Prop. 200 creates bad public policy

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Donald Ijams, a retired law enforcement planner who worked 28 years for the Tucson Police Department as a management analyst, penned this guest opinion today in the Arizona Daily Star. Inflexible Prop 200 creates bad public policy:

The Public Safety First initiative on the Nov. 3 ballot mandates a major increase in the city of Tucson's public-safety personnel. The initiative uses a charter change to accomplish this, which is too inflexible.

City leaders must attend to a broad range of responsibilities. Resources and opportunities change over time. The existing charter allows our leaders in city government to attend to these responsibilities, including public safety, in a balanced manner.

Leaders would be forced into a corner by this unfunded initiative that is not right for the community now and will not be right in years to come, for these reasons:

• Proposition 200 requires an eventual ratio of 2.4 officers per 1,000 population. According to the FBI, Tucson commissioned force stands at 1.9 officers per 1,000 population, the same as the average of Western U.S. police departments.

The number 2.4 (or any number) is a very poor benchmark for Tucson. There are so many variables that determine what police service is needed, how that service is to be delivered and the number of law-enforcement personnel that makes sense.

Both the FBI and the International Association of Chiefs of Police recommend against using a fixed ratio.

• In Tucson, the crime rate is down, the call load is the same as it was in the year 2000 and 266 more police positions have been added in recent years. Is there really a rationale for more staffing?

• The city is facing even tougher financial times in coming years. The city has fewer employees than last year. These employees are working harder and are required to take five unpaid days off during the year.

No public-safety personnel were laid off and fat in the budget is gone. Sales-tax revenues are down and are likely to stay down for the next several years. Certainly there will be a time in the future when Tucson can resume building up its public-safety personnel to nice-to-have levels, but that time is not now.

Turning down this measure doesn't mean you aren't "thanking a cop or a firefighter."

What it does mean is that you are fully aware of the wide range of services the city provides and that the scarce resources available to the community (and to its city and county governments) must be spent wisely in a thoughtful and flexible manner.

You can appreciate and support your Tucson public safety personnel, as I do, without enacting this bad public policy.