I think the results/findings/suggestions by Modesto's Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness is on par. I agree that sweeping changes or new laws need not be a main focus. How would laws be enforced anyway? For obvious reasons, "efforts to improve park safety and security" is my main concern along with immediate residents.
At this time, the confusion or consternation, lies with the fact that the "city should establish park patrols by working with neighborhood alliances that are looking to hire private security." Well, that is what CANA has introduced for us residents near Graceada and Enslen Parks. As noted in the Bee article, Santa Maria, California has a successful program with their park patrol. So, we have a "park patrol", sort of as Rank Investigations patrol the neighborhood and the parks, but they cannot go INTO the park. My hope is, and I have been told, that the city/Parks/MPD are working on allowing this to happen. If this is the case, then the "city" has done it's part. MPD does not need to finance it. Us neighbors are financing it. If it does NOT happen, then the city with the MPD needs to go back to square one. It would have to be financed somehow, some way. It saves money because a park patrol would discourage the vandalism. It saved Santa Maria $500,000. Right?
Recently, the Parks department has done away with it's graffiti removal. Instead, us volunteers have to do the painting. That is fine for us who take care of the immediate parks, but what does it do for all other parks and buildings in Modesto? Maybe saving the $500,000 that is a service that we can get back.
Dear Mr. Marsh, if you get a park patrol, then the police load lessens. The vandalism starts in the parks (loitering, drinking, methheads) and spreads outward to back ally ways (spelling?) and homes with petty theft and other crimes. Police that, and the crimes drop. Is this adding up? Not every park in this city needs a park patrol. What would it cost to patrol the few parks that need them?
No comments:
Post a Comment