[Summit] Robbery on Burlington Street

Tue Jul 19 19:09:43 UTC 2011

Coryndon is correct, that these are off-duty officers "on detail", which is
required by RI state law for street construction, and can also be contracted
by private businesses (clubs for security presence, malls and auto dealers
for directing traffic in high volume areas).

Regardless of whether you think details are unnecessary, they don't have a
first order impact on police costs. I would bet that, were police details
done away with, it would be a net negative to municipal police costs, as
officers see details as a "bonus" that they would otherwise have to replace
as income some other way - like in the police contract that we all pay for.

Best, Allan
93 Lauriston St.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Emlyn Addison <noisyblocks at gmail.com>wrote:

> I can't say that I know much about how private business interacts with city
> government when it comes to work on public roadways but in either case we
> should be crying bloody murder: If National Grid is paying police officers
> to (mostly) do nothing all day because of an otherwise well-intentioned
> state law, then one can bet that NG's costs get passed on to the consumer.
> Either way we pay, you see.
>
> From what I can garner, this is a good gig for a police officer, but at a
> time when the city is/was planning to lay off more officers, opportunities
> like this must look even sweeter.
>
> Anyway, here's how that model's working out:
> http://www.golocalprov.com/news/city-stiffed-for-1m-in-police-costs/
>
> I think in more than one sense this is an expense that needs to be looked
> at not just in terms of economics but of efficacy. I'd rather have this law
> paired down for true safety-related situations and free up whatever is
> needed for a more visible police presence. Judging by what Andy wrote, I
> guess Massachusetts residents are thinking along the same lines.
>
> Emlyn
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Coryndon Luxmoore <coryndon at luxmoore.com>wrote:
>
>> National Grid is a private company paying for off duty officers for
>> privately owned infrastructure. What tax dollars are being spent?
>>
>> --C
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>>
>> Coryndon Luxmoore
>>
>> Interaction Designer
>>
>>
>> coryndon (at) luxmoore (dot) com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Emlyn Addison wrote:
>>
>> I guess whether the officers are on-duty of off-duty may be irrelevant;
>> either way whatever construction firm did the bidding and won, our taxes pay
>> the salaries of all involved.
>>
>> So if our tax dollars are paying for (off-duty?) police officers to
>> (almost quite literally) stand around all day instead of being on active
>> patrol, this citizen would prefer his taxes spent on the latter. That's the
>> connection.
>>
>> Emlyn
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Coryndon Luxmoore <coryndon at luxmoore.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I am not sure that the two items are connected.
>>>
>>> As I understand it the officers on details are off duty and are not
>>> diverted from patrols and the officers at the National Grid and other detail
>>> sites actually generate revenue for the PPD as the PPD takes a cut of the
>>> detail pay before distributing to the officer.
>>>
>>>  --C
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>> Coryndon Luxmoore
>>> Interaction Designer
>>>
>>> coryndon (at) luxmoore (dot) com
>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> On Jul 19, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Emlyn Addison wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds this type of police response
>>> maddening. Our poor neighbors have had the wheels stolen off their car TWICE
>>> in 2 years and with all these theft reports on the SNA list I find the PPD's
>>> lack of motivation annoying.
>>>
>>> We can expect to see a police officer faithfully sticking to his post
>>> (read: checking his phone for emails) at a street construction site all day,
>>> but when was the last time any of us saw a police patrol in this area?
>>>
>>> Off-topic: There may have been a sensible precedent for requiring a
>>> police officer to be posted at a construction site on, say, a highway or a
>>> busy street that needed traffic control, but one has to wonder how many of
>>> these construction projects go on every day around the city where an officer
>>> is arguably just well-paid window dressing. As I understand it, when a
>>> construction company bids on a project (paid for by our taxes), they are
>>> required to include the cost of an officer (also paid for by our taxes). So
>>> let's put it to a vote: Would we rather be paying officers to pick their
>>> noses for 8 hours at dozens of constructions sites all over Providence every
>>> day, or patrolling the streets? Or is orange cone placement so vital that
>>> they couldn't possibly be spared?
>>>
>>>
>>> Emlyn
>>>
>>>
>>> Message: 7
>>>> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:25:20 -0400
>>>> From: Samantha Morse <cherrepaha at hotmail.com>
>>>> To: summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>>>> Subject: [Summit] Robbery on Burlington Street
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>        <
>>>> CAOQWtZZTQOk-r7LVnCRzjLmt00aPDhGwar77Qph+1rpD4-Kufg at mail.gmail.com>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>>
>>>> My house on Burlington Street was robbed between 8:40 and 9:15 on Sunday
>>>> morning (July 17).  The person(s) jimmied a lock on our back, screened
>>>> porch.  They took our laptops and jewelry which they put in a canvas
>>>> tote
>>>> bag of ours.  We believe that we were being watched.
>>>>
>>>> Earlier in the week, I saw a late-model Mazda CX-7 or CX-9 silver SUV
>>>> with
>>>> Massachusetts plates scoping out our neighborhood.  They were blocking
>>>> my
>>>> driveway with their car and clearly checking out my house.  When I
>>>> pulled-
>>>> behind them with my car and beeped, they took off.  There was a blonde
>>>> woman
>>>> driving and a white male with dark hair as the passenger.  I'm not sure
>>>> if
>>>> the people in the car are the people who broke into my home but please
>>>> call
>>>> the police if you see this car driving very slowly around the
>>>> neighborhood.
>>>>
>>>> The police have been less than sympathetic and didn't even send anyone
>>>> to
>>>> fingerprint.  A house on this street was robbed mid-day in the same
>>>> manner
>>>> at the end of April but the police don't seem very motivated.  I know
>>>> our
>>>> neighborhood is a target, however.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be happy to provide more details about what happened.  I don't have
>>>> a
>>>> computer at this time so my phone is 521-2393.
>>>>
>>>> Samantha Morse
>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>> URL: <
>>>> http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20110719/53ef456f/attachment.html
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Summit mailing list
>>>> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>>>>
>>>> http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> End of Summit Digest, Vol 76, Issue 25
>>>> **************************************
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Summit mailing list
>>> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>>>
>>> http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
>>> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>
> http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>

-- 

Allan Tear
Managing Partner
Aptus Collaborative | Betaspring
atear at aptuscollaborative.com | atear at betaspring.com
Twitter | @aptuscollab | @betaspring
401.301.0849
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20110719/6348c0e1/attachment.htm>