Several months ago, when the addition of 30 new police officers was first proposed, I wrote an article about the culture of fear that seemed to have taken over in Madison. I wrote how that culture, sponsored and encouraged by a federal government that would have us sacrifice civil liberties in order to justify two wars (one on terror, the other on Iraq) had woven its way into the very fabric of our lives. As we approached budget deliberations and a full debate on adding 30 police officers, it became clear that the culture of fear had taken over even here in Madison, one of the safest cities on the planet. We became so anchored, so rooted into the culture of fear that the debate had ended before it even began. Crime was everywhere: it was creeping like a virus from Badger and Allied to the southwest, the northeast, and downtown. It was replicating at such an insidious pace that nothing short of 30 new police, mobilized without delay, could stop or even stem the tide.
And what a tide it was. Like a stop sign standing in the path of an avalanche, I and a few other alders attempted to bring some sanity to the discussion. And by sanity, all I really mean is debate. Because without our amendment to add 18 police instead of 30, an unprecedented number in and of itself, there would have been no debate.
The first significant item on the agenda was a proposal by Alder Zach Brandon to take $1.5 million in one-time revenue created by the closure of two TIF districts and apply it to the workers’ compensation fund. This was a significant deviation from the Mayor's budget and would leave us with about $20,000 in wiggle room for the 50-plus amendments yet to come, short of other reductions that could be reapplied. It would force us to be diligent and make difficult choices.
No one expected it to pass. I thought hard about it and the fact that our amendment to add 18 police instead of 30 would save $594,000, more than enough to reinvest in other priorities. With great trepidation (this was a big vote and my first budget), I voted for the amendment. In a surprise to eveyone, the amendment passed 11-9. It was a time to roll up our sleeves and get to work. Except not really.
My arguments were pretty simple:
Fiscal Realities. We were spending one-time-only dollars for this unprecedented increase in police. We also didn't know what the long term fiscal impacts even were (not only salary, but overhead, support costs, computers, police cars, court costs, jail space, etc).
Balance. We invest $5 million a year in community services and $54 million a year in our police department.
Goals. We didn't really have a clear sense of what adding 30 police would accomplish or how much it would really help.
Sustainability. We hadn't considered the impacts on the court system, prison and jail space, or other criminal justice related entities that would be affected by more arrests.
The arguments of common sense, logic, and balance were countered by one theme, and this theme was hammered home with the repetition, monotany, and steadfastness of a clock's second hand clicking itself into place again and again with no allowance for variance, nuance, or shades of gray. Sadly and disturbingly, there was only one way to decribe the argument in favor of the full slate of 30 police officers.
Madison’s culture of fear had evolved into politics of fear.
The debate was focused on the same comments, repeated again and again. The only difference was in the voice who spoke the words.
"If you had been there this summer…"
"If you had heard the 700 people who came…"
"If you had heard the stories, heard about the chainsaws, the breakins, the vandalism…"
"You couldn't hear them and not be affected…"
The culture of fear had rooted itself so deeply into our collective consciousness that we were unable to even fathom a compromise. It was as if my amendment had been to add zero police or to eliminate our police department entirely, as opposed to adding an unprecedented number (18) and using the savings to invest in prevention and strategies that would actually attack the root causes of crime rather than merely reacting to crimes once they've been committed.
I and others talked about sexual assault, domestic violence, and homelessness prevention and after school programs for youth as investments that had a direct impact not only in preventing crime but on reducing the strain on police resources. I asked our police chief the following: "We know about 30% of our police calls are related to domestic abuse. If we could invest in domestic violence awareness and prevention and reduce these calls, wouldn't that free up significant amounts of police resources that could be reallocated to address other emerging issues?" Despite an affirmative response, we never debated this issue or others related to eviction prevention, transit assistance for homeless individuals to access employment opportunities, or a dozen others.
