Sell me on voting yes for the Vision Public Safety package.

[davideinstein]

Here's my opinion as of right now...

-I've never had a problem using even the non-emergency line for any issue at my stores.

-I've never had an issue with response times for any non-emergency issue.

(These issues are usually at our Downtown location with folks going to the shelters.)

-I see police patrol cars EVERYWHERE.

-I think the study by the University of Cincinnati on crime ignores better ways to decrease crime.

-I think the lack of education funding, increases crime...not a lack of police officers.

-I think more police actually increases crime rates and we could lower it by having a more efficient police force.

-There were was no study done on the need for more fire department personal.

-I think this is a political move by Bartlett just like the dams are a political move by Bynum.

-Isn't this suppose to be for capital improvements?

Feel free to prove me wrong on any of that. I'm voting yes on the transit and economic development packages. I went to tons of Vision meetings and think they are at least going to improve the city regardless of the fact the council ignored a lot of good proposals.

[AquaMan]

No one is going to "prove" you wrong on those issues. Its not that kind of argument. Compared to other cities our size we are understaffed on police from what I read. The other points you make about policing are more strategy oriented. More cops doesn't mean more arrests, simply better able to know and interact with their assigned areas. I see that as a positive.

Fire department using poor quality equipment is an issue for me. Firemen are like football players. They don't age well because they are in harms way. We don't provide the best in protective gear from what I've heard. Tough job and no one knows till they need them.

But the reality is that everything is political. Dewey needs their support. We need protection. They made their strongest case for funding and now the public agrees or not.

[patric]

Its sort of a little white lie that hiring more police automatically means more police on the streets.  

No where in the glossy literature did I read how many officers are waiting on the next academy so they can be promoted OFF patrol into more desirable assignments, which sometimes results in fewer, not more, cops on patrol (and a top-heavy department).

[davideinstein]

I just drove home from Cherry Street to White City...we counted four patrol cars on the way home.

[Conan71]

I just drove home from Cherry Street to White City...we counted four patrol cars on the way home.

Were they driving or parked in front of a cop's home?

[davideinstein]

Were they driving or parked in front of a cop's home?

Driving.

[Conan71]

Here's my take on the public safety tax:

Every politician makes the same promise of more safety and better education, it's what they do.  No one has put out any research that we need more cops other than referencing staffing levels in peer cities with no causation related to lower crime rates that I'm aware of. I've heard from one side violent crime keeps dropping in Tulsa which means there's less need for cops.  I've also heard that out of the east division, basically seven cops cover 60 square miles on any shift.  This was to imply severe under-staffing.  When we had an early morning confrontation with our psychotic ex-neighbor, I felt the response time was adequate from the east side division.  Granted, if they had been working a fresh homicide they might not have gotten to us at all.

The fire department got their $70 million included just for the asking with absolutely no prior justification for them needing more money, just that if the TPD was getting "theirs", the TFD should get "theirs".

The president of the FOP is now saying that the public safety tax needs to be put in a lock box until the promised staffing levels are met.  He's implying that the safety tax might be used as a slush fund for other uses.

So, there is the deeply political side of this that keeps getting people re-elected by making citizens feel more safe and the distinct fear that these funds could be allocated for uses other than public safety.  

I also suspect the hiring of more officers will result in more administrative staff within TPD making it even more top-heavy.  I also think we need to quit using the FD as first responders to every accident and medical emergency, that is gawd-awful expensive.

I'm inclined to vote no for this part of the package, personally.  I hope if it fails it will give the city more incentive to go to the Oklahoma Legislature and demand different funding mechanisms for city operations than sales tax.  Sales tax is an outmoded finance mechanism.  The problem with the current idiots in OKC is they are afraid of anything which says "tax increase" even if it meant they were replacing one form of taxation with another which would not raise overall tax rates for individuals.

[Conan71]

Smart Growth Tulsa has released a blog post on this tax and it includes links to several reports:

http://smartgrowthtulsa.com/vision-tulsa-overview-proposition-1-public-safety/

[Townsend]

I'm voting no.  Public safety shouldn't be part of the vision vote.

It bothers me that it's a new permanent tax too.

I'm almost certain it has the best chance of being voted in though..unless the Frontier/KOTV keeps hitting the public with stories of "buying rank" and such.

[davideinstein]

I asked a firefighter that came into the shop today. He works at the Admiral station. He said the public has no idea how understaffed they are and cited the response time to a sexual assault recently. I don't doubt there are issues, but is it staffing or effiency? He said the main issue on funding is that it's coming from sales tax. Why can't we simply adjust this so that my property taxes pay for it?

[TeeDub]

I asked a firefighter that came into the shop today. He works at the Admiral station. He said the public has no idea how understaffed they are and cited the response time to a sexual assault recently. I don't doubt there are issues, but is it staffing or effiency? He said the main issue on funding is that it's coming from sales tax. Why can't we simply adjust this so that my property taxes pay for it?

With firefighters responding to sexual assaults, no wonder they are understaffed.     I would think that would be a police or EMSA thing.

[Conan71]

I asked a firefighter that came into the shop today. He works at the Admiral station. He said the public has no idea how understaffed they are and cited the response time to a sexual assault recently. I don't doubt there are issues, but is it staffing or effiency? He said the main issue on funding is that it's coming from sales tax. Why can't we simply adjust this so that my property taxes pay for it?

Quoting my previous post:

I hope if it fails it will give the city more incentive to go to the Oklahoma Legislature and demand different funding mechanisms for city operations than sales tax.  Sales tax is an outmoded finance mechanism.  The problem with the current idiots in OKC is they are afraid of anything which says "tax increase" even if it meant they were replacing one form of taxation with another which would not raise overall tax rates for individuals.

State law is the reason for this, not local ordinance.  I spoke with John Fothergill about this a week or so back.  He's the aide to Counselor Jeannie Cue and is also the Tulsa City Council's Legislative Liaison.  He has lobbied on the city's behalf to change this but he said legislators will do nothing about it if the public is not calling for it.  It's time to organize much like the people trying to modernize our alcohol laws have, so the legislature will listen.  They are wasting time trying to force Amazon and other online retailers to collect sales tax with new legislation.  I think there would also need to be movement out of OKC citizens on this as well for people to listen at the State House.

[AquaMan]

With firefighters responding to sexual assaults, no wonder they are understaffed.     I would think that would be a police or EMSA thing.

They are first responders because of their multiple locations and being trained for rendering aid. In most assaults or accidents time is critical. Even simple aid can save a life. Police are more into the crime itself and EMSA doesn't have enough staff to be the first on the scene. If you want to eliminate waste, consider looking into the EMSA regime and the duplication of efforts by having two separate administrative organizations.

I also remember talking to a fireman from a nearby station who told me he had to buy much of his own equipment because the funding was so poor that the equipment provided was dangerous.

[davideinstein]

Get rid of EMSA and put the medics in the fire stations.

[TeeDub]

Get rid of EMSA and put the medics in the fire stations.

If you have to respond firefighters to each call, why not do like Broken Arrow and bring the ambulance service back into the fire stations?    It seems pretty straightforward.

Or is that opening doors that money has paid to be tightly closed?