Today’s CDA Press featured an article on a proposed new police building squat in our beautiful City Park. Apparently crime is an issue for City Hall now that we have more than enough publicly-funded high-end condos in town. But why sully our beautiful City Park with yet another over-priced building?
During my city election campaign, I spoke out for an increased police presence — but on the east end of Sherman Avenue. Why? Because that’s where the crime is! Response times are longer to that side of town simply because furthest away from the police station. Some east side residents told me that the police often take 30 to 45 minutes to show up.
In fact, during the campaign I recommended a combined police/fire presence, a “public safety” office, if you will. I believe such a thing should be part of a Big Picture improvement to our town’s eastern face.
Regardless of my ideas, it’s true that there is crime downtown. No, not the drunks who wander Sherman Avenue alleys after 2:00 AM, peeing in the doorways. I’m talking serious tourist crime. So is the Mayor telling us that tourists are more important than residents with this police building proposal?
What about the stipulation attached to the City Park property? You see, City Park exists on former Federal land. Officially, the area is known as Lots 48 & 49. The Federal deed on those lots mandates that the land be used only for recreational or educational purposes. Is a police building either?
How about this: Why not put the police in the Chamber building? We paid for that building, by the way, the taxpayers of Coeur d’Alene. The LCDC gave $250,000 to the Chamber, a private organization, to build the structure. The LCDC sold that prime piece of real estate to the Chamber for under $40,000 (which is shameful). The LCDC board justified that wheelbarrow-o-cash at their last meeting by saying that the building’s bathrooms are “open to the public” during the Chamber’s business hours.
Such a deal!
So why not make the Chamber building, and our quarter million dollars, valuable by putting police into that building? Heck, we’ve already paid for it.
But no. Questioning anything in Coeur d’Alene, or providing an alternative, tax-saving solution, immediate qualifies you for ridicule and abuse. So I would say to give up on this one folks. Expect to see an over-designed, Las Vegas-like LCDC-funded Police Palace coming to a City Park in your home town soon!
Anyone want to guess how long it will be before the new Police Palace in the Park gets covered with graffiti?
How about any bets on the competitive bids that will go out for this project?
Oh, gosh. It’s still before noon and I’m just finding too much humor in this issue…
Comment by Dan — March 7, 2008 @ 11:50 am
Hold on a second. The city pays the highest possible amount to get the land for the new library while the LCDC ( a quasi city agency) sells a prime piece of downtown real estate to a private group land for CHICKEN FEED!!!! How does this work anyway? Will the LCDC also sell their other real estate holdings in similar fashion? How many ways can they screw the public out of money? I’ll take a chunk of downtown for $40K. Where do I sign up? Hows about some of that fort ground property? I’ll give them $10K for one of those lots.
Comment by Wallypog — March 7, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
You’ve correctly observed, Dan, that increased police presence, not a building’s presence, is more effective in discouraging crime. Rather than putting officers inside a building in the park, wouldn’t it make more sense to put them in cars on the street? See, there probably won’t be a whole lot of crime inside the police substation. My guess (call me uninformed) is that most of the crime will be on the streets. And most mopus erecti aren’t too worried about outrunning a police building in a foot pursuit.
Why do I suspect this is an effort to present the appearance of a greater police presence downtown? Or to be a little more mercenary, why do I suspect the police officers are viewed as being the downtown businesses’ private security police? If you go to the CdA Police Department webpage and click on the monthly crime analysis maps, the dot distribution and severity of “crimes” doesn’t seem to justify this building at this location.
I seriously doubt that this really bad idea originated with Chief Wayne Longo. This has Sandi Bloem’s, Wendy Gabriel’s, and Tony Berns’ self-serving fingerprints all over it. The substation would have to be inside the LCDC’s ever expanding area in order for LCDC to chip in money.
Comment by Bill — March 7, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Bill, this building is not about the police or public safety. It’s about a big pot o’ free money. The City is making a fortune off the LCDC at the expense of other departments, basic services. Because the LCDC utterly lacks a plan, the City is able to spent that huge amount of property tax dollars without our input. They must spend it on something! The only reason this idea came up is that Bloem & Co. know they have all that money to spend and are looking for ways to spend it with a positive spin. That’s it.
When the LCDC ends, the City will have more money for its basic budget. They will be able to add police without raising taxes.
