Committee looks at cutting Murieta's costs by using public money
See QuickPoll: Would we take down the gates and redirect the savings?
Can the community have access to public money and tax write-offs while still remaining private? Are residents willing to pay the cost of keeping the community gated? The Rancho Murieta Community Services District Ad Hoc Governance Advisory Committee considered these and other questions during the course of a two-hour-plus meeting last week at the CSD Building.
The nine-member committee is looking at how the community is now managed and what options there are for reducing costs and consolidating services. Among the options being looked at is incorporating as a city.
Over the next few months the committee will formulate recommendations for the community’s various boards “to make things more efficient or a better way of operating,” said CSD Director Jerry Pasek, who heads the committee. “One of the major expenses around here is maintenance of either common area or … parks and roads.”
The Rancho Murieta Association owns the roads and the parks in the gated community, and members pay for their upkeep through dues.
Park development is funded with contributions from developers and smaller contributions paid by RMA members. The per-lot contributions are triggered by new development, which isn’t expected to take place until 2012 or later due to the downturn in the housing market.
CSD legal counsel Steve Rudolph told the committee last month that it would be very difficult to create a situation where you had parks maintained with public money and yet the community was able to restrict the public’s use of the facilities.
This month committee members talked about alternatives to keeping the roads private and having gates to restrict access. Committee member John Merchant said two-thirds of the $23.89 tax residents pay to the CSD monthly for security services goes to staff the North and South gates. He asked, “Suppose you didn’t have any gates … Could you get better control over vandalism by applying $650,000 a year to patrol and police services than you do by having some half-awake guy and some half-ass gate that goes up and down at one o’clock in the morning?”
“The gate is the big reason why we probably can’t get the huge tax advantage of moving the streets over to the public side,” Wilbur Haines said.
“The issue is public ownership of the roads, public ownership of the parks,” said George Roper. “If you have public ownership of those two entities, which is 50 percent of the (RMA) budget, then if someone says we want to put in a pool, if enough people want to go for it, we float a bond issue and build a pool, build a center, and make our community grow. … We are paying a tremendous amount of money for those gates. … They are stopping any development that we are going to do without developers.”
Pasek said cameras could be utilized for surveillance in the community, and Ted Hart suggested looking into a security system that would equip homes with alarms and provide an armed response. “You could take those gates down in a heartbeat if that happened,” he said.
Haines, who worked on the CSD security survey that went out to residents last year, was asked what respondents said about the gates. “I think it said that the gate was the most important thing CSD does,” he replied.
The committee talked about gathering public input on the idea.
At the committee’s request, Rudolph researched the issue of public access and reported there appeared to be a way for a public entity like a city to operate a park but limit use to residents. “It’s theoretical because there are no cases on this,” Rudolph warned. He added that RMA maintenance of the roads would be a critical piece because “in a situation where the city owns the parks but they don’t own the streets, there’s nothing that compels them … to acquire public access to that public property.”
Pasek said the findings were relevant whether the community incorporated as a city or not, since the RMA could transfer the parks to the CSD, a public agency, and restrict public access by maintaining private ownership of the roads. “You could do it right now,” he said. “What’s the worst case? … If it’s successfully challenged (in a legal action) it goes back to the way it is today.”
Pasek said the objective is to make park maintenance costs “a tax-deductible item,” which Rudolph said would require passage of a special tax by a two-thirds majority of the voters. Voters approved special taxes for the security and drainage services provided by the CSD in the late 1990s.
John Sullivan, the development representative on the committee, reported on the services the community receives from Sacramento County for its tax dollars and suggested forming a political action committee to get more. By dividing the population of the county by the number of deputies, Sullivan determined Rancho Murieta should have the services of three deputies around the clock.
Lisa Taylor reported that her research into community services districts showed districts provide CC&R enforcement for numerous homeowners associations and typically pass ordinances to carry out this function.
