City cops, take-home cars and living in the city
Judging from today's published letters on the Baltimore Sun's Opinion Page, the new fight over take-home cars has touched a nerve. I talked with Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III at length on Wednesday afternoon and he defended the program.
The mayor, however, expressed concerns that many cars were being taken not just out of the city but out of state. The numbers once again raise questions about why so many cops don't live in Baltimore. One resident, Paul Day, said in a letter that a cop recently asked him why he lived in the city after his bike had been stolen.
Comments like this don't instill confidence in the very residents we're trying to keep, and demonstrate a disdain by cops for the very citizens they are hired to protect. In our chat, Bealefeld noted correctly that requiring cops to live in the city, in addition to a possible legal challenge, raises a bunch of other questions. For good reason, cops try to avoid having officers patrol neighborhoods in which they live or grew up, to avoid putting the cop in the awkward position of locking up a neighbor or dealing with friends who chose to be criminals.
That said, of the 149 police officials who have take-home cars, 107 live in Maryland but outside the city. Another 22 commute from Pennsylvania and one each from Delaware and Virginia. Only 18 live in Baltimore.
What I'm guessing is that the mayor will pull the plug on out-of-state take-home cars. And while she and Bealefeld agree that they would prefer city cops live in the city, that's probably not going to happen anytime soon. Other police jurisdictions give officers take-home cruisers, in part to keep a marked vehicle parked in neighborhoods, but also as an incentive for cops to live in that county.
Of course, the complaint there, such as in Montgomery County, is that cops can't afford to live in the place they work. In Baltimore, cops don't want to raise a family in the city. Critics say that if they don't live here, they don't care to police it right, and comments like the one the reader heard from the officer don't help the situation at all.
Comments
I thank the Sun for reporting on the number and geographic location of people driving taxpayer funded cars are. But what I would like know is holding the officials who defend the need for such cars b/c they might need to drive in off hours, etc. First: How often is this actually the case? Second: If they are needed for emergency off hours support how can some of them justify living so geographically far away? Third: where is the cost benefit analysis of how this program is cheaper than reimbursing the individuals for the use of their personal vehicle when such needs arise.
You've made a good start now keep with the story and get use more facts instead of just milking (justifiable) public anger over the situation.
Posted by: Paul | June 11, 2009 1:47 PM
It is perhaps important to understand that, contrary to the view of those who DO choose to live in Murdaland, the vast majority of average Americans would never, never consider for a moment the prospect of living in any part of Baltimore City which is not essentially an enclave.
That is, they would never consider being a typical Baltimorean.
Posted by: galt | June 16, 2009 2:07 PM