Gov. Ed Rendell proposed funding for 100 new Philadelphia police officers at a press conference in City Hall this morning, which would double the state’s support of the city’s police force.
In a budget he will present to state legislators tomorrow, Rendell proposes spending $20 million a year over the next three years on his statewide “Police on Patrol” initiative. Half of that would go to Philadelphia, enough to hire 100 new police officers.
“The budget I will unveil tomorrow in Harrisburg will help make Philadelphia safer,” Rendell said in a statement.
Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey said the 100 new officers would be used for patrol duties. Last week, Ramsey unveiled a new crime strategy anchored by his plan to shift 200 officers into street duty in the city’s most violent neighborhoods.
The state legislature must approve Rendell’s budget before Philadelphia can receive the new funding, and unless the allocation is renewed after three years the city would eventually have to find funds in its own budget to pay for the new officers.
Comments (8)
http://ework.phila.gov/philagov/news/prelease.asp?id=206
OCTOBER 2005: "The creation of the two casinos would also necessitate hiring approximately 100 additional police officers."
Today, Rendell announced funding for 100 new Phila police officers...and the Gaming Advisory Task Force estimated in October 2005 that casinos would necessitate the hiring of...100 new police officers! What are the odds on that?
This is the Classic Rendell Flim-Flam: he gets credit for 'new' police officers...while it's his casino policy that created the need for the new police officers in the first place. By the time these new police officers are recruited, trained, and on the street - I'll bet Rendell is counting on the casinos being operational.
I read in late December in the Fishtown Star that Philadelphia Deputy Police Commissioner Giorgio Fox said there will be police district specifically for the two Delaware River casinos. He added that the district would start with 80 officers and potentially reach 140 officers.
According Rendell's press conference today, $20MM funds 200 officers from soup to nuts. That comes out to $100,000 in expenses a year per officer.
Will someone ask Rendell if...
1) ...these 100 new police officers includes the 100-140 officers needed to staff the Phila. casino district?
2) ...the new officers are truly allocated for high violence neighborhoods - how will the ADDITIONAL 80-140 police officers for the casino district be funded?
3) Finally, will Rendell count this additional policing cost for 80-140 new officers against the $26MM the city will reap in casino revenues? Policing alone would be a potential $8-14 million dollar PER YEAR expense
Posted by RB | February 4, 2008 11:34 PM
Posted on February 4, 2008 23:34
Plus Perzel has moved forward with a deft parliamentarian understanding of the state legislature in getting funding for police in Philly, so Rendell has to get back in front of the issue again.
It's all good. Good for Rendell, good for Perzel, and both will reap dividends for their efforts.
While the city is creating a new police district, they may wish to redistrict some of the safer police districts to include small slices of the less safe police districts, while adding police all around.
The new Ramsey plan to step up police in 9 districts really leaves some of the districts with problems that are arguably just as severe hanging.
Not sure why some districts were chosen over others. For example, the 17th District was not chosen for extra police, while the 35th was (the one next to the 5th).
Some districts with higher homicides, more violent crime, etc. get the same under the new Ramsey plan, while other districts get souped up new focus.
I don't think the press went into the rationale for each of the chosen districts enough. Thought the maps, though, deserve some kind of interactive graphic prize, however.
Pulitzers need to go for online interactive maps as well.
Posted by ljlong | February 5, 2008 1:31 AM
Posted on February 5, 2008 01:31
Perzel has been trying to pass a bill that would give Philly even more police than that, and somehow Dwight Evans has a problem with that.
It seems too much like whatever the conservatives want to do, above all else, they have to bend over backwards to make the idea, the action, the closing, look like it was the democrats.
In fact, it was the state and local democrats who felt that obfuscation was the best approach as blood is shed.
It's put me off the democratic party altogether, the local/state members. Where is the bipartisanship toward problem solving that everyone can take credit for?
Perzel had to write a letter to paper to get coverage of the issue that was balanced. I'm disappointed in the Ink/DN for not giving Perzel a fair hearing. It's so ridiculous that the Democrat gets column inches to rage about how awful the republicans are who want to add police to Philly, saying how awful it is that these evil conservatives just use police for everything. Then, the same liberals turn right around to announce their latest initiative to hire more police.
Perzel deserves a lot of credit for NOT ignoring Philly, not the impression at all you get from the paper. You don't even know what Dwight Evans is rambling about in response to the latest Perzel idea, because the Ink/DN hasn't covered it. You have to get Perzel's online newsletter to read up on his evidence based, informed, complex anti crime program for Philly and the state.
At least the Ink published a Perzel letter requesting a bipartisan passage of a bill now, not an "I thought of it first" fight.
www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/pa/14643806.html
Posted by ljlong | February 5, 2008 1:45 AM
Posted on February 5, 2008 01:45
You'd hope that Dems will simply get a bill passed rather than block a good bill to substitute a lesser bill that has their party on it. Come on people. Do we really have to keep voting republican to get a president who will counteract the forces of inertia?
I didn't want to vote for Bush, but he did have No Child Left Behind, something Europe has done for years, decades, and their results show it. Ditto Japan and other asian nations with a fraction of our GDP.
As for unfunded mandates, the city of Philadelphia has $527 million in uncollected property taxes. There's no reason any good mandate, any good idea, on crime, police, schools, or elsewhere has to be "unfunded" except that the local party in power makes it so.