Ted Hart noted the city of Ione, with a population of about 7,700, has received grants for housing, parks, recycling and other things. “It’s kind of like we have this public trough and a bunch of these guys have figured out how to get in … and we haven’t even found the trough. But it’s there,” he told the group. Taylor said CSD needed to take a leadership role and declare, “We’re the government agency out here, and we have a right to go after that money.”
The next committee meeting will be held 6:30 p.m. Sept. 10 at the CSD Building.
Previous coverage
Member since: 08/30/2007
Taking down the gates and eliminating the security department would certainly be a major change for Rancho Murieta, and I doubt if a majority of residents would approve. However, since our secuity department seems to be incapable of even catching gangs of hoodlums roving our streets in the middle of the night, it raises the question of why we even have a security department at all. It is worth noting the some high end communities in our area have public streets, no gates, and no private security. Winchester in Meadow Vista comes to mind, as does Gold River. I think this is question that deserves serious thought and community input.
Member since: 08/07/2007
The broader context was how could our present security dollars be used more effectively. We spend almost twice as much on having persons staff the gates (vs. mechanized gates) as we do on patrol services. The "what ifs" were what if you put in mechanized gates and repurposed those labor dollars to a more effective security/police presence, and I took it one further, just to broach the big taboo (I explicitly referred to it in my comments as "the third rail") that if we didn't have gates at all we could free up even more dollars by having CSD take over maintenance of parks and streets via tax-deductible CSD taxes instead of nondeductible HOA dues.
But it's just a "what if," which is what the committee was constituted to do. It's not a serious proposal, we discussed how obviously highly valued gate operations are to the constituents.
Still, although brief it was certainly the most sensational topic in a boring 2-3 hour meeting so it doesn't surprise me that it gets so much attention and reportage.
Member since: 01/10/2008
If you just look at the budget, the gates cost almost half of the security budget. However the actual cost is more if it keeps us from 1) finding a way to make roads and parks somehow more deductible, and 2) not finding a way to share the cost with folks that use these resources (ie RMA pays for the roads and parks, but I believe that most of the district has access to them and utilizes them).
That being said, as mentioned above, this was just a "thinking out of the box" discussion that came about from looking at different ways to finace the park and road maintenance.
Member since: 08/08/2007
Ok Wilbur, stop trying to wake us up. How about a combination of automated gates and a day staff only during the times contractors etc need to enter?? The system could log which code was used at what times to assist the discovery of who came in and who is giving out the code. Technology has changed and automation may be less costly. If a community center was built, could it somehow be incorporated into the gate system so staff manning that facility could assist with daytime guest entry via a walk-in desk?
I question the thought of a public lake with private streets. A sign saying private street won't be respected, and it wouldn't be long until someone in the county decided it should be open to all. Forts are built with walls for a reason. Not saying we are a fort but we have gates and restricted entry for one reason. To keep out people we don't want roaming our streets and who don't have a valid appropriate reason to be here. Any move that relaxes entry security will create additional security risks. Many of the problems we presently have seem to be associated with persons who don't have financial ties to the community. (Guests, renters etc.)
Additionally if we opened the streets to public access we would become the summer swimming hole for everyone in the county. Of course they would pick up their trash, respect our community, drive thru properly and not grab the silverware on the way out. (sarcasm intended)
It isn't right to say that since security didn't catch the vandals then lets get rid of security. We should also focus on what crime is being prevented instead of focusing on what crime slipped through. Sometimes a dam with a few leaks is better than no dam at all. And we should all give a dam when it comes to security. (Sorry couldn't resist that one) Alarming every home won't stop vandalism. Neither will letting the offenders parents pay for it rather than prosecuting.
In any decision on security and gated access lets all ask ourselves just why we chose RM as a community to live in. I think most would say it was in large part due to RM being a private secure community which creates a better living environment than your average open public neighborhood does.
