When you hear stories about a person stabbed while interrupting a
midtown car robbery, or citizens shot to death in southside home
invasions, it seems as if we’re all just one wrong step away from a
bullet to the head or a knife to the throat.
The Tucson Association of Realtors says it has a solution: The
Public Safety First Initiative, which will appear as Proposition 200 on
the Nov. 3 city of Tucson ballot.
“People don’t feel safe in the city of Tucson,” says Colin
Zimmerman, director of public affairs for the Tucson Association of
Realtors. “They don’t feel safe in their homes. They don’t feel safe in
the schools. Businesses don’t feel safe and don’t want to relocate
here.”
Prop 200 would require the city to hire more police and firefighters
over the next five years, at an estimated cost of $157 million. Once in
place, the cost would be in the neighborhood of $51 million a year.
Critics of Prop 200 say that the cost is too high. Brandon Patrick,
chairman of Don’t Handcuff Tucson, a political committee opposing the
initiative, says that Prop 200 will force the city to cut back on
everything from street repairs to parks and recreation programs.
“The money isn’t there,” says Patrick, “especially when crime is
already on the decline.”
Given everything that Tucsonans hear about criminal activity, it’s a
little surprising to learn that crime rates, for the most part, have
been declining since the mid-’90s, according to Tucson Police
Department statistics.
Violent crime—homicide, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated
assaults—has dropped by more than a third between 1995 and 2008,
as measured by the number of reports to TPD per 1,000 residents.
Burglary calls have dropped 38 percent since peaking in 1997.
Criminal-damage calls have decreased 29 percent since a 1997 high.
Nearly all of Tucson’s crime-rate categories are dropping. Even
homicide, which saw a minor uptick in 2008 over 2007, has dropped 16
percent since 1995.
“The suggestion that there’s more need than ever before for police
is nonsense, and the fear-mongering tactics that they use to try to
burn that into people’s minds are particularly unfortunate,” Patrick
says.
Dispite the drop in crime rates, the Tucson Association of Realtors
has been bankrolling the campaign to force the city to hire more cops
and firefighters. As of Aug. 12, TAR had contributed $125,276 to the
Public Safety First campaign. The Southern Arizona Home Builders
Association had contributed $20,000; the Tucson Police Officers
Association had contributed $15,000; and the International Association
of Fire Fighters had contributed $10,000.
Of the $103,573 that has been spent by the campaign, more than
$86,000 had gone to Zimmerman and Associates, the political consulting
firm run by Colin Zimmerman’s parents, Pete and Carol Zimmerman.
Prop 200 would mandate that the city hire at least 2.4 police
officers per 1,000 residents; right now, the city has somewhere around
1.9. It would also require that firefighters and emergency medical
technicians be on the scene within four minutes, a standard found in
the National Fire Protection Association’s guidelines.
But there’s a cost to mandating staffing levels in the city charter.
City staff estimates that it will take an additional $51 million a year
to add 350 new police officers to the city’s current force of 1,113
officers, including associated costs for civilian support, equipment,
substations and court staff.
The fire department would also need enough firefighters to staff new
fire stations, especially on the perimeter of the city. Fire Chief
Patrick Kelly says that response times in most of the city are already
within the required range; longer response times are in areas where the
city has yet to build new fire stations to serve new development.
Opponents of the initiative warn that the city’s budget has already
been pinched so much by the slumping economy that most departments have
been cut by 7.1 percent, and most employees are also taking five-day
unpaid furloughs this year. (Police and firefighters were exempted from
the furloughs, although they saw a reduced uniform allowance and a few
benefit cuts.)
To deal with the budget shortfall, the city has been forced to
suspend a program that repaves residential streets, cut back on park
maintenance, eliminate 400 vacant city jobs, reduce funding for outside
agencies and make other cutbacks.
If voters lock in more spending on public safety, the city will have
to either raise taxes or cut more services to cover the costs, warns
Patrick.
Zimmerman is optimistic about the economic recovery and dismisses
concerns that Prop 200 will require much of a sacrifice from taxpayers.
Additional costs will be ramped up over five years, and the economy
should grow during that time, giving the city additional money to spend
on public safety, he says.
“Theoretically, the economy should cover the entire cost,” Zimmerman
says. “I don’t see any reason why cuts need to happen. I don’t see any
reason why anything has to change in the city of Tucson.”
City officials offer a more dismal economic forecast. This year, the
city was looking at a drop of $68 million in projected revenues, and
City Manager Mike Letcher has warned council members that the city
could face a shortfall next year between $46 million and $68
million.
