I stand by my comments re “silent” council and Mayoral candidates.

I am unclear on Susan Chan’s position as well. I believe she (and others) are very slowly beginning to realize that perhaps there IS an alternative to our current direction.

Vinnie Bacon figured it out a long time ago. (And – yes – I am a fan of Vinnie Bacon – but hardly because of his clarity on this singular point)

Susan Chan *has* stated that she will “take a hard look at” the non-response policy. Make of it what you will.

I personally speculate that those candidates who have chosen to remain silent on this point will, in time, continue to look more and more like the council members they seek to replace.

Your argument and position seem to be put together well. I am not sure that Sue Chan has the same position, if she did then I might be able to support her, but my interpretation of her position is to that she wants to force our police to respond to alarms regardless of resources. If I have misinterpreted it then I would love clarification from her or someone from her staff on this board.

Let me take it slowly here, Jon – you try and follow.

All city demanded services vary based on loads of external factors. You are correct that perhaps the alarm rates might vary to the point that there are so few “false” alarms that we dont need additional officers to respond to these unwanted calls – and hallelujia we’ve accomplished our goal – NOW the alarms are all real !!!!!

In the meantime, those who want an officer to respond to an alarm – PAY FOR THE privledge – (as opposed to paying a 3rd party service organization who makes a profit doing so)

The variability of false alarm rates is a straw man fostered by those who simply dont want to deliver a service any longer and who are unwilling to consider how to keep the service delivered to constituency because THEY’VE decided what’s best for the community.

It’s kinda like cutting hours at the library, Jon.
Or no longer surfacing your streets, or spending millions on redevelopment without producing anything tangible. . . . ONLY in this case – there’s another alternative. . . . but, your city manager, your mayor, your current city council can’t seem to find a way to continue to deliver a service AND make money doing so.

Heck, Jon – I’ll bet there’s all kinds of variables in planning for a city budget. . . . . factors swing up an ddown wildly – as evidenced by your city “surplus” that was discovered only weeks after we thought we were in economic straits. Economic uncertainty is a fact of life for city managers – they work with it all the time.

Forget the reasoning and logic I’m trying to get across to you. . . . . maybe I am biased, maybe I have my own agenda.

Ask yourself one question – how is it that other cities with the same economic “variability” you sight as an excuse for not pursuing this solution -have found that it makes sense to charge for this “false alarm” service ????????

Is it possible to have a genuine debate about ISSUES without attacking the candidate on a personal level with lies “Entertaining” and “Diamond”?

It’s funny that Debra thinks that someone who talks to the issue should “stay off the blogs” but condones these genuine attacks…speaks loads about credibility.

And by the by, Ruby has a right to voice whatever she wants on this board, how arrogant of you Debra.

Ruby, yes, police should never check alarms unless there’s a human confirmation of something happening.

Answer – it doesn’t make any difference PROVIDED that the alarm fee structure covers costs of officer time to respond to ALL alarms (including the real ones !)

“99% of False Alarms are “false – why expend limited resources to respond to these false alarms ”

Answer – because the resources aren’t LIMITED IF those who are demanding the services are PAYING FOR THEM !!!!!!! (Why can’t the naysayers on this argument GET a simple economic fact ???) Should we (for example) get rid of 30% of our current Police Force if they spend only 70% of their time responding to real crimes ??? No one would suggest that we do so – but this is the same argument Steckler has used to rationalize the no-response issue.

EVERY CITY IN AMERICA has the same kinds of economic problems and challenges we face – ask yourself why do some choose to solve this problem by cancelling services and some solve this problem by raising fees ?

What’s the difference in quality of life in cities that charge for a response and a permit to operate a residential alarm versus those that simply cancel a service to its taxpayers ?

What’s the difference between a constituency that is “told” that a service is no longer going to be supplied versus a city that works with its taxpayers to maintain (but pay for) basic services ?