they are), the
Aaron> demands for "reform" will grow stronger. A strong
Aaron> antidote to a push to subordinate the MPRB to the City
Aaron> government will be evidence that the current
Aaron> arrangement protects Parks while at the same time
Aaron> moving toward greater financial efficiency.
This seems like a good argument. Put somewhat differently, wouldn't
it be better to have the MPRB give up its independent police, instead
of having them sell our precious Parks? Seems like they're already
talking about at least three such cases (Lake Calhoun retail,
DeLaSalle, and UMN boathouse)...
Aaron> Given that it is very different from the way virtually every
Aaron> other city in the U.S. does park enforcement,
Is this "given that" actually true? Seems like the burden of proof of
that claim lies with you --- or, since this isn't an adversarial
procedure --- can anyone assess this claim?
Also, what cities do we want to compare to? Presumably not ones with
crummy park systems, or much smaller park systems (e.g., Eastern
cities which were constructed before the park movement began, and have
less extensive parks).
--
Robert P. Goldman
ECCO
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
