9 replies on “Crime Trends: Police Stats for Your Review”

  2. I suggest anyone that reads this to look more into the count and not the rate of crime in Tucson. Last year there was 68 homicides, 246 sexual assaults, 1,451 robberies, 2,490 agg assaults, 5157 burglaries, 19454 larcenies, 5808 motor vehicle thefts, 318 arsons, 10562 criminal damage, and 6117 narcotics cases. Over all crime count for 2008 was 102268 crimes where TPD had to show up. 280 crimes a day on average happen in Tucson. That is around 11 crimes an hour TPD has to respond. Also you have to take into consideration some days there are more crimes occurring than the average and some days less. Many of these crimes need more than one officer to assist.

    If you take into the count and not the crime rate per 100,000 people, it shows more peaks and valleys. Some years the count was more in some areas and less in others. It does not show a steady decline like Mr. Nintz is suggesting. Mr. Nintz is trying to show the statistics to show there is no need for Prop 200. However, if you look at individual crime counts there is no decline, and there is a steady rise and fall on certain crimes depending on the year. Crimes such as homicides, robberies, arsons, criminal damage, and narcotics have went UP since 1995. Other crimes have stayed with in a close margin.

    Also since it says on the TPD website, that this excludes crimes that were responded by UofA, TAA, DM, PIMA, and other police agencies. I wonder if the website is counting all the times where TPD came to assist another agency. This article does not include all the traffic incidents (tickets, accidents, and DUIs) where TPD was involved.

    I suggest people need to look deeper in the problem with the manning with our Police Department than just one graph. This article is not giving the whole story. Mr. Nintz does give the source and suggests people look at them. However, sadly most people will just look at the graph above and take this article at face value.

  3. Sadly, what people don’t understand are statistics. The graph shows what is actually happening, that there is, in fact, LESS crime per person, meaning that Tucson is getting safer over time.

    Here’s an interesting report that explains where the ‘revenue growth’ will come from to pay the many millions that Prop 200 will cost:

    http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/docs/IAPC-09-30-0…

    Note that the increased revenues will come from fees and fined generated by the new police officers (bottom of page 1.) Last time I looked, dangerous criminals don’t pay fees and fines, so I guess the real plan is more traffic cams and photo vans. I am sure we will all feel a lot safer knowing that there are an extra $50 million dollars worth of police parked in the bushes watching us drive.

  4. Tucson Dean,

    But the issue is does our police have the manning to deal with response calls? The graph above is misleading, I suggest you look the whole issue. The real issue is the crime count in concerns with helping our police department. Do you speed alot? I just wondering with your last comment. I do not worry about how many cops are in the bushes, since I do not speed enough to get a ticket. Maybe you should slow down.

  5. Nate:

    How I drive is immaterial, but thanks for making it personal, even though you know nothing about me. As it happens, I don’t worry about the police because I don’t speed, but I do worry about what it it will cost to provide said ‘valuable services’ to the community. The city document I provided a link to specifically states that the initiative will pay for itself through additional fines and fees levied by the new officers. Sounds like Prop 200 is more about new revenue sources than safety if hundreds of new officers are hired with a mandate to collect the $50 MILLION dollars a year it will take to suport them. Since dangerous criminals don’t pay fines, I am curious to know exactly who will.

    I do not object to more police in principle, because yes, faster response is better, more backup is better, their safety and ours is important. We all want more of everything, but that doesn’t mean that we can afford to pay for it. At the moment, Prop 200 is an unfunded mandate, and very bad fiscal policy given the economy at the moment. Ask me again next year, for the moment, I feel safe enough. Or you can pay for it yourself, I’d be all for that.

  6. I was asking a question, since with your comment “cops hiding in bushes” it seem you felt enforcing traffic laws was an ineffective policy of our police department.

    Most of the council agreed to make our police and fire services a priority in 2006. However, they are not cutting non-essential services in order to make police and fire a priority. There actions in the last two years showed they are not serious and Prop 200 is in response to their inaction. It will be up to the council to find a way to fund the mandate.

