city limits and Tulsa Gov't vehicles

[moosedaddy]

Thanks bokworker I had not thought of the fewer number.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by moosedaddy

Is there a distance limit for other city departments?  I live about 2 miles east of Inola, and there is a woman in animal control driving a city of Tulsa truck that lives about 1/2 a mile away.

I know the pickup with a special bed cannot get the gas mileage the police cars do so this is costing even more. Why should animal control be able to take their trucks home is homeland security worried about terrorist blowing something up with dogs?  

Everyone needs to get rid of the idea that Homeland Security is only about terrorists.  Homeland Security has to do with securing the homeland from everything, many of which include natural disasters.

Many people complained about how the Homeland Security Department responded to the hurricane that hit New Orleans.  But what most people don't understand is, your local government is your first responder, not the Feds.  Those first 48-72 hours are going to be local people only.  If a third or a half of your local car/truck fleet is eliminated because of the natural disaster (like what happened in New Orleans) then your first responders can't respond.  Park all your police cars at one place, and that one place gets hit by a tornado, how do you expect those first responders to respond?  

Not sure about Animal Control officers being allowed to take trucks home.  I know if they were on call, they could.  Then that went away during LaFortune.  Not sure if it came back or not, but may have.

And, haven't we beat this topic like a dead horse several times in the past?

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

I think the case for letting officers take the cars home is well founded....No one has made a decent point for not letting them take them home other than fuel cost....Which to me is just cheap insurance.....

Cheap?  It costs you $32,000,000 for police vehicles, per the May 2006 renewal of the "Temporary" Itty-Bitty Third Penny Sales Tax.

PLUS, operating costs of fuel, tires, and maintenance, burned up commuting to Mannford, Broken Arrow, Owasso, Jenks, Sapulpa, etc., and also driving to Moonlighting jobs.

"It cost money to do things".....

[jne]

It is a HUGE benefit to have a FREE take home vehicle and it is clearly being abused by cops who are racking up miles for there own ends and some   completely disrespecting traffic laws as they do so.  That said. It seems like a sound policy to have take home cars.  Driving the same car will encourage better care of the vehicles.  The presence of those police cars parked in neighborhoods and driving to and from work is a crime deterrent, and response times are enhanced.  So how do you address the $ bleed?  There clearly needs to be an incentive plan to live in Tulsa and serve Tulsa by providing a presence with your cruiser.  Those folks who are commuting from the suburbs ought to be willing to accept that their take home vehicle is claiming a little more share of the fringe than someone who lives in midtown.  Next pay increase ought to reward officers for living in Tulsa and step back a reasonable fee for anyone who doesn't. Those folks living in the suburbs are saving big cash on the home they get for the money and commuting costs.  Why live in town with such an incentive to live outside?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by moosedaddy

Is there a distance limit for other city departments?  I live about 2 miles east of Inola, and there is a woman in animal control driving a city of Tulsa truck that lives about 1/2 a mile away.

I know the pickup with a special bed cannot get the gas mileage the police cars do so this is costing even more. Why should animal control be able to take their trucks home is homeland security worried about terrorist blowing something up with dogs?  

Everyone needs to get rid of the idea that Homeland Security is only about terrorists.  Homeland Security has to do with securing the homeland from everything, many of which include natural disasters.

Many people complained about how the Homeland Security Department responded to the hurricane that hit New Orleans.  But what most people don't understand is, your local government is your first responder, not the Feds.  Those first 48-72 hours are going to be local people only.  If a third or a half of your local car/truck fleet is eliminated because of the natural disaster (like what happened in New Orleans) then your first responders can't respond.  Park all your police cars at one place, and that one place gets hit by a tornado, how do you expect those first responders to respond?  

Not sure about Animal Control officers being allowed to take trucks home.  I know if they were on call, they could.  Then that went away during LaFortune.  Not sure if it came back or not, but may have.

And, haven't we beat this topic like a dead horse several times in the past?

Well, comparing apples to oranges doesn't aid any Cost-Benefit analysis of whether police cars should be sent home with a policeman.    

Rather than just THROWING away money on the pretext it MIGHT be included under the aegis of Heimat Sicherheitdienst (Homeland Security), maybe just maybe, our preparedness should be governed by a Risk Assessment.

New Orleans, Houston and Miami have completely different risk profiles than Tulsa. They have chosen to build their metropolises in areas subject to perpetually recurrent WIDE-AREA DISASTERS.

In Tulsa, our greatest risks are extremely short-duration tornados, and longer-duration ice-storms.  

Secondarily, our risk of a major refinery fire with two occupying the central core of our city, should be part of our risk profile.