Doug Lewis
Member since: 04/09/2008
One of the main reasons we moved to Rancho Murieta was the FACT that this IS a Gated Community. Living further outside the city of Sacramento makes us feel more secure and knowing that un-invited "Guests" cannot freely roam the streets gives us and alot of our neighbors a better feeling of freedom, happiness and comfort. So why the H would anyone want to take down the gates and leave us open to all??? If residents would just take a look at their own households, maybe there would be less "internal" issues?
This is my first comment since joining the membership with Ranchomurieta.com, even though I have felt I needed to "Sound Off" on other issues, but seriously folks, did anyone else move here because it is gated? I keep seeing the same names on the comments after the articles. Is there anyone else out there that has an opinion? Costs do go up, but I for one will be glad to keep paying for Security AND the Gates. Hello out there?
Member since: 06/26/2008
Like many residents in Rancho Murieta, I intentionally chose the type of neighborhood that is gated, quiet, and private. In fact, I was very happy to leave city living behind. For some, there are sacrifices to be made in order to live in RM -- such as: commuting to appointments, larger shopping areas, jobs, the theatre, sporting events, etc.; and paying HOA dues. I was aware of that when I moved here, and thought that the tradeoffs were worth it. Also, I expected the costs of staying in RM to increase over the years -- as they have -- and will continue to do so if the integrity of the community is to be maintained.
Member since: 08/03/2007
I'm with you Doug, Tom & Vicki. Getting rid of the gates will be opening up a whole new can of worms!
Member since: 04/17/2008
I also agree that one of the primary reasons we all chose RM to live is because of the sense of security a gated community provides. Granted we are experience some minor issues with enforcement, but to “knock down the moat” will only leave the "castle" vulnerable.
The question that needs answering is why are we spending $650,000 (per John Merchant) on manning the gates. A cursory crunching of the figures suggests gate guards are highly paid. So, if this is not the case, as I would hope, then where are the gate dollars going?
Member since: 01/10/2008
Pat,
Actually, John Merchant's figures are a bit off, but he was just working from quick recollection. The operating expenses for the gates, from the current budget, are $436,426. Ther are 9 or 10 gate officers that barely make a living wage.
Patrol's expenses are $462,261, and although they make more than the gate officers, many officers are struggling.
Just an observation - for gate and patrol officers that commute, their wages are effectively being decreased, some significantly, depending on how far away they live because of current gas prices. This could play a role in the turnover rate of employees over there.
Member since: 04/17/2008
Again, the fiscal question is how much of the $436,426 is labor and how much is maintenance? Same question for patrol activities. Point being, examining this cost ratio is of vital importance, especially when looking for cost savings/avoidance initiatives.
And yes, I’m well aware of the impact/effects commuting exacts on decreasing one’s income since I commute to-from Travis. The escalation in gas prices has been difficult for everyone.
Member since: 01/10/2008
I'm curious then, what you think, as a community, is an appropriate wage, in terms of dollars per hour? I think knowing the current wages would be relevant in this discussion.
There might be options that would allow the gates to operate more effectively, but to do this on the backs of folks that already make very little and pay less, I personally have a problem with that. And from a pure business standpoint, when the salary is so low that you find that people can't afford to drive to work, that has other repercussions.
Member since: 07/30/2007
Pat, the reason we are paying 650K for gate guards is the same reason we are paying for union benefitted landscapers, instead of using a sole sourced vendor for a fraction of the cost. I know that Murietans like to feel that they are special and entitled, but at what cost ?
A detailed review of the RMA and CSDs operating expemses is LONG overdue ! We have the intellectual bandwidth in our communhity to do this, we just have to assure those individuals that their time and efforts will not be wasted.
There ARE technologies that will allow for automated gates as well, with the same level of security and an increased level of efficiency.
Member since: 04/17/2008
Personally, believe pay should be commensurate to the level of responsibility germane to the position. Wage surveys of entities from neighboring areas for jobs with similar duties/functions (be it guard, patrol, etc.) would serve as a good baseline for determining appropriate levels of compensation.