    The city document is one report on the opinion of that committee. There are many other avenues our future council can take to fund this mandate. Everything from cutting non-essential services to stop giving a dollar a year rent to businesses downtown. They can even consider unorthodox ways such as decriminalizing small amounts marijuana and creating a fine system to punish violators instead of jail time. They could put a tax on luxury items like fast food.

    Economy is bad, but it is not stopping our council from funding non-essential programs. I do not object with programs like KIDCO, providing funding for arts, Access Tucson, and other feel good programs in principle. However, a city has to think about the essential areas to fund during tough times. Funding non-essential programs like these, when our police and fire needs help is like me selling my gun and not fixing my fire alarm so I can buy a video game system.

    This issue is not only about you and how safe you feel. It is about our police officers and fire fighters and making them safer. You feel safe enough, but what about the police that respond to dangerous situations everyday? You may never have a incident where you need the police in our whole life, but the police responds to someone that needs them everyday. That is the main issue of Prop 200 to give our police and fire the funding they have been lacking.

  7. Nate, you obviously have your own agenda, even though we don’t know what your real motivation is. Your enthusiasm suggests you are either in law enforcement, and hoping for a promotion or seniority bump with the hiring of hundreds of new rookie officers, or in real estate development, hoping to force Tucson taxpayers to add fire and police stations on the outskirts of town so that you won’t have to pay for that infrastructure when you throw up your next stick and stucco development out there. Because in spite of the ‘safety’ spin, this kind of thing is always about somebody making money.

    In any case your response supports my main objection to Prop 200, you are already scrambling to explain how we’re going to cut relatively inexpensive social services or legalize and tax pot or fast food to pay for it. Those are not realistic solutions, and you clearly have no real idea how to pay for this.

    Some of us understand that the mentality of “I want and I want it now, whether I can pay for it or not’ is exactly why bankruptcies and foreclosures are at record highs. You suggest that we just put the $150 million tab on our credit card and work out a way to pay for it later. I’d like a big SUV, $50,000 worth, because it’s ‘safer’ than my $24,000 compact and safety is paramount. But that kind of car payment means I can’t pay my mortgage too, even if I don’t buy a video game system, so I don’t get one. That’s called fiscal responsibility.

    As I said, nobody disputes your safety first agenda, it’s a good thing, and makes for a great and very distracting spin. I’d support it 100% if we had the money or even a realistic suggestion for how to pay for it. But it is BAD POLICY to propose unfunded mandates EVER, regardless of what it’s for. It’s exactly why America is in trouble right now.

    I know I’ll never change your mind any more than you will change mine, so we’ll cancel each other’s vote, but good luck at the polls.

  8. I will not make any money if Prop 200 passes. I used to be in Law Enforcement on base, had daily interactions with TPD and saw how undermanned they were to deal with the reality of crime in Tucson. I currently have a well paying job and I really have no need to become a TPD officer. I certainly am not in real estate. Trying to find a “hidden” agenda for me is an excuse to write off my concerns of how this councils has mis-managed our city. I am just an ordinary person with an opinion just like you (I guess, you might be part of the Tucson Chamber of Commerce)

    I would not say wasting about a million a year on Access Tucson as “inexpensive” services. I would not KIDCO 2.4 million yearly budget as “inexpensive” services. Also like I said decriminalizing (not legalizing) marijuana and taxes on luxuries are unorthodox ideas. However, they are they realistic solutions. Many states and cities have decriminalize small amounts of marijuana to relieve their judicial/court system and it also gave the city a form of revenue due to the fines. Already states and cities tax items like tobacco and liqueur to pay for programs. Cutting non-essential programs and finding new ways to generate revenue would help pay for this mandate.

    The council supported putting the police/fire as a priority back in 2006 and basically agree with what Prop 200 says. However, they are not trying to work towards that goal. They still fund non-essential programs, while putting a hire freeze on police officers (like they did last year). Prop 200 is basically a way to put the town council’s feet to the fire.

    However, you are right we are basically canceling each other votes….Why don’t you just stay home on November 3rd???

  9. Nate:

    I’ll be voting on the 3rd to help save Access, KIDCO and all publicly supported investment in education, culture and community as much as anything. See you there, and good luck.

Comments are closed.