Not In My Backyard

Bay View is in a tizzy over a recent outbreak of burglaries and vandalism.

Smashed windows, stolen goods, and on and on. None of that is fun or fair. But life's not fair. Being born into and living in poverty isn't fair. (Yes, I know, this isn't all impoverished youths. Some of it is, no doubt, dirtbags being dirtbags for entirely different reasons.)

The answer to increased crime isn't "we must cut everything except for the police." Yet most of what passes for discussion on this matter is - "more police!"

The police and fire departments in the City of Milwaukee already garner nearly 90% of the entire City budget!

Milwaukee also has twice as many police officers as similar sized cities.

The answer isn't more money for police and more police.

Why don't we try policies that benefit education, health care, infrastructure and those most in need? Rather than giving millions and billions to the Brewers, the Bucks, Foxconn, Harley Davidson, Mercury Marine, etc. How about the ridiculously rich of the community help to teach the under-educated, provide transportation options to available jobs and arrange gainful employment? Having such a privileged place in society, how about helping to be part of the solution, rather than just pointing fingers, screaming about the problem and only seeing "lock 'em up!" as the solution.

How can we ask working-poor and working-class people to pay taxes for Foxconn billionaires and then lose our shit when some poor kid steals or ruins something nice? Can we devalue life any more? Oh, such a lovely, caring Christian country. Give to the rich, take from the poor and then get all bent out of shape when the poor person decides they'd like a piece of the pie, too. If you think this is making American great again, you're a fucking idiot!

The other sad part of this drama (as it plays out on neighborhood groups on Facebook among the victims of robbery or vandalism) is how the same people decrying the increase in crime, didn't give a shit when it was happening in other parts of town. Then, it was somebody else's problem.

But now that their shit is getting stolen, we all need to pitch-in to buy more police to protect their shit...no matter the cost. Suddenly these bastions of conservatism, low-taxation and a hands-off government, now they're full-blown socialists dependent on the government to protect their property. Costs no longer matter. Spend whatever it takes!

Are we under some delusion that we can hire a police officer - without any increase in taxes - for every street, every alley, every block and that, somehow, we're going to eliminate all bad things?

Too much of my taxes already go toward the Pentagon and the local police presence. More men (88% of officers are men) walking and driving around carrying guns doesn't solve any of these problems. It just squeezes budgets with increased police costs.

If you don't solve why people aren't working, why the jobs aren't there, we're just continuing a cycle of crime and incarceration. If you don't give a person something to live for, a reason, something to have some sense of self about, what do you expect from that person? How do expect that person to function in society?

All we ever hear about is how high taxes are. Taxes must be cut. They are such a burden. Politicians get elected promising to cut taxes.

Yet, somehow more money needs to appear so we can police our way out of the problem. How much are you willing to have your taxes raised?

Those of you that feel more police are the answer, start sending those checks to the City. The tax return you're about to get - send it to the City. The next raise you get at work - fork that amount over to the City. You get the point - put your money where your mouth is. Services (like the police...especially the police) cost money.

We already pay too much and have too many police. If you'd like to double-down on this always-more-police experiment, you know where to send the money.

Put Your Money Where Your Yard Sign Is

If you are one of those gung-ho, 'back the badge' crusaders; one who believes there is never enough police and the costs for those police are always justified, then you need to pay more in taxes. The police take up the majority of nearly every municipal budget, and their burden on budgets continually grows.

So how about if you have a 'back the badge' sign in your yard, or when you obtain your 'back the badge' sign, you're automatically signed up for an additional 10% tax on your yearly earnings to help pay for the exorbitant costs of the police? Otherwise, how about supporting a mayor when he tries to reign in the ever-increasing demands and costs from police departments?

They promise to serve and protect, and in return, Milwaukee police officers are rewarded with full pensions after 25 years on the job. For some, that means retirement as early as age 42. Milwaukee's mayor said the costs are cutting into public safety. 

"Unfortunately, it's going not to police officers on the street. It's going to pay for their pension," Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said in October. 

So how expensive are these police pensions? WISN 12 News did the math. 

According to city records, a 42-year-old retiree gets an average $57,134 in pension yearly. By the time he's 65, he'll have collected $1.3 million. If he lives to 80, he'll collect an additional $857,000. That's more than a $2.1 million pension payout. 

But there's more than one. 

The average retirement age at Milwaukee Police Department is 53, but there are 834 officers between 42 and 52 currently collecting pensions. The cost to taxpayers for a single year is nearly $48 million. [source]

Streetcar Or Safety

Looks like Milwaukee Alderman Tony Zielinkski might be setting himself up as a challenger in a run to be the Mayor of Milwaukee.

Current Mayor Tom Barrett recently announced he might have to eliminate some safety-worker positions (police officers, firefighters,nurses, code inspectors) due to budgetary constraints.

Zielinkski immediately ridiculed the Mayor, saying even mentioning the possibility of cutting positions as "reckless" and "unreasonable".

Zielinkski framed the discussion as being between keeping the positions and building the streetcar. Because those are the only two budgetary choices that can be made - keep safety positions or build a streetcar?

And, just for some context, Wisconsin has spent over a billion dollars on new stadiums for the Brewers, Bucks and Packers in the last decade. Private sport structures whose benefits go to their private owners. But Milwaukee spending $128 million on a streetcar to be used by residents, tourists and businesses is a waste?

Barrett, himself, even stated that cutting those positions is not what he wants. But sometimes, as Mayor, you have to make choices that won't please everyone.

I get that the streetcar is a bit of a lightning rod and certain persons with access to the media love to pile on about what a waste the streetcar is. Although every other major city has some sort of streetcar, light rail or similar. So, it seems more like, as usual, Milwaukee is behind the curve as far as what businesses and workers want in amenities and infrastructure. Local infrastructure is what creates jobs and draws businesses, residents and tourists.

In our current police-state era, funding for defense/police/safety can never be diminished. More officers and more guns, always. In 2013, 59% of the City of Milwaukee budget went to just the police (41%) and fire (18%) departments.

We've been doing this for decades now, it hasn't worked. To keep funding this imaginary, more-cops-is-the-answer paradigm, is simply throwing away money. Why, when it comes to defense or safety, is there no limit on the amount of people needed or the amount of money that should be spent? At the local, state and federal level, America's defense/safety budgets dwarf those of other nations. Yet, we're no safer. What is all this money being spent on? Seems like there is obviously a lot of efficiency that can be made.

The Police Association's President Michael Crivello stated, "We're going to do everything to keep this community safe, but we won't be as effective as we otherwise would be should we be properly staffed."  How is this quantified? What does "properly staffed" mean? What metrics is the Association using to determine safety, effectiveness, staffing, etc.?

Maybe we do need to keep the positions. But using fear and emotion to guide a decision is definitely not how policy should be made.

We should start by making a more scientific basis for these discussions and decisions. Platitudes and bumper-sticker slogans sound great, but they typically don't have the nuance and depth required for good public policy.

We could remove some exemptions, raise the local sales tax, add fees for certain services, collect more taxes, provide less incentives to private developers and businesses, and on and on. There are numerous ways fund the many services we all count on from our local government.

The saddest thing is that this is being pitted as a streetcar versus safety debate. It shouldn't be. These are not the only choices.