A friend from out of state wrote, and I decided to turn the reply into a post, since the subject has been annoying me:
Saw they’re cutting Minneapolis police budget?! Good luck with that!
Yeah. I agree with the idea of moving some police responsibilities to other groups, such as mental health professionals – that has proven successful in other cities, such as the pioneering CAHOOTS program in Eugene, OR. I think it’s overdue.
BUT.
They are pursuing this in a foolish manner. It’s going to take two to four years to stand up such an entity as the mental health professional responders, and during that time the police will continue to have to cover those situations until the new entities are competent for the job. Yes, the police will be responsible for those situations with reduced funding.
Immediately reducing money for the police is insane and a sign of operational incompetence.
The proper procedure is
- Ascertain the need
- Recognize the chronological latency of forming and training the new entity, whatever it is
- Recognize the police must continue to cover those emergencies until the new entity is online
- Recognize that #2 requires money
- Raise taxes temporarily to cover formation and training costs (Mpls City Council failure point)
- And when the new entity is online and competent, then reduce funding for the police and reduce taxes
Maybe the Council is terrified of raising taxes, I don’t know. We’re not the hunting grounds of Grover Norquist, notorious hater of taxes (and crippler of societies), so it’s a little puzzling – and makes me wonder if a substantial portion of the Council is fixated on hating MPD.
But, for comparison, a business would recognize that the development of a new capability requires investment, it doesn’t come for free no matter how much monies are desperately rearranged. Cities don’t get a pass. Raise the damn taxes or sell bonds or do what you need to do, but recognize you’re imperiling your citizens through this foolish approach to a worthy goal, and those citizens will be crying out in rejection of those policies.
OK, rant done.
