Perez Questions
Cop-Hiring Plan’s Details

So the mayor almost completely destroys the community policing ideas. Then money is spent to train new officers only to lay them off so other towns can benefit on our dime.Now with the shortage there is a sudden need to hire more officers by taking funds away from other city services and eventually raising taxes.21 officers are transferred back to patrol for the walking beats.If they were doing different jobs then there must have been a need for them there so now we have some police services lacking.
In addition the AC's are being forced to resign or retire which will be a high cost gainst the retirement funds.New AC's will also eventually retire so that cost needs to be projected also.60 officers are projected to retire soon with a further draw on funding.
I somehow see a serious funding issue in what has been a gross mismanagement of the police department by the city administration and which will be pushed further along by the new chief. Taxpayers, do we need this type of mismanagement or should we start demanding better accountability? Sooner or later by robbing Peter to pay Paul will leave us without a Peter

DeStefano's announcement was a premature verbal emanation. Since November he has been on a public relations blitz to announce all manner of solutions and programs - not very many have details. Doing an emergency hire of 45 more cops is just the latest in the his theater of pandering.

Is this to take away from Chief Esserman's plan for a posse of Yessermans?

The financial implications of hiring this many more cops and using money allocated to other accounts to do so raises serious sustainability issues. Why were these accounts that bloated to begin with that you can fund that many cops at a rate of millions of dollars? What happens to these accounts next budget cycle? Is the spending then restored and a big tax increase is then layered on?

Before DeStefano rolls out a huge hiring plan, one would have expected he would have done his homework. It is clear he did not.

My apologies. My previous post as Observor should be done as Observor1

I'm really grateful to Perez for raising these questions. It is a delicate issue, and he is asking the right questions of the right people.

I agree with Observor 100%--there was serious mismanagement and a very petty power play in effect when the Mayor laid off the officers fresh out of training and then re-hired officers.

Maybe Perez will step up in 2013 to put El Jefe Johnny to pasture-- if the Feds don't do it first.

What proportion of the new cops that are hired / trained with our tax dollars will live in the City of New Haven?

Neighborhoods are only as safe as the number of officers who live in them, not the number of patrols.

City taxpayers are going to surely pay for this one. But its okay because they don't mind paying a little extra taxes so that the surrounding towns can have police we paid to train.

Lets recap: Destefano laid off cops last February despite being told there would soon be a shortage of police which would increase violence and make New Haven Fear City. He didn't care because he wanted to show he was tough on unions and incapable of governing. As predicted the murder rate skyrocketed to one of the worst killing seasons ever.

Obviously the police know what it takes to police the city. Destefano manipulates the police department by appointing an unqualified lawyer he can control (Esserman). I still don't understand how he can be Police Chief if he has never made an arrest. How can Esserman tell three assistant chiefs (All of whom were real police officers at one point) to leave? His arrogance blows my mind.

Jorge Perez....

"[But] they raised taxes on the pretext we're going to hire more cops. Then he [the mayor] laid off cops. Then he hired more cops. Less than a year later he wants to hire more cops."

What Perez does not say is that he voted for all the current and past budget cop measures he now questions.

It seems odd that Perez would publicly question the motives of the Mayors new/old plan, when in fact he meets or talks to the Mayor almost daily and already knows the answers to his own questions.

Political gamesmanship at its worse...knock it off Jorge!!!

@ anon
You make a key point in this whole discussion. When will the city return to the policy that all NHPD officers are New Haven residents? I think that policy should be reevaluated before we allow our tax dollars to pay for new officers. With the city unemployment rate AND crime rate both so high, we could kill two birds with one stone.

webblog
You sound knowledgeable about the budget and voting records, so I am surprised that you'd label Perez this way.

It is really not as simple as it may sound from reading your comment at face value, and I want to provide some context for others reading this.

As a member of a minority of aldermen dissatisfied with the mayors agenda, what real options did Perez have?

You probably are also aware that voting no on the budget actually does very little to shape it--a straight no vote only makes things difficult for everyone, because the alders do not have line item control on more than 60% of the budget.

A flat denial can have extremely negative unintended consequences.

For instance, when Mike Jones fought the mayor on the budget, he later introduced a living wage proposal.

City staff--managed and appointed by Mayor DeStefano--assured him the cost would be minimal, and Mike moved forward.

Mike moved forward, and the Mayor called a press conference to decry Mike, at which he pointedly brought up Mike's disobedience on his budget, even using the word "consequences" if memory serves.

... the Mayor has frequently taken advantage of his position to make aldermen "the bad guys", proposing budget reductions that will require painful cuts, and then forcing the aldermen to be on the defensive and take unpopular positions to prevent real harm.

I like this. A full roster means there are cops trained and ready to step in if Esserman can kick out more ... cops like Dave Coppola and others like him.

Billy: Until we start asking questions like that, the situation is hopeless.

Almost everyone who has lived in New Haven's black/Latino neighborhoods for more than a few years knows that many police officers used to live in the same neighborhood and that they no longer do.

Part of this is hiring policies, part of it is that segregation by income has increased dramatically in the past 20 years.

