Thursday, November 17, 2011

Hail to the Chief

Over a 12-year period a 130% increase in police funding gets you a 30% decrease in crime (SP Nov. 17/11.) I think those numbers are a bit misleading in that for years prior to 2000 the police service was greatly underfunded - think back to the Chief Dave Scott battle with a previous Council. There was some catching up to do. Having said that, we might be going overboard here. I would like to see the police statistics for the areas of Saskatoon before determining that new and sparsely populated areas need more policing. And what other cities spend on policing per capita.

What concerns me more is the cost of policing once the new station is built. Added on to the budget down the road will be the debt repayment and debt servicing costs, together with increased building operating costs.

Maybe that's why part of the requested increase includes another accounting position and a media relations officer to sell the spending.

I think our Police Chief is on a roll and getting what he can while he can.


  1. Why don't they just lobby for an increase in fines they hand out for traffic violations. Obviously with the numbers SGI is spouting the Police Service should be able to be in the black in no time.

  2. What is worse is that the last spring the Chief noted that built into their budget was incremental savings over time for the armoured and military style police tank (Hummer) or whatever it was.

    My question is, if they had been putting away money each budget for a armor plated vehicle what the hell else are they saving up for? How much money is really frivolous wants?

    We don't need armor plated tanks in Saskatoon (and I don't care how long they saved for it). It is an irresponsible purchase when the city is broke. Use the money that is saved up for that and apply it to current needs rather than ask for a bunch more money.

    Atch is brainwashed (if he has a brain) into believing anything the board says as he sits on it and doesn't want to look like a buffoon again.

    If this service is saving up for tanks there is clearly a sense of entitlement to whatever funds they want. Send it back for review and have them trim some of the fat.

    You would think that after the public just agreed (or at least Council agreed) to build them their new palace complete with personal gyms, smoking room, forensic labs, heated underground parking for their vehicles that maybe, just maybe, they could work with the public to help keep costs down while the city bleeds. Nope they all need fat raises on top of the capital expenses.

    The continue to operate as if they are above being questioned. Have them review the budget and trim it down. What a farce.

  3. "The continue to operate as if they are above being questioned."

    Simpletons such as Atch are incapable of asking critical questions, except when he's the Chamber of Commerce's ventriloquist dummy.

  4. I am either ashamed of you Mistress or embarassed, comparing a fiscal stat to an action stat, come on! If your theory held true we would expect if we put enough money in we would have no crime, by your thinking if we increased the Police budget by only 310% we should expect a crime reduction of 100%

  5. At least she is questioning whether a further increase in spending is warranted. A lot of people support the notion of giving the police a blank cheque. If we want to prevent crimes from happening, there are more cost-efficient ways of doing that than ramping up police funding. Also, take all crime statistics since 2000 with a grain of salt. While crime tracking in the 1990s initially led to better policework, it quickly turned into a political game, leading to manipulation of the statistics and poorer police work. A growing city needs a growing policeforce, but let's do so reasonably and in a fiscally prudent way.

  6. a business run like this would be bankrupt...less donuts and coffee and more action. fiscal accountability and what really are the outcomes. Some prevention would help!

  7. Perhaps the mistress could comment on Bill C-10, which will cost Canadians a lot, both fiscally and socially, and will have implications for all levels of government.

  8. I will say crime is down in my area of town since the 90's.
    We use to have B&E all the time, not so much anymore.
    Be careful of the lefty narrative.

  9. Anon 5:16,

    I think there are a wide variety of opinions on Bill C-10. However, why would you want the Mistress to comment on it, considering you clearly have made up your mind and are spreading the gospel, other than to stir a hornets nest?

    For someone who so supports the gospel of Jack, try listening to some of his parting words.

  10. I am interested in her opinion (whether I agree with it or not), which is why I read this blog.

    The "gospel" I spread is that addressing criminogenic needs of offenders is cheaper and more effective (reduces recidivism) than getting tough on crime. It is a belief based on research by those in the criminal justice system. If you disagree, point me towards research to the contrary. You would be doing me a favour.

    What were Jack's parting words?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.