William Matt
It is my pledge to always seek justice on behalf of the City of Lansing. As your neighbor, I will work diligently to find responsible solutions to our challenges, and lead with a vision guided by a hope of an ever-better city.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Lansing Crime Rates
Much ado has been made about the recent crime study by the CQ Press ranking Detroit as the most dangerous city in the US. The FBI was quick to point out that the methodology is flawed, but I don't think anyone here would argue that Detroit is pretty darn dangerous, with Flint right behind ranked #3.
How does Lansing fare? (LINK)
We are ranked 109th most dangerous city out of 378 in the study. Pretty high actually, based on 2006 statistics.
It looks like bigger cities face harsher criticism as the top ten or twenty cities are all cities you have heard of, and the safest ten-twenty are smaller towns most people haven't heard much of.
Criticism (LINK): The FBI posted a statement on its website saying: "These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state or region." The American Society of Criminology said the rankings were "an irresponsible misuse" of crime data.
How does Lansing fare? (LINK)
We are ranked 109th most dangerous city out of 378 in the study. Pretty high actually, based on 2006 statistics.
It looks like bigger cities face harsher criticism as the top ten or twenty cities are all cities you have heard of, and the safest ten-twenty are smaller towns most people haven't heard much of.
Criticism (LINK): The FBI posted a statement on its website saying: "These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state or region." The American Society of Criminology said the rankings were "an irresponsible misuse" of crime data.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Camera Vote Tonight!
Well, by the email and blog posts at LSJ.com on the camera story, it seems to be capturing the attention of many Lansing residents. In my short 4 months, it is definitely the most heated topic to come before City Council. I wanted to make a short post about how and why I will vote tonight, as I currently stand.
First, my prediction is the proposal will fail. I don't think it will be close. Sandy is leaning against, Derrick and Carol are firmly against, and I don't think Brian will vote in favor of it either. That leaves only a possible 4 votes for, well shy of the needed 6 to pass.
The top 5 reasons and arguments I am considering in voting FOR the Act 99 funding are:
1) I believe in providing the best possible technology and tools available for the police to do their jobs, as effectively and efficiently as possible. This is yet another tool for them to help fight crime and keep Lansing residents safe. It won't eliminate crime, but neither do police cars. They just make the police more effective in doing their jobs.
2) Act 99 provides low cost funding for infrastructure and capital improvement projects for municipalities. I would much rather pay for this over 5 years than have other departments or projects cut from this years budget, as the Mayor has indicated may happen. The legal issue behind what he proposes is certainly arguable, though I'm told that since the budget we pass is not a "line item" budget, he has the flexibility to do what he says he will.
3) Neighbors in high crime areas are asking for assistance, cameras included. I spoke to a neighborhood watch captain this morning specifically to get her opinion on cameras. She is all for them, and is astounded and resentful that there is opposition. She is working to mobilize her neighbors to sign and speak out on behalf of cameras tonight. I still say, put them in areas where residents want them, and if residents don't want them, find another one that does.
4) It is not "Cops" versus "Cameras". Despite what you would hear, the issue before us is not an either-or proposition. We are not being asked to fund one or another, we are being asked to approve a specific funding mechanism for cameras. Everyone would love to have more police on the streets, though statistically we are in the higher range of officers per resident compared to similar cities. Though we all support more officers, this is not an option before us at this time. If a resolution came before us for more officers, I would support it. This would have to be a big expenditure though to have an impact. If say, 2 officers were added, my fear is that it would have little or no impact on how many officers are on the streets, and in your neighborhoods. It could be absorbed just to reduce overtime. I would think that the minimum number of additional police officers needed for any substantial impact would be ten officers, at about a million dollars a year.
5) The technology we have does have some problems, and we are working on resolving them. The cameras not being bought with Act 99, not only would not speed up fixing these problems, but could potentially slow down fixing these problems, if money was diverted in the exiting budget to pay for the fixes. Yes, we have some equipment not working perfectly. It never will be perfect. If we waited until it was all perfect before we bought something new, then we would never get anything new.
6) Ok, I said 5, but now I'm on a roll! Privacy advocates claim this is illegal search and an invasion of privacy. I worked in the private security industry for many years. In a typical Meijer store there are maybe 40 cameras, and there are still areas of the 200,000 square foot store that you can't see. So Ten cameras covering 30 square miles on public street corners is an invasion of your privacy? I respectfully disagree.
7) Lansing should not be in a wait and see mode, we should be proactive and a leader in the world. That goes for economic development and for crime fighting strategies. If we waited for some residents and all council members to approve a technology, we would still be using morse code instead of radios and telephones! Some people think that by standing still, you are actually doing something. My position is that by standing still, you are actually moving backwards.