Unfortunately the Union leadership, and their friends at the Governor's Mansion and City Hall, almost entirely live in the suburbs. So they could care less about sky high crime rates in certain areas of the city.

The crime rates will never change unless we fundamentally change this underlying issue.

@billy and anon

If i were forced to move back into new haven, I would move to the areas with the best schools and safest neighborhoods ( just like every other logical person on this planet). I would probably go to morris cove. How would that effect the crime stats? Probably not alot.

There is no amount of money ANYONE can pay me to put my two children at risk by living in a crime infested area, especially if everyone knows that I am a police officer. I personally know of 3 instances where an officer's family has been threatened/harrassed (including a bomb threat).

If i were forced to move into a crime ridden area, i would not clear the corners of the drug dealers, i would not do anything to raise the ire of the criminal element, i would just answer the radio. I believe that a good majority of officers would feel the same way.

Its always easy to point fingers at the police, but unless you have walked in our shoes ...

Sad - perhaps you wouldn't move if offered a housing incentive, but many others would. Look at the Yale and UPenn homebuyer programs as an example.

If you think that most neighborhoods in New Haven are significantly less safe than the suburbs, then perhaps you don't have a very good understanding of the stats. First off, nothing is different about today versus 30 or 40 years ago (when most officers lived in our neighborhoods) - crime rates are very similar if not lower. Secondly, most of the crime happens in 1% of the street corners -- vast areas of New Haven, even in lower income areas, have very little crime. Also, statistically, the suburbs are actually orders of magnitude more dangerous because of the greatly increased risk of being involved in a fatal car crash per mile driven. Even adjusting for income level, the typical family in New Haven probably logs about 20 miles per day, whereas the typical families of the towns where many of our officers live probably log 4 to 5 times that amount. If you want to almost guarantee that you or one of your family members will be killed, move to the farthest suburbs you can find.

Bottom line is, we shouldn't let the anecdotes of a few police officers, or the protestations of the police union, get in the way of what are absolutely essential policy decisions.

Sad, I thought about that, and I think you're spot on.

Anon, if a police officer busts some punks downtown, and then later on runs into them at the store, or the movies, or just on the street....when he's with family, or when they're maybe high on something...what do you think is going to happen?

Curious - are you suggesting that the safety of police officers is more important than the safety of the residents who pay their salaries? Everyone has the right to be safe. That's just not possible when every single cop lives out of town.

Until the union is pressured to admit this, low income residents will continue to be disproportionately impacted by high crime.

Also if police officers don't want to shop in the neighborhood that they patrol, they can easily travel to another shopping center nearby. That's not the case with the majority of lower income residents in poorer neighborhoods, who do not have regular access to a vehicle, and who suffer increased exposure to crime.

If officer safety is really as much of a problem as you suggest, than officers should be paid more.

The public should decide these policy issues, not a few union leaders who live in far flung suburbs.

WOW THIS IS VERY INTERESTING,BECAUSE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF POLICE OFFICER ARE TOTALLY WRONG.THE NUMBER IS MORE LIKE 384 OFFICER WITH THE TOTAL CHANGING EVERYDAY.OFFICER ARE LEAVING N.H.P.D EVERYDAY.
WE NEED A CHANGE IN THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN

Anon ...

First of all, you have nothing to back up your trope that union leaders all live in "fr-flung suburbs". You trot that out endlessly, and can't back it up at all. It's your own opinion. ...

Second, I do think that cops deserve to be safe in their own homes. Forcing them to live in direct contact with criminals that they have to police is morally wrong. That's like forcing firefighters to live in a wooden house with no smoke detectors, or forcing prison guards to actually live in the prison at which they work.

You want those officers' kids to have to go to a school where they might have to be in class with another kid who's mom or dad was locked up by their mom or dad?

Curious: Do you read the New Haven Independent? The City has postd those figures numerous times. You can also get relevant info from the Census which shows very few public safety personnel live in city limits relative to, say, East Haven. By the way Hartford has a requirement that many of its public safety personnel live in the city limits at the time of applying for a job there, and Hartford is even smaller than New Haven.

...

The officers do their best with what they have...a...The crime rate would not decrease if every single officer lived in the town.. Please stop the disparaging of the Officers is is sad ....and Btw I am not a Cop nor a sig other of one..Just a kind human being with empathy for others who work hard.Prayers to NHPD

Omg: See above. The point is not to force every officer to move to town. The point is that if incentives were offered and policies set differently, many would choose to over time. In this way we could reverse the enormous damage that has been done from the fact that, though many officers used to live in neighborhoods such as Dixwell and the Hill, now very few do. It is part of a wider problem of residential income segregation. Obviously this is an issue for union leadership, which is located entirely in the suburbs and would rather see money put towards higher retirement benefits rather than incentives to ensure that city residents can be hired and that city residents can have safer neighborhoods.

If the city & union leadership was actually interested in crime reduction, rather than on holding the same exact superficial press conference about walking beats every two years, the bottom line is that our lower income areas would be far safer and more economically prosperous.