And please don’t misconstrue my input as “picking the pocket of the little guy” or less fortunate. Brainstorming is not a personal, emotional, or subjective process. It’s an awakening of discovery, creativity and innovation geared towards economic stewardship, reducing duplication, and how to best utilized resources.
Member since: 08/08/2007
Unfortunately most cost cutting methods for our gates would probably involve some form of staff man-hour reduction, consolidation of duties or staff reduction. No one likes to see good employees fall victim to automation or budget cutbacks. Hopefully any revamp of the system could be done via attrition, or reassignment. Bottom line is in order to maintain a gate system we need to find a way to operate a gate system more economically and more efficiently.
As other writers have expressed those making any decision need to know how the money is spent. Labor costs are not just salary. I'm not that familiar with Cal law but I'm sure there are added costs of state fund, medical, retirement, vacation, sick-leave etc. An analysis of all costs is needed to determine if automation will be a cost savings over manning gates, especially if our gates are due for updating anyway.
A look at some of the gate technology shows there are systems that can read licence plates (eliminating a need for guest lists and bar codes), keep photo records of operators and vehicles, and that can be operated from as far as 5 miles away. This might make it possible for patrol officers to review late night access of non recognized guests from within a patrol vehicle.
If affordable, an advanced system might allow for at least a reduction in night shift man hour costs and or multi tasking by security employees. How do communities such as Serano regulate guest/contractor/open house access on their unmanned gates? Whats working and not working for them?
Automation in itself is not a cure all remedy for security. One committee member expressed that we can install alarms in each home and do away with gates. We don't limit access to RM to only prevent burglaries. Also pole cameras don't replace the need for someone to respond, investigate and assist in building a case for prosecution. While cameras identify a problem or suspect an investigation must still be conducted by someone. On that note in order for our security to be effective we need to give them the powers to investigate and make inquiries with residents. This is needed both to mediate problems and to enforce them. Security also needs a working bridge with Sac County S O and prosecutors as it's certain the case loads of Sac SO detectives will limit their involvement in minor crimes.
Doug Lewis
Member since: 08/03/2007
I see from CSD's site:
http://www.ranchomurietacsd.com/employment.htm
Security Patrol Officer - Rancho Murieta Community
Services District is seeking a full time Security Patrol Officer.
Salary range of $2,241 - $2,716 a month, DOQ (4% increase 2009).
Excellent benefits including CalPERS medical/retirement. Position
requires good communication skills and a minimum 832 P.C.
Certification, California Guard and Gun Card.
You can also see a breakdown of the Security costs - Gate Officer vs. Patrol Officer vs. Security Admin here (pages 9 & 10):
http://www.ranchomurietacsd.com/pdf/website2007-08.pdf
Additionally, this is an excerpt from a letter I wrote to the CSD Board back in Jan. '08:
After speaking with a former Patrol Officer, I find it very hard to believe that our Gate Officers are hired at around $9.00/hour and this former Patrol Officer after five years of service was only making $13.55/hour. And you expect our Officers to handle the boat load of visitors that come through our gates on a daily basis, let alone the harassment that they put up with from residents when the Officers are doing their job correctly. And not to mention the domestic disputes and other dangerous positions our Patrol Officers are having to handle. How deplorable!
**Again, do realize this excerpt was from Jan. 08 when we all (well some of us anyway) thought Security Officers had more power than they do. And they no longer handle domestic disputes!
Member since: 08/03/2007
Oh, and if the little guys only make:
Gate Officers - approx $21K a year
Patrol Officers - approx $27K to $32K a year
What do you think the big cheese makes...double or maybe triple the Patrol Officer salary??