Why is that? Who wins? Who loses?
Posted by ljlong | February 5, 2008 1:49 AM
Posted on February 5, 2008 01:49
This is why I'm forced to vote for McCain. If things continue as they are in Philly, with official negligence the result of back biting, in-fighting, and the struggle for credit, then Philly will have lost another generation.
Philly won't take the help it gets, and won't use the resources it has for fear that it will not be able to continue to cry poverty for funds. Too many Philly pols are just trying to build a voting base without touching the problems in their districts. They stay as far away from the problems as they possibly can, because they avoid controversy.
Philly will always have a large, politically powerful contingent of people who want crime. Crime is Philly's largest employer. The FBI probe outlined that flowchart nicely.
If the Perzels start putting their hands in it, what is any local state rep, or city council person going to do when one side says "why didn't you do that long ago" and the other says "why didn't you do that so we could have some say in it because it causes me to have to bail out my employees?"
Philly is terrified that the state will step in even more under Perzel, and can you blame them? He fixes what's broken really well. PPA is a good example. He's a good manager. He has smart, capable people working for him.
Frankly, I'm starting to think that if Perzel were governor, and the state took over more of Philly's failed functions, such as property tax collection, or the BRT, then we'd be a city like NYC, Boston, Chicago, London, or Berlin. We'd be that world class city we're supposed to be.
Posted by ljlong | February 5, 2008 2:03 AM
Posted on February 5, 2008 02:03
Why is Perzel talking about hiring 10,000 new police officers, and figuring out how to pay for while lowering taxes, and Rendell is talking about hiring the amount of police the casinos needed anyway?
Posted by Anonymous | February 5, 2008 2:10 AM
Posted on February 5, 2008 02:10
My question is why is the Ink and Daily News so hesitant to include information from Perzel about what he has in mind. When you compare the timeline and scope of what Perzel is doing to what Rendell is doing (and I support Rendell), Rendell pales in comparison.
All I'm saying -- press, do your job and be balanced. Stop trying to be the Dem party mouthpiece, and write the good news about the PA Republicans if they earn it.
Vis.,:
"Perzel Calls Rendell Response to Crime Totally Inadequate --Perzel pushes his 10,000 cops plan as the solution" from www.johnperzel.com
"Rep. John Perzel (R-Philadelphia) issued the following statement in response to Gov. Ed Rendell’s announcement of providing funding to hire only 100 new police officers for Philadelphia and none for the rest of Pennsylvania:
“While I am pleased that the governor agrees with me that the solution to Philadelphia’s mounting crime problem is to put more police on the street, I am disappointed that he is only willing to fund the hiring of 100 new police officers for Philadelphia. I am equally disappointed that he chose to ignore the rest of the state.
“Coming from Philadelphia, I want to make sure we get sufficient police to protect our citizens, but I also want to make sure the rest of Pennsylvania is adequately taken care of. Under my legislation, we can accommodate both by providing sufficient funding to help municipalities throughout Pennsylvania hire 10,000 new police officers over the next four years.
“Hiring more police is the answer. New York City saw its crime rate drop to its lowest point in 44 years after it hired 1,800 new cops. Under my plan, Philadelphia would be able to hire 1,345 new police officers over the next four years.
“Crime is on the rise throughout our Commonwealth. I have heard from police officers and prosecutors throughout the state that they need more manpower. Time and again they have told me that one of the most effective tools in fighting crime is putting more police on local streets and the biggest obstacle to hiring more police is money.
“My legislation – the Commonwealth Officers Act – would provide sufficient funding for communities all across Pennsylvania to hire 10,000 new police officers. It will increase the presence of local law enforcement in communities across Pennsylvania by dedicating state funds to help local communities afford more police.
“This groundbreaking legislation is the first of its kind in the nation to provide a dedicated funding source for local governments to beef up their police forces. Although it was passed unanimously by the House Judiciary Committee, it remains stuck in the Appropriations Committee where Chairman Dwight Evans has said it will not get a vote by the full House.
“It is time to put our partisan differences aside. The Commonwealth Officers Act must see the light of day so that all Pennsylvania’s communities – not just Philadelphia – can get the police protection they so desperately need. I urge Governor Rendell to support release of my legislation from the House Appropriations Committee.”
Rep. John Perzel
172nd District
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
(215) 331-2600
(717) 787-2016
www.JohnPerzel.com
Contact: Marty O’Rourke
(215) 882-2658
David J. Foster
(215) 514-3054
www.pahousegop.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 4, 2008
Posted by ljlong | February 5, 2008 1:53 PM
Posted on February 5, 2008 13:53
"I urge Governor Rendell to support release of my legislation from the House Appropriations Committee.” -- Perzel, 2/2008.
If the press did a better job of covering this issue, a la the NYT, we'd see the process of how legislation wends its way through the system, and the newspaper would be a primer on how to get things done.
Perzel is accusing Rendell of holding up productive legislation. You don't get that sense from most of the press coverage in Philly, which is a strange oversight, given how different the coverage would be if the parties were reversed.
The paper has to cover their fav party even when it is being petty. That's fair, unbiased, complete journalism. Anything else is just stenography.
Posted by Anonymous | February 5, 2008 2:03 PM
Posted on February 5, 2008 14:03