Everyone should ask themselves what “urban renewal” in CDA is doing to benefit everyone in the public. Perhaps it’s time to re-engineer Urban Renewal to fix East Sherman or attract career-level jobs. But this Police booth is merely a symptom of the City having too much money to spend and no solid plan or vision with which to spend it.
Comment by Dan — March 8, 2008 @ 11:30 am
Thanks for all the new information on the LCDC. Following the situation is like living in “Ground Hog”. It just keeps repeating itself. I would love to hear more comments by the public reading this blog….I assume we do not need to be literary geniuses or perfect spelers to enter the conversasion.
Comment by Mama Bear — March 9, 2008 @ 7:31 am
Mama Bear,
Welcome!
Nope, membership in Mensa and spelling bee medals are not required. We’re more interested in providing a website for presentation of ideas and information and for rational discussion.
The comments don’t necessarily reflect reader interest. Dan, Mary, and I get emails (our email links are in the “about opencda” page) with thoughtful and interesting information and leads. Some readers are more comfortable providing information privately, and we respect that.
Glad you’re here.
Comment by Bill — March 9, 2008 @ 8:20 am
Mama Bear, we’re hoping more readers will follow your lead and get into the conversation. All it takes is a pen name and a valid email address to register here, and all of that information is kept totally confidential. The more people jump in to participate, the better the discussion. And we don’t all have to agree. We would love to hear from people on all sides of an issue. Do you have questions we haven’t covered yet? Come on in and ask them!
Comment by mary — March 9, 2008 @ 9:16 am
Having a general post to launch new comments or ideas would help stimulate the conversation here!
How about an open thread, like “March Open”, “April Open”, etc. for random questions, comments and thoughts? Play with it until it catches on!
Comment by Damn Yankee — March 9, 2008 @ 9:46 am
Wow, Damn Yankee, I was just coming in to check and had the same idea: Open Session. I’ll get it up there–thanks!
Comment by mary — March 9, 2008 @ 11:40 am
Why would CdA need a substation a half of a mile from the main station? This would be like me building my vacation home a couple of blocks over from my primary residence. Wouldn’t CdA Lake Drive and Sherman be a better place?Maybe even by the new Kroc center a little further up the road. Or how about Sunshine Meadows where gang activity is known to be happening? But downtown close to the existing station? That is just plain silly.
Comment by concerned citizen — March 9, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
concerned citizen,
Your basic question is the right one that everyone should ask: Why does the CdA PD need a substation where it is proposed? What is the compelling need (not want, need)? It certainly wasn’t demonstrated in the Press article by Marc Stewart.
This was Police Chief Wayne Longo’s explanation: “This proposal, if approved, would allow for police and fire to respond to public safety concerns in a more expedient manner than before. It also allows for more visibility and interaction with the public.”
That same statement would be equally valid for building a public safety substation in any part of the City. Longo’s statement was weak cover and concealment.
The article, promotion masquerading as news, goes on: “The project would cost between $50,000 and $55,000, which includes a fenced area behind the building for storage. The precast concrete structure would be 24 feet wide and 16 feet long. It wouldn’t have cells or rest rooms inside, Wood said.”
No rest rooms, so officers and EMTs couldn’t even relieve themselves? And the police volunteers who act as goodwill ambassadors in the downtown area during the summer months? These volunteers are older folks. They need restrooms!
Storage for what? What needs to be stored there that requires a fenced in area? Surely not patrol cars. They’re supposed to be out patrolling. Surely not for custodial control. There’s no cells and no rest rooms. What requires such immediate access that it must be stored there rather than brought from wherever it would normally be stored?
Continuing, the article reads: “A big reason for placing an office in the park is to deter crime, police said. It grew out of a desire from the public and the departments to have more of a presence in the City Park and the Independence Point area, Wood said. Citizens have complained about noise and parking.”
Offices don’t deter crime. Police presence helps deter crime. Physical security helps deter crime. Aware citizens help deter crime. On a positive note, however, there is a good reason to believe that as long as there is one or more police officers in the proposed police substation, it will probably not be burglarized. “Presence” means patrol officers. Foot patrols. Bicycle patrols. Auto patrols. Horse patrols. “Presence” most certainly does not mean a building that will be largely unoccupied throughout the year.
Noise and parking? The police department is supposedly justifying a $50K-$55K building because citizens have complained about noise and parking? Those are code enforcement issues. Those are not police problems. Then again, given our Mayor and City Council’s indifference toward code enforcement, I’m not surprised they’re trying to foist these nuisances off on the police.