Assigning a risk to a terrorist attack is virtually unquantifiable, having two instances of actual attacks in the U.S. by Islamic Fundamentalists in the past 14 years, both in NYC, unless you also count the downing of TWA Flight 800......also in NYC..........which would make three instances.

And, the impact of ice-storms could be substantially defrayed if the city simply required that major electrical trunk lines be BURIED, and thus immune to wind or ice storms.  Recurrent bad weather repeatedly causes predictable power disruptions that cause a major impact on the citizenry.

But, of course this isn't a requirement of AEP/PSO.

Wonder why??

Oh, is it because they donate so generously to pass the Kaiser River Tax (expected) Vision 2025, Third-Penny Sales Tax, It's Tulsa Time, the Tulsa Project, and that gives them a PASS on basic infrastructure hardening.....................??

[moosedaddy]

Wilbur - when I hear the term Homeland Security the first thing that comes to my mind is security not first responders.  Yes I lnow animal control is important however I do not see how it fits under Homeland Security/First Responders.  I try to keep an open mind about most things, I know this is a little off topic but would you please explain how animal control falls under homeland security.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by moosedaddy

Wilbur - when I hear the term Homeland Security the first thing that comes to my mind is security not first responders.  Yes I lnow animal control is important however I do not see how it fits under Homeland Security/First Responders.  I try to keep an open mind about most things, I know this is a little off topic but would you please explain how animal control falls under homeland security.

I agree Homeland Security is about security, not just response to an incident.  Security covers a large area, which was my point.  Homeland Security recommends large governments don't put all their people under one roof (like Tulsa's new city hall), they recommend against parking all your emergency vehicles in one place (like a lot of Tulsa Now Forum members want to do), they are actively involved in major events, such as the Superbowl, Olympics, Republican and Democrat National Conventions, ..... the list goes on and on.  Homeland Security also buys lots of emergency equipment for local and state governments, of which Tulsa and Oklahoma has done very well.

And I'm not making the argument that animal control officers might fall under Homeland Security (they might argue differently, I don't know).  Most of Tulsa's Animal Control officers respond, after hours, to police requests, which probably happens nearly every day.  Police are not equipped to deal with dangerous animals.  Police arrest a drunk driver with an animal in the car, the animal has to go someplace.  You have a dead person in a home with an animal present, that animal has to go someplace.  You have an animal in a car in a car crash and the driver goes to the hospital, that animal has to go someplace.  You have a cow/horse roaming the expressway, those animals have to be dealt with by someone with some expertise.  Animal Control officers respond to those types of things on a regular basis, 24-7.

[moosedaddy]

Thanks for the clarification.

[RecycleMichael]

Channel eight has this story...

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0907/453649.html

Take Home Vehicle Policy For Tulsa Police In Jeopardy  
Friday September 07, 2007
Abby Ross   Tulsa - Before long, some Tulsa police officers may not be able to take home their patrol cars. They have had a take-home vehicle policy for three years, but a new ordinance is putting that in jeopardy.

The new policy means if you live outside the Tulsa city limits, you won't see any patrol cars parked in your neighborhood. Right now, it's written in their contract that police officers can take home their cars wherever they live. But, that contract expires June 30th.

You don't always need an officer to cut down crime. A police car may be enough, or at least Carter Bates thinks so.

"That police car is parked across the street."




"What do you think about that?"

"Fine. I have no problem whatsoever."

"Feel safer?"

"Oh yeah."

Last Christmas, a teenager, going way over the speed limit, drove into Carter's seven-thousand dollar fence -- a disaster Carter says, may have not have happened if a police car was sitting nearby.

"Just the presence of a police car, you can meet one coming down the road and you slow down."

Tulsa police want to continue taking their cars home. But, starting July first, it may not be possible. The city passed an ordinance that won't let employees take home their city cars if they live outside of Tulsa. Right now, police are exempt. But, if the Fraternal Order of Police can't get a new contract by June 30th, they say they'll lose their car privilege.

"We'd like to preserve that police presence not only in this community but in other communities," says former FOP President Bob Jackson.

Police say their take home cars allow them to respond to emergencies faster. And, like Carter says, they make the public feel safer. But, Carter doesn't live in Tulsa. His tax dollars aren't paying for the gas. So we asked a Tulsan if it's worth her money.

"Sure," says Sheila Harris. "I don't see why not. They're putting their lives on the line for us, so why not?"

City officials won't comment on any negotiation issue. The FOP wrote a memo to the city, threatening legal action. The latest figures show the city spends about 1-point-1 million dollars in gas and maintenance for police take-home cars. But, that was when gasoline averaged around two dollars a gallon.

[shadows]

Gee! I never thought of the hundreds of police cars that were damaged in the flooding in New Orleans.  Lets see they had a weeks warning of the approaching storm but those who were responsible for the city cars just let them set instead of moving them out of harms way.  Like the 86 flood on the Keystone everyone, even after being warned,  
just waited to see how deep the waters would get.