Member since: 08/14/2007
We also moved here with the view point that a gated community would contain less crime. And there are views from some that our security is fine as it stands and others that we need more. I think that we need to use technology to help us use our security personel more effectively. This could be automated gates with only one gate guard on duty at night to control both gates and allow the other to patrol (because realistically how many gate requests do they get between the hours of 11pm and 6am now that we have bar codes) or not man the gates and if you do not have a barcode you call for the patrol to come let you in - there are lots of ways to automate it to varying extents. Also, cameras can help in monitoring particular areas to help us in monitoring more areas at the same time and we can put that in the guard gates or in CSD for monitoring. I am not saying go out and buy all the technology in the world and replace the people but we can definitely utilize technology to help provide additional monitoring/services in areas.
I don't know about you but my CSD bill is now higher than my average SMUD bill which I would have never thought would be the case. I think we need to think about how technology can help us keep from having another 20% increase next year.
Member since: 01/10/2008
I think that one of the problems is that our streets really aren't private. If you look at the number of non-residents, and even non-guests-of-residents, such as the vendors, those associated with the country club, those that come in for sports, etc. That's a lot of "independent" traffic. Any type of automation will also have to address those. I don't see a keycode gate really working. Maybe some of this new fancy automated stuff.
But we would have to give up something, or at least exchange it. I'm told at Serrano they don't have permanent guest lists.
I do know that the personnel at the gates do a lot more than punch open that gate when needed, but I don't know the full extent of their responsibilities. One gate operates as a dispatch for our patrol, and if that position were removed from the gates, it would have to be filled somewhere else in the organization. I also know that they operate as a little business dept somehow, judging by the cars I see stopping there to take care of some business on the way in and the way out. CSD, like many places, has been able to keep down their budget in years past by having personnel do a combination of jobs, so altering some jobs may have a ripple effect.
Whatever we do, I think maybe two things: that it will be more complicated than we expect, and we *may* have to give something up.
Member since: 08/03/2007
I remember when we were looking at other gated communities that just had the automated gates...our realtor just followed very closely behind the car that was legitimately going thru the gate and wha la, we were in.
I think we can safely say, we will always have manned gates. But should this ever in our lifetime come to a vote to remove the gates, just remember...everyone thinks this is such an affluent area and from what I have heard from teens in school and former students now in their late 20's this has been and continues to be a place where drugs are easily gotten. So should the gates come down, we will become easy pickins and drug dealers who don't already live here will now be able to just walk right in and do their deals. Then think of where that will lead, fights over turf.
(I know fear mongering at it's best!)
Very truly yours, Chicken Little
Member since: 09/03/2007
Recently we had a unannounced visitor (former police officer and former RM South resident) show up at the front gate. He wasn't on our list (forgot to put him on after he moved from here). He wasn't allowed in, even after showing his badge. He was told to turn around and had to park and use his cell to see if we were home to call him in.
A little inconvenient for him but it was a wonderful reflection on our gate officers and how well they do their jobs. He/she could have easily made an "exception" and waved him on through...but didn't. I was impressed.
This place would not be the same without them.
Member since: 04/17/2008
You were just being facetious about the imminent gangland takeover and apocalypse for RM if we ever happened to adopt automated gates, right?
I found your twist on Chicken Little’s tale of “Oh no, drugs are falling out of the sky and into our children’s pockets” hilarious. But the reality is if there’s any influx of drugs into this community it’s because “junior” or neighbor “Bob” down the street brought them in, not some gang banger from the hood awaiting entry to wage a turf war over the Gazebo. The rouse of spreading superficial fear as a means of presenting negativity concerning a topic is nothing more than a scare tactic that I find imbalanced and passé. We should not be driven or defined by fear but rather intellect, courage and conviction.
The fact that we are fortunate enough to live in such an isolated community plays as significant a role in the misdemeanor” level crime within RM as does having a manned gate. Objectively speaking, the bulk of all offenses that occur within our “gates” are from internal sources or “enclave crime”. The “evil doers” prophesized here are not outsiders, but rather residents, as manifest by reading the security logs. And with an ever growing number of offenses, it is this niche of enclave offenders that require first consideration when exploring innovative post SB 135 security measures and procedures, one being community attention and intervention.