Consider the following example: Something happens (medical emergency, car repair, etc) that leaves a low-income tenant short on rent for a month. Once evicted, the former tenant will undoubtedly draw upon our social service system and our already overwhelmed homeless shelter. It will become far more difficult for this citizen to maintain his job or find employment if he is searching for a job. Even if he is able to straighten out his financial situation, it will be harder for him to get housing now that he has an eviction on his record. Perhaps he'll camp out in his car or join the “homeless throng” at Brittingham Park. Resulting police calls will draw on precious police resources that could have been used elsewhere. Perhaps he'll commit a crime because he feels his options have run out. Eventually he'll get out of jail and will have an even more difficult time obtaining employment and housing. A few hundred dollar investment may be enough to prevent eviction and its potential effects. Eviction requires time and resources of the landlord and our court system. Also, consider the police resources that have been called upon during this entire process. Now let's imagine that this individual has children. Education is one of the single most important predictors of future success. His children have spent all of this time in an environment that makes learning literally impossible. Perhaps as little as $300 could have prevented all of this and helped this family maintain stability.
We had a chance at our budget meeting to spend a very modest $50,000 on eviction prevention, a sum that clearly would have paid for itself a dozen times--not only in dollars but in police resources. With little debate, the amendment failed. We had other opportunities to invest in crime prevention. Some passed but most didn’t. However, none of these alternatives were part of the crime debate where they belonged. The debate was over before it had begun.
Allied Drive, an area replete with victims of crime, falls within my district. When I ask my constituents what will help in their community, not a one mentions an increase in the number of police. This makes me wonder whether our response to crime is focused too heavily on middle class areas experiencing crime for the first time versus lower income areas that continue to be victimized by crime in vastly disproportionate amounts.
I think most of us would acknowledge the severe flaws in our criminal justice system. During the debate, I raised concerns related to the endless cycle of incarceration. I spoke of the shocking cost to taxpayers and society as a whole and the racial disparity in incarceration rates. It wasn’t until two weeks after the budget passed that the Justice Policy Institute reported that 97% of counties demonstrated racial disparities in their incarceration rates, with Dane County ranking third in the nation. While drug sales and use were approximately the same between whites and blacks, the report showed that an astonishing 97 black offenders were locked up in Dane County for every white.
I am very proud that we forced a debate where one would have otherwise not existed. I’m not sure whether we turned a single vote but that wasn’t necessarily the point. Maybe the addition of the thirty new police will help this community move past our culture of fear. Maybe this budget vote will help us elected officials move past the politics of fear. Because there is only one certainty in this world: until we address poverty and the other root causes of crime, we can pass as many feel good proposals as we want, but we’re not going to solve the problem.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
No Alder Solomon, it wasn’t Bush or illegal-ultra-neo-conservative wars that made some of us feel unsafe. It was a sustained series of events for many UW students that made us feel unsafe. Do you know what it’s like to have two classmates in a span of a few weeks thrown into a van, driven outside of Madison, raped, and brought back to campus? That alone is unacceptable regardless if crime rates are going up, down, or staying the same.
Unacceptable is also the truly absurd amount of crime that happened on Langdon Street last year. Most of it goes unreported as I write in my blog. Nightly muggings. Guns being pulled. In fact, one house on Langdon Street had 2 break-ins and a mugging on the same property in a span of 12 months.
I don’t deny that the 18 cop plan would make more sense from a fiscal standpoint, especially considering the pending staffing study. I’m not negating much of your policy proposals. However your rhetoric and frameworks seem quite naive. To blame city crime perceptions on some psychological reaction that may have links to President Bush seems – in the eyes of this young progressive – to be wildly out of touch.
Come down to UW. Come tell us there isn’t a crime problem. Stand in Gordon Commons and tell the girls eating lunch that they don’t need to be worried about being thrown into vans and raped at gunpoint. Tell the 100-400 blocks of Langdon Street that it’s the “politics of fear” and not “politics of reality”.
- A UW blogger and someone who had $6,740 of items stolen from my Langdon Street home in 2005. As one cop told me, “too bad we didn’t have more people out that night.”
Post a Comment