8) It is a small price to pay for the potential good. I have heard about the price being too high, but where were these complaints when we approved a 30 million dollar a year police budget. $75,000 a year to pay back is one quarter of one percent. .0025. Is that too much to pay for safety, reducing crimes, and reducing victims of crimes? Is $100,000 too much to pay? As long as we are setting a price tag on safety, what is your threshold...$500, $1,000? Seriously, I want to know?
9) Crime will move around the corner. The study that we received stated that crime does move when displaced, but when it reoccurs, it is reduced significantly. Criminals have a hard time getting up and running and comfortable in the new area. That is certainly something to keep an eye on. As a bonus, not only does direct crime go down when it is displaced, but neighboring areas see a reduction as well, an unintended positive side effect of camera use. Besides, I would rather have crime on the run, than have it comfortable and accepted.
First, my prediction is the proposal will fail. I don't think it will be close. Sandy is leaning against, Derrick and Carol are firmly against, and I don't think Brian will vote in favor of it either. That leaves only a possible 4 votes for, well shy of the needed 6 to pass.
The top 5 reasons and arguments I am considering in voting FOR the Act 99 funding are:
1) I believe in providing the best possible technology and tools available for the police to do their jobs, as effectively and efficiently as possible. This is yet another tool for them to help fight crime and keep Lansing residents safe. It won't eliminate crime, but neither do police cars. They just make the police more effective in doing their jobs.
2) Act 99 provides low cost funding for infrastructure and capital improvement projects for municipalities. I would much rather pay for this over 5 years than have other departments or projects cut from this years budget, as the Mayor has indicated may happen. The legal issue behind what he proposes is certainly arguable, though I'm told that since the budget we pass is not a "line item" budget, he has the flexibility to do what he says he will.
3) Neighbors in high crime areas are asking for assistance, cameras included. I spoke to a neighborhood watch captain this morning specifically to get her opinion on cameras. She is all for them, and is astounded and resentful that there is opposition. She is working to mobilize her neighbors to sign and speak out on behalf of cameras tonight. I still say, put them in areas where residents want them, and if residents don't want them, find another one that does.
4) It is not "Cops" versus "Cameras". Despite what you would hear, the issue before us is not an either-or proposition. We are not being asked to fund one or another, we are being asked to approve a specific funding mechanism for cameras. Everyone would love to have more police on the streets, though statistically we are in the higher range of officers per resident compared to similar cities. Though we all support more officers, this is not an option before us at this time. If a resolution came before us for more officers, I would support it. This would have to be a big expenditure though to have an impact. If say, 2 officers were added, my fear is that it would have little or no impact on how many officers are on the streets, and in your neighborhoods. It could be absorbed just to reduce overtime. I would think that the minimum number of additional police officers needed for any substantial impact would be ten officers, at about a million dollars a year.
5) The technology we have does have some problems, and we are working on resolving them. The cameras not being bought with Act 99, not only would not speed up fixing these problems, but could potentially slow down fixing these problems, if money was diverted in the exiting budget to pay for the fixes. Yes, we have some equipment not working perfectly. It never will be perfect. If we waited until it was all perfect before we bought something new, then we would never get anything new.
6) Ok, I said 5, but now I'm on a roll! Privacy advocates claim this is illegal search and an invasion of privacy. I worked in the private security industry for many years. In a typical Meijer store there are maybe 40 cameras, and there are still areas of the 200,000 square foot store that you can't see. So Ten cameras covering 30 square miles on public street corners is an invasion of your privacy? I respectfully disagree.
7) Lansing should not be in a wait and see mode, we should be proactive and a leader in the world. That goes for economic development and for crime fighting strategies. If we waited for some residents and all council members to approve a technology, we would still be using morse code instead of radios and telephones! Some people think that by standing still, you are actually doing something. My position is that by standing still, you are actually moving backwards.
8) It is a small price to pay for the potential good. I have heard about the price being too high, but where were these complaints when we approved a 30 million dollar a year police budget. $75,000 a year to pay back is one quarter of one percent. .0025. Is that too much to pay for safety, reducing crimes, and reducing victims of crimes? Is $100,000 too much to pay? As long as we are setting a price tag on safety, what is your threshold...$500, $1,000? Seriously, I want to know?
9) Crime will move around the corner. The study that we received stated that crime does move when displaced, but when it reoccurs, it is reduced significantly. Criminals have a hard time getting up and running and comfortable in the new area. That is certainly something to keep an eye on. As a bonus, not only does direct crime go down when it is displaced, but neighboring areas see a reduction as well, an unintended positive side effect of camera use. Besides, I would rather have crime on the run, than have it comfortable and accepted.