Now, do I believe eliminating gated entry is ill-advised…Yes! However, I also believe there’s a happy medium available to this community that will secure our homes from the big bad wolf
!!!
Member since: 01/10/2008
While I know that Beth posted with great humor, I think her point has some merit.
Not all the crimes and drugs offenses committed out here are residents. I suspect that those that are not residents though are somehow connected to residents (by nature of having a controlled access community). If we were to open up the community, it is possible that it opens things up to a certain element that already has a bit of a foothold. I think that is consistent with intellect and reason.
Member since: 04/17/2008
In essence you just validated my post, especially concerning enclave crime. To better articulate, enclave crime encompasses internal residents (the majority of offenses) as well as their external guests/connections (the minor of offenses). Combined, this comprises ALMOST ALL of the transgressions that transpire within our already “gated community”. And as you affirmed there’s already a bit of a foothold.
A reasonable deduction therefore, is that even with gates in place we will continue to experience the same level of enclave crime. Consequently, the judicious approach would be to ensure we address and incorporate corrective measures for this shortcoming first and foremost. Yet all the discussions, all the campaigning, all the proposals and all the focus remain primarily on “gate security” as the key (no pun intended) for safeguarding our community. When, in effect, it’s already proven itself to be an ineffective and inadequate means of combating/purging the inherent enclave crime that already exists.
My point being, “manned gates” are simply an instrument to mediate access, not a protective measure or deterrent to the internal crime present within RM. Therefore, no matter how deep we build our moat, we will never effectively safeguard our community from enclave crime, until we first recognize it as a security weakness and second formulate a remedial plan to limit/combat it.
Member since: 08/07/2007
A very apt label, Pat. I agree that our vandalism etc. problems are almost exclusively caused by residents and residents' invitees who no gate configuration can or will exclude. The resource allocation question then becomes whether resources could/should be shifted toward more deterrence and detection within.
I think the responses have validated the duh! premise that by and large our neighbors place a high value on the existence of a gate. I know I "like" the presence of a gate even though my mind tells me it isn't really making much difference re: the problems within. I think the question then becomes whether at some point unmanned, remotely monitored gates such as are used in other gated communities become part of the mix, freeing up labor dollars to spend INSIDE on more patrol and/or more monitoring capabilities. We may need staffed gates during peak travel times, but I'm not sure paying a graveyard shift to sit at the gates bored to tears is adding much to security or traffic control.
Member since: 01/10/2008
.
On August 22, 2008 Pat Reeves wrote: My point being, “manned gates” are simply an instrument to mediate access, not a protective measure or deterrent to the internal crime present within RM. Therefore, no matter how deep we build our moat, we will never effectively safeguard our community from enclave crime, until we first recognize it as a security weakness and second formulate a remedial plan to limit/combat it.
I absolutely agree with you.
Yesterday I was speaking with the general manager of a CSD attached to an exclusive gated community, just outside of Carmel. He was very clear on what their gates provide -- marketing, community service, and the first eyes of security.
In CSD's security survey, at the top of the list was support for the gates.I thnk that the gates mean a lot of different things to people. I don't want to be presumptuous in this assumption, but from discussions, what I have found is that some of us like to be waved at when we come through the gates after a long day, others like the feeling that the bad guys are kept out, and others just like the serenity of knowing that traffic on our roads is minimimized. I don't know how that gets quantified.
Member since: 04/17/2008
Wilbur – I’m in total agreement with your interpretation for the need to systematically examine where we can reap the most benefit from our security dollars. And paramount in that review is ensuring we resolve our internal crime issues. This obvious sense of false security from having a manned gate appears to be driving the train, even though it’s the tracks that require repair not the engine.