The article goes on: “Independence Point has been a trouble spot for law enforcement in recent years as growing numbers of teenagers and young adults crowd the parking lot during the evening hours. Police records show that calls for service have gradually increased since 2005. There were 214 calls for service to Independence Point last year, up from 181 in 2005. The types of calls police respond to run the gamut of offenses, including fights and public intoxication. Also, the facility would be used for lost children. The Coeur d’Alene Fire Department would share space inside the facility, using the building mostly during the summer months.”
Does Longo really think that putting a concrete building where it’s proposed is going to significantly reduce the numbers of teenagers and young adults crowding the parking lot during the evening hours? For that matter, should it? Are they parked legally? Are they committing crimes there? Or is the pressure coming from local businesses who would like paying patrons to be using that parking lot?
There are fights and public intox at Independence Point. And the proposed building will do what to prevent that? It’s not as if two or more police officers will be sitting in the substation drinking coffee (remember, no rest rooms) and waiting for a fight to break out or a drunk to puke on some tourist’s shoes.
Define exactly what is meant by “calls for service.” Is the severity and frequency of these calls enough to justify a building but not necessarily more officers? How does the gradual increase in these compare with the increase or decrease in visitors? Are these calls for service evenly distributed throughout the year or are they primarily from May through late August and early September?
They’re going to use it for lost children yet it has no rest rooms? Please!
I would like to know (and will try to find out) if Longo requested this on his own initiative based on identifiable and justifiable factors, or was he told to request it? My intuition and understanding of the normal government procurement processes tell me it was very likely the latter.
If the City needs a structural presence in that area for three or four months out of the year, then maybe it needs to consider acquiring a trailer or motor home and modifying it for the limited use proposed and anticipated. Design the vehicle for maximum utility throughout the City. If they want it in the downtown core during the summer and for special events or unusual occurrences, fine. Why anchor it in the park? Make it mobile and deployable.
If this half-fast idea is based on the wishes of downtown retailers, let them fund it. The taxpayers should not fund this building without far more justification than has been presented so far.
Comment by Bill — March 9, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Don’t be silly, Bill. You’ve lived long enough in CdA to know that the Police Booth in the Park is a done deal.
* No public hearings.
* No public input
* No competitive bidding
* Derision of anyone asking legitimate questions
Expect to see this monster — which violates an agreement between the City and the Federal Government — erected in City Park by June. Just in time for….Ironman!
Perhaps the Mayor can get Dr. Bell and NIC on board? “The Education/Police Corridor”
Comment by Dan — March 9, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
Taking with friends last night and one mentioned that this sounded a lot like a payback maneuver for the political endorsements given by the police and fire authorities in last years council elections. I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine. You know, like monkeys grooming each other for ticks.
Comment by Wallypog — March 10, 2008 @ 4:43 am
Wallypog,
Patronage payback is one possibility, but I still wonder if the police and fire administrators asked for this bad idea on their own initiative or if they were ordered to ask for it so the real loopy actors’ fingerprints wouldn’t be on it. Maybe I’m too idealistic, but I think Wayne Longo is a better police administrator than this really bad idea suggests. I do suspect he and Kenny Boy were told to go along with this idea and it wouldn’t hurt their budgets at all. I’d wish they both had more integrity than to participate in yet another wasteful ripoff of Kootenai County taxpayers, but this is Corrupt d’Alene where the culture of intimidation reigns on Mullan Avenue, so …
Comment by Bill — March 10, 2008 @ 6:42 am
I don’t recall seeing any design competition for this structure. In fact, I don’t recall seeing any proposed design for the $55,000 plus or minus expenditure.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — March 10, 2008 @ 11:29 am
Susie,
It seems to me like this is something that should have been in the City’s financial plan covering this year? Unless, of course, one of the slush funds is going to cover it. Even then, there will be annual recurring costs for HVAC and utilities.
Comment by Bill — March 10, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Please do not ruin City Park with any new buildings. It’s so beautiful.
Comment by brentandrews — March 13, 2008 @ 10:34 am
It seems to me that the police presence on bicycles is noticeable and much less invasive. If I was a tourist, a police sub-station in the park would make me think it was so unsafe they were forced to construct a separate building.
Comment by mary — March 13, 2008 @ 10:39 am