Labels: cameras, crime, lansing, police, safety
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Crime Fighting Strategy
Today the City Council Public Safety committee will be discussing the Mayor's crime prevention strategy, but I expect most of the focus to be on the controversial camera plan. Unfortunately the broader scope of implementing PROGRAMS to help build families and guide youth to the proper path. These long term strategies are vital in our community, and it is my hope that they receive as much attention, input from the community, scrutiny and resources as the cameras have. Part of the plan includes: (LINK)
and to quote the Mayor:
In addition, the crime prevention plan fails to address building and supporting programs that prevent violence against women, as has been repeatedly pointed out by Melissa Dey Hasbrook these past few weeks in letters to Council and the Mayor. More great information can be found on her blog at (WOMEN WRITERS).
Engaging the community and building programs are the visionary strategies I support for Lansing. How do we get started?
... expanded youth development programs that engage and empower young people to get on and stay on the right road, and the addition of a Neighborhood Watch Officer to greatly expand the reach of neighborhood watch organizations city-wide.
and to quote the Mayor:
..."encourages and empowers Lansing residents to work together to create safer neighborhoods, and helps our young people to get and stay on the right road"
In addition, the crime prevention plan fails to address building and supporting programs that prevent violence against women, as has been repeatedly pointed out by Melissa Dey Hasbrook these past few weeks in letters to Council and the Mayor. More great information can be found on her blog at (WOMEN WRITERS).
Engaging the community and building programs are the visionary strategies I support for Lansing. How do we get started?
Labels: Bill Matt, cameras, crime, lansing city council, women writers
Monday, July 2, 2007
News Roundup - What's your thought?
A few things going on this past weekend that I wanted to share:
First, my family and I attended the Potter Park ribbon cutting ceremony Sunday and then stayed in the park for a few more hours. Free events are great and the weather was perfect. I introduced my family to Mayor Bernero and the boys were very excited to meet him. I am happy that the region stepped forward to financially support the zoo. It is a great hometown attraction! My favorite exhibit? I like the Otters. Look for the new Bald Eagle exhibit to open later this year. In addition, I am up for appointment tonight to the Zoo Board. I know one council member will not support this appointment, however I respect her decision.
Monday brought the tragic news of another Lansing shooting death. The State Journal article can be found by clicking here.
My heart felt condolances go out to this young man's family and neighbors.
Sunday the LSJ reported on a lack of police communication signals in South West Lansing. We have over 95% coverage in the city, and the plan is for an additional radio tower in SW Lansing to help alleviate this problem. We are concerned, and working on fixing the problem.
On Saturday, there was a story on census statistics and how Lansing is again losing population. Why do people leave a community? My own personal experience is that it is do to parents looking for better educational opportunities for their kids. Maybe the older housing stock drives people to look for newly built houses. Maybe they desire larger properties and a little personal space. Maybe reports of crime and violence drive people away. I'm sure many factors play into these decisions. One thing I would like to see happen in Lansing is a U-Promise type scholarship like they arranged for in Kalamazoo. Kids graduating from K-zoo public schools are awarded college scholarships, and people are actually moving back into the city now! The issue is huge, but certainly not unique to Lansing. What do you think? Click on the comment link and leave your comments!
First, my family and I attended the Potter Park ribbon cutting ceremony Sunday and then stayed in the park for a few more hours. Free events are great and the weather was perfect. I introduced my family to Mayor Bernero and the boys were very excited to meet him. I am happy that the region stepped forward to financially support the zoo. It is a great hometown attraction! My favorite exhibit? I like the Otters. Look for the new Bald Eagle exhibit to open later this year. In addition, I am up for appointment tonight to the Zoo Board. I know one council member will not support this appointment, however I respect her decision.
Monday brought the tragic news of another Lansing shooting death. The State Journal article can be found by clicking here.
My heart felt condolances go out to this young man's family and neighbors.
Sunday the LSJ reported on a lack of police communication signals in South West Lansing. We have over 95% coverage in the city, and the plan is for an additional radio tower in SW Lansing to help alleviate this problem. We are concerned, and working on fixing the problem.
On Saturday, there was a story on census statistics and how Lansing is again losing population. Why do people leave a community? My own personal experience is that it is do to parents looking for better educational opportunities for their kids. Maybe the older housing stock drives people to look for newly built houses. Maybe they desire larger properties and a little personal space. Maybe reports of crime and violence drive people away. I'm sure many factors play into these decisions. One thing I would like to see happen in Lansing is a U-Promise type scholarship like they arranged for in Kalamazoo. Kids graduating from K-zoo public schools are awarded college scholarships, and people are actually moving back into the city now! The issue is huge, but certainly not unique to Lansing. What do you think? Click on the comment link and leave your comments!
Labels: crime, lansing, news, population, potter park zoo
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