Member since: 04/17/2008
Lisa - Apparently we are currently quantifying it to the tune of $436.4k annually! However that doesn’t negate (another pun) the fact gate security is more a façade and marketing ploy than a medium for detection/enforcement, as evident from the ever increasing number and severity of incidents. Personally, I’d sleep better at night knowing we have the effective explicit quantifiers for security in place (internal detection; protection; enforcement) rather than the implicit (perimeter “sense of security”) ones cited in your post.
Member since: 08/08/2007
Ever notice that we don't seem to do much around here to involve the residents concerning crime? RM.com is about the only way one can find out that something has happened around here. Unfortunatly not everyone reads it. We need to find ways to inform residents of crime/vandalism problems. Sometimes that can be as simple as talking it up between neighbors. Othertimes it takes notification of some sort with recommendations. Many people don't or won't get involved when they see or know something unless they are approached and asked. In the thousands of investigations I've been around I learned alot more by seeking information than waiting for it to come to me. In order to receive tip information people first have to be informed that something has happened, and then they need some avenue to report or discuss it. You have to make it easy for them to report it. We always set up tip lines on major crimes. Maybe tip info could be placed in the payment box so that it could be anonymous?? I realize we aren't talking about alot of major crimes but even minor vandalism should be reported so that patrol can focus on that area as it will probably escalate. It's easier to stop a small leak than a large one.
We also need to focus on whos doing the crime. While it should be a parents job to teach respect for others property, and pride in their community we should also be trying to reach out to the youth in RM and involve them more. We are a family community as much or more as we are a Country club community. There may be times that we need to focus on how we can include the youth in RM rather than trying to figure out was to prevent them from riding a skate board or gathering with friends. Remember that most of our youth are great and they don't want their home trashed either.
Oh and one last thing while Im on my rant (too much coffee this morning) Some of the problems we have here involve renters. Not to paint all renters with a broad brush but maybe something could be done to tighten up the screening of those rented to and possibly hold property owners responsible for the actions of who they are renting to.
Doug Lewis
Member since: 01/10/2008
I agree Pat.
There are 4 parts to the security budget. I posted the amounts for both the gates and patrol up above somewhere, there is a special amount on top of that for security administration, and then security, like all CSD depts, kick part of their budgets back to the general fund. I don't have the other numbers right here.
The gates are a funny thing. People say they want them for security, but there are a number of other reasons they want them. I don't know if all of us are aware just why we are so attached to the gates. But that attachment is very costly - not only in terms of security, but possibly in terms of road and park maintenance
. Here is one of the problems that I see. No matter how much we spend on patrol, no matter how effective a neighborhood watch, etc .there is no one out here with any authority to responds to calls. Right now we're working awfully hard to make up rules that no one has the authority to enforce because of civil rights issues (i.e.detainment issue), and some very well-meaning folks are trying to start Neighborhood Watch, and the question is who can you call if something is seen, particularly in progress. There is an old CSD security survey that says folks are happy with the way things are. However, that was before all these new revelations about powers. The folks here on this board are the only community voices that are heard. I go to the CSD board meetings and no one shows up or writes a letter to the board to express their concern. At the CSD meeting last Wednesday, a director asked for items to be voted on in terms of the direction of security. One director has stated in several meetings that the authority that our officers have now is sufficient, other directors (at least one), has been asking about the process of getting back the 836.5 powers. Some major decisions *may* be taking place in the very near future.
Member since: 01/10/2008
Doug,
CSD used to publish some crime statistics (penal code stuff) in the Pipeline publication that they mail out quarterly. That stopped in roughly 2005 and I don't know if it was a decision by the new Chief, the board members, or the GM. I read most of the board materials and I haven't seen any penal code statistics presented that went past Feb 2007 - I'm not sure that they keep them anymore.
I was also thinking about the renters the other day in terms of RMA's enforcement of the rules. Does the ticket go to the resident in the house or the owner of the house? Are extra there problems with enforcement? I've noticed more For Rent signs around the nghd than ever.