The city quit letting outsiders make surveys over 15 years ago when they paid $50,000 for a report that pointed out the city was over staffed with duplicating positions.      

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by MH2010

Friendlybear, The Department of Homeland security suggests that police department DO NOT park large numbers of police vehicles in areas.  They suggest take-home cars are one of the safest ways to insure that in an emergency (terrorist attack, natural disaster ect) officers will be able to effectively get to and operate their vehicles.

Youngtulsan has a great point.  Officers have been for that for years but the city won't do anything about it.

Recyclemichael, we've talked about this at length in previous threads.  Officers would love to support Tulsa but officers want to support their families more.  Officers can get more house for less money in the surrounding areas.  Also officers feel like they are less likely to run into someone they arrested when they are with their family when they are outside the city. If the city were to reward officers for living in the city then I'm sure more would move back in.  

The Heimat Sicherheitdienst SAYS oh please take your city-owned police car home to reduce the concentration of police cars??

How CONVENIENT......

Pure Bunk.

If the police cars are concentrated, then they can be easily GUARDED.

And, what was your previous lame excuse when Mayor Silly-Susan Savage promoted this bone-headed, wasteful expenditure for police care Take-Home policy during her Regime:

It's a matter of PUBLIC SAFETY.

Public Safety in MANNFORD??

In Bixby?

In Sapulpa?

Sorry, their problems are NOT my problem.....

Let those suburban city residents pay for their own police protection....

[Radio]

quote:



The Bone-Headed, intensely wasteful City Police-Car Take-home policy started under Mayor Silly-Susan Savage. It was her way of ingratiating herself with her personal Praetorian Guard, and of also burning up additional Third-Penny Sales tax with the local car dealers with whom the Police Car order were place.  

I am confused on this one... Who pays that third penny sales tax on a municipal vehicle?

quote:
We now have approximately 800 police cars for 800 police.

Actually you may have more.  Reserve cars, special service vehicles, etc.

quote:

NO OTHER MAJOR CITY in the U.S. has such a blanket policy. NONE.

Source please.  Without even the first DDP of the morning, Nashville TN does.  

quote:


It was promoted as aiding "public safety".

There is NO U.S. Dept. of Injustice Crime Statistic that a city with a police car TAKE HOME policy has one iota affect on crime.  NONE.  

You know what?  You are right!  There are none!

Of course, there is also no U. S. Dept. of Injustice Crime Statistic that says that an
officer wearing black socks has one iota effect
on crime either.  NONE.  

Possibly because there is no category in the crime reports for such a reporting item, and that the Justice Department has never done a study on it.

If you don't study it, you ain't going to report on it.  

quote:

If the police officer lived outside of Tulsa, they parked the car on their way home at a city-owned facility, like a city fire station.

Sort of shoots the security arguement that is being offered here.  Fire Departments often respond to FIRES and other emergencies, which would leave those cars unguarded.  Of course,
we could then require that the Fire Department leave one person at the fire station when they respond to guard everything....

quote:
Tell me a new lie about the benefits of our bone-headed, wasteful Police Car Take-Home policy.

Not going to lie to you - I would rather tell you about the things that take home cars DO that are good, like officer moral, length of service for the vehicles, (The take home cars are taken better care of, making them last longer) and yes, more marked vehicles on the street.

Finally, if you have 1 car that gets to 100,000 miles in a year, working three shifts, or three cars that take three years to get to 100,000 miles - and has a better resale value because they have been better taken care of, what is the difference?

[shadows]

This could be a new way to commit armed robberies.  

It may come to where the citizen when he does his yard work should take a gun with him.

Not wanting to bring up a past discussion but if a police car had been parked on the street in the area of the recent  murder, instead of one of the suburb cities, would there have been a chance these yard robberies and murder would not have accrued?  

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

This could be a new way to commit armed robberies.  

It may come to where the citizen when he does his yard work should take a gun with him.

Not wanting to bring up a past discussion but if a police car had been parked on the street in the area of the recent  murder, instead of one of the suburb cities, would there have been a chance these yard robberies and murder would not have accrued?  

objection...speculation

[shadows]

quote:Originally posted by Townsend

quote:Originally posted by shadows

This could be a new way to commit armed robberies.  

It may come to where the citizen when he does his yard work should take a gun with him.

Not wanting to bring up a past discussion but if a police car had been parked on the street in the area of the recent  murder, instead of one of the suburb cities, would there have been a chance these yard robberies and murder would not have accrued?  

objection...speculation

Exception-assumption it would happen under written testimony herein as a deterrent in burbs.