“Revenues are contracting in Tucson, and we’re running a huge
deficit,” Patrick says. “This pie-in-the-sky notion that all of sudden,
there’s going to be this magical uptick in the economy is
nonsense.”
The city is already spending about $268 million—or 64
percent—of its $420 million annual general-fund budget on public
safety, if you include court, jail and administrative costs, according
to a presentation that Letcher made to the council last week.
The city has boosted spending on public safety in recent years. As
part of its “sustainability plan,” council members moved forward with
plans to expand the police force by 80 officers between 2006 and 2008.
(About 70 of those positions are currently unfilled, because of
officers who have retired or quit. The city plans to hire new officers
to replace them later this year.)
Zimmerman gives the council credit for expanding the police force
and suggests that the additional cops may have helped bring down crime
rates.
“The only downside was that they stopped the program, and they
stopped in the worst possible time,” Zimmerman says. “During the
recession, you need more cops.”
But Patrick says the cost is too high for taxpayers.
“Everybody would love to have more police and fire,” says Patrick.
“Nobody is against that, and nobody is anti-public safety. I just know
that we can’t afford it.”
The Public Safety First Initiative
Proposition 200 would require the city of Tucson to hire at least
2.4 police officers per 1,000 residents. Today, the ratio is closer to
1.9 per 1,000. The city would have to add an estimated 350 officers to
the force.
Supporters argue that more police officers and more firefighters
will make for a safer city.
Opponents argue that crime is already on the decline in Tucson, and
the initiative will cost an estimated $51 million annually when fully
implemented in five years. They warn that taxes will have to be
increased, or other city services will have to be cut, to pay for the
additional public safety.
This article appears in Sep 24-30, 2009.
A suburb of Denver made the mistake of mandating 2 officers per 1000 population in 1993 and the results have been grim. See the story here http://denver.yourhub.com/Aurora/Stories/Sound-Off/Politics/Story~522210.aspx
I am skeptical when I hear politicos like Mr. Zimmerman make promises about programs that will pay for themselves. Has anyone ever seen ANY program that was supposed to pay for itself which didn’t end up raising taxes and cutting services in the end?
I haven’t. I’m voting NO.
Six years ago I had $25K worth of equipment stolen from a parking lot while I worked on the site. The police investigation consisted of FAXing me a blank report, which I filled out and mailed back. They were overwhelmed and had no time to respond to my piddly problem. In my opinion, we need more police officers on the street.
Colin Zimmerman says, “I don’t see any reason why anything has to change in the city of Tucson.” Obviously, Colin is not a student of irony.
Yeah, and just last night the President on the Letterman show said we will economically come back stronger than ever. Except for one complex problem that can be put in rather simple terms: China wants their piece of the world pie, and there’s only so much pie to go around.
Apparently, Colin Zimmerman has a fundamental misunderstanding of economic development. I work with businesses that look to locate or expand their companies to Tucson and the crime rate is never in the top five of their concerns. They want a skilled labor force to fill jobs and quality schools for their employees and executives. Colin Zimmerman and Zimmerman and Associates, the political consulting firm run by Colin Zimmerman’s parents, Pete and Carol Zimmerman are running a fear-mongering campaign that spreads misinformation about Tucson. This is bad for business. The Zimmerman’s are bad for business. NO NEW TAXES:VOTE NO ON 200
Funny how the FBI disagrees. Their site shows an appaling number of crimes reported in Tucson, and then goes on to say that the entity (city) did not even collect accurate data on property crime.
So who’s story is correct? Cities love to under report crime. Lot’s of Tucson cops never leave their cars (most of them). We need storefront policing- not car jockeys.
We know one murder a week is not great. We have always been a huge magnet for property criminals. Cops here only touch the tip of the iceberg when it comes to drugs, and often look the other way on the big stuff. Car theft is huge and getting bigger. Everything from here to the Mexican Border now must be chained down or is stolen, our friends in Tubac say.
Anecdotally, our car alarm for a vehicle parked on a safe street goes off at least once a week, and we hear distant gun shots weekly too. Doesn’t feel safe any more. But we choose to live here.
But are we truly safer than a few years ago? The numbers mean nothing to a victim, and we know more every year.
What a false sense of security. COPS don’t prevent crimes. They are there to assist after the crime happens. Larry Lopez, the TPOA President (#1 supporter and culprit for this initiative), at public meetings has admitted that crime will never stop, that in fact, he doesn’t want crime to stop because crimes assure his job security– his lifeline. So is this initiative about crime prevention or job security? Seems pretty clear to me.
Colin Zimmerman and the proponents of Prop 200 are putting all their chips on a nebulous economic rebound sometime over the next 10 years. However, prudent municipal planning calls for budget planning based upon short term projections. The City Manager’s office projects a revenue shortfall next year of between $45-68Million. Zimmerman and his “pie in the sky” projections have no solid economic figures to support their contentions. Retired Law Enforcement Planner Don Ijams asserted in the AZ Daily Star (http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/fromcomments/3…) that Prop 200 is bad public policy and he cites both the FBI and the International Association of Police Chiefs to support his assertions. No new cuts to City Services! No new taxes! No on Prop 200.
Crime is on the decline and Tucson thinks we should spend 50+ MILLION a year on this ‘problem’? Ridiculous! If we have all this money to be allocating why not put it into TUSD?
If the Tucson Association of Realtors thinks Prop 200 is such a good idea, let them put their money where their mouth is. I propose adding the requirement that it be paid for with taxes on home sales, split between the home buyer, the home seller, and the realtor.
And to AZRLS, sorry you got robbed six years ago, but that’s what insurance is for. A few more police officers in Tucson wouldn’t have made a difference then or now.
“Dispite the drop in crime rates, the Tucson Association of Realtors…”
yep, yep, yep…
I agree we could use more police, but sounds like realtors, homebuilders, and police association want us to help improve (subsidize) their lot, more than they are concerned about the average citizens welfare.
I wish Jim would have interviewed the Pima County folks on this one. They estimate another $91 million in costs to the county annually. Cops arrest people who get locked up in county jails, and are prosecuted and defended by county folks using county funds. I suspect the fire fighters will also transport more folks to county hospitals, etc., for county provided/funded services. County folks outside of the Tucson city limits will not get to vote, but will have to pay dearly if this passes.
Mayor Walkup and Councilwoman Scott have both stated on AZ Illustrated that they support Prop 200, but neither one of them have stated how they plan to pay for it if passed. Isn’t this malfeasance/misfeasance in office? They’ll come in after the fact and claim the voters made them do it, instead of being open and up front about it before the fact.
Another major point which keeps getting overlooked are the Opportunity Costs–we can be spending this $140 million per year supporting the local economy as we choose (bars, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), instead of giving it to the government.
It’s not like the PD will use the additional officers to benefit the community or reduce crime. They’ll just put them all on motorcycles to hide in the bushes and produce more speeding tickets.
Don’t waste our money on this ridiculous scam. We need to be looking for ways to trim the budget, not fatten it up!
Since when do extra firefighters equal lower crime rate? The International Association of Firefighters and local fire unions have lobbied everywhere to put more and more firefighters on the job despite consistently decreasing fires over the years. They provide high call numbers to the politicians to justify their existence, even though these “calls” are not fire-related at all. The public doesn’t need First Responders racing through a community in a ladder truck for a call from someone “not feeling well.” They run the ambulance service so they can bill insurance companies and use the revenue for fire-related equipment and staff. Any of that money going back into improving patient care? Look at most fire department websites and you can readily tell the importance of EMS (you have to search to find mention of it). How many of them are getting medical oversight from a medical director? They’re too busy sitting in their recliners watching TV. NFPA Physical Fitness Standards anyone? Vote NO on this pork-barrel proposition.
Another attempt by the firefighters union to fatten the ranks, get overtime and drive up costs. Everytime I see another SUV Esclade, Range Rover or quad cab pick-up with a IAFF union sticker in the window I think about the rest of us having to struggle for mortgage payments, deflated 401k’s and the like (while the firefighters and cops have a fat state pension ahead of them with medical benefits). Don’t get me wrong, I think our cops need help, but times are tough. If Obama would fix the border half of the violence in Tucson would be gone!
Obviously, the people concern about the cost are not thinking about the safety of the community and the safety of the police officers, as well as their own safety; 1.8 officers per every 1000 citizens is a joke! If you have to buy your own safety how much are you willing to spend?
Vote YES on 200
I am sympathetic to the needs of our firefighters. We should give them as much support as we reasonably can. However police protection is another matter. To a large extent response times are a matter of priority. It seems to me that Tucson’s priority is in collecting traffic fines rather than solving crime. As long as law enforcement continues to be a money making proposition we are all in danger. Proposition 200 seems a continuation of this philosophy, not focused on protecting citizens so much as allowing developers to expand Tucson’s boundaries. If anything, this fear mongering campaign creates more danger by damaging the fabric of our community. I recommend voting against Prop 200 and any other proposition that the Tucson Association of Realtors throws our way.
Tucson doesn’t need more police officers, it needs to use its existing officers more effectively: http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=11…
NO on Prop 200.