It's officially okay now to burglarize homes in Detroit

[SWMAP]

And from Freemont CA, a very good explanation of why charging for false alarms isn't exactly a workable solution:" If we don't have enough officers why not charge for false alarms and use the money to cover the costs of responding to false alarms?

• We do charge for false alarms, last year the revenue from false alarms totaled less than $40,000. This is hardly enough to hire police officers. We adopted the alarm industries solution to false alarms called the Model States/Model Cities ordinance back in 1999. This ordinance provided for fines after two false alarms in a year, and required a permit, which initially costs $40 and is renewable every two years for $20. Unfortunately we don't have a clue how many alarm systems are in Fremont. The alarm industry refused for four years to even provide us with a customer lists, claiming proprietary interests. They successfully passed legislation in 2003, which protected their customer lists from any abuse by law enforcement and with that assurance we got four companies to provide us with a list of customers. One companies list was completely out of date. One company has been proactive in the last several months in providing alarm permit applications to customers and forwarding completed applications and checks for permit fees to the City. The industry claims that on average in the United States 20% to 24% of the residential structures are alarmed, for Fremont that would mean between 13,000 and 16, 000 homes. We have less than 6,000 residential permits on file.
  Under the ordinance the City, not the alarm industry is required to issue permits, track all alarms to determine if a false alarm call does have a permit and if not then contact the property owner and somehow get them to apply for and pay for a permit. We are also responsible for tracking all false alarms, making sure that each customer gets their complementary two false alarms. The officers responding to an alarm have to determine who the property owner is since no one is home and then provide our alarm abatement officer with this information, if a citation is warranted then the officers issue one. If the person contests the citation we have to provide for the hearing. If they don't pay we have to figure out how to collect the fine. The alarm companies do none of the work involved with false alarms. Finally it is not City policy or practice to hire employees, especially police officers who take a full year to train on an unreliable revenue stream.

[bailey]

And from Freemont CA, a very good explanation of why charging for false alarms isn't exactly a workable solution:" If we don't have enough officers why not charge for false alarms and use the money to cover the costs of responding to false alarms?

• We do charge for false alarms, last year the revenue from false alarms totaled less than $40,000. This is hardly enough to hire police officers. We adopted the alarm industries solution to false alarms called the Model States/Model Cities ordinance back in 1999. This ordinance provided for fines after two false alarms in a year, and required a permit, which initially costs $40 and is renewable every two years for $20. Unfortunately we don't have a clue how many alarm systems are in Fremont. The alarm industry refused for four years to even provide us with a customer lists, claiming proprietary interests. They successfully passed legislation in 2003, which protected their customer lists from any abuse by law enforcement and with that assurance we got four companies to provide us with a list of customers. One companies list was completely out of date. One company has been proactive in the last several months in providing alarm permit applications to customers and forwarding completed applications and checks for permit fees to the City. The industry claims that on average in the United States 20% to 24% of the residential structures are alarmed, for Fremont that would mean between 13,000 and 16, 000 homes. We have less than 6,000 residential permits on file.
  Under the ordinance the City, not the alarm industry is required to issue permits, track all alarms to determine if a false alarm call does have a permit and if not then contact the property owner and somehow get them to apply for and pay for a permit. We are also responsible for tracking all false alarms, making sure that each customer gets their complementary two false alarms. The officers responding to an alarm have to determine who the property owner is since no one is home and then provide our alarm abatement officer with this information, if a citation is warranted then the officers issue one. If the person contests the citation we have to provide for the hearing. If they don't pay we have to figure out how to collect the fine. The alarm companies do none of the work involved with false alarms. Finally it is not City policy or practice to hire employees, especially police officers who take a full year to train on an unreliable revenue stream.

Yes. again. NONE OF THAT IS HAPPENING HERE...per Godbee's statement. They're just not going to show up if the call isn't "verified". with no parameters on what is "verified".

Also..p.s. If they weren't' collecting enough money and or couldn't change the number of false alarms, they clearly weren't fining enough to change the behavior

pps. I find it laughable that they are all confused as to how to ticket someone. Funny, I don't see any police department ceasing efforts to ticket parked cars. They arent running around looking for the owner only to shrug and say "gee no one is around to provide us with the information"....or gee they might fight that ticket.

Frankly , why arent they looking at 98% false alarms [[if we believe that number) as a HUGE new revenue stream?

[SWMAP]

What isn't happening here? Your alarm company is going to have verify that the alarm is real before they send the info over to the DPD. How they do that is up to them. They are the people getting paid to do that.

Someone has to be contacted to make sure that the alarm is pointing to a real event before the police are dispatched, since 98% of all automated alarms are false alarms. Don't you already have someone on your file to be called to verify circumstances? Probably more than one person. So if NONE of your contacts are available by phone or text, including you - then you may be out of luck [[not sure).

But 98% of the time - there is no burglar! Why? Because real burglars disconnect the alarm system, turn it off, disrupt it - the alarms that do go off go off for other reasons.

[JStone]

SWMAP - I disagree. I think the vast majority of burglars either evade a week alarm setup or they just disregard the fact that a house has an alarm and do a quick smash and dash knowing that they have at least a few minutes before any police might show up. Because Detroit is mostly a crazy, empathy-lacking melting pot of anarchy and poverty, a burglar doesn't have to evade very far from the scene of the crime to just blend back in. It's just too easy to be a criminal here. Knowing the cops are probably not coming, gives even more advantages to criminals.

I just find this new publically announced policy to be insulting and infuriating.

Another thing, I read the article as saying that without visual proof, either on-site by a human or via camera, the dispatcher will not send a squad car. It seems that some of you are interpreting the article to say, if the alarm company fails to reach one of the listed contacts to give the false alarm passcode, then the dispatcher will not send a squad car. Which is it?

[Crumbled_pavement]

SWMAP - I disagree. I think the vast majority of burglars either evade a week alarm setup or they just disregard the fact that a house has an alarm and do a quick smash and dash knowing that they have at least a few minutes before any police might show up. Because Detroit is mostly a crazy, empathy-lacking melting pot of anarchy and poverty, a burglar doesn't have to evade very far from the scene of the crime to just blend back in. It's just too easy to be a criminal here. Knowing the cops are probably not coming, gives even more advantages to criminals.

I just find this new publically announced policy to be insulting and infuriating.

Another thing, I read the article as saying that without visual proof, either on-site by a human or via camera, the dispatcher will not send a squad car. It seems that some of you are interpreting the article to say, if the alarm company fails to reach one of the listed contacts to give the false alarm passcode, then the dispatcher will not send a squad car. Which is it?

I want to add to this. What good is a police officer if I expect my neighbor to provide visual proof of a break-in? Why not just expect my neighbor to confront the buglar? I mean, to provide the visual proof they might end up confronting the buglar anyhow, so why not expect that to be protocol? If an alarm company called me and asked me to verify whether my next door neighbor's house is being buglarized, I'm grabbing a gun and am mentally prepared to shoot if I have to in order to protect my life before I go walking all around their property to see if someone broke in. So if I'm basically doing the job of the police, why bother calling them at all?

[corktownyuppie]

I want to add to this. What good is a police officer if I expect my neighbor to provide visual proof of a break-in? Why not just expect my neighbor to confront the buglar? I mean, to provide the visual proof they might end up confronting the buglar anyhow, so why not expect that to be protocol? If an alarm company called me and asked me to verify whether my next door neighbor's house is being buglarized, I'm grabbing a gun and am mentally prepared to shoot if I have to in order to protect my life before I go walking all around their property to see if someone broke in. So if I'm basically doing the job of the police, why bother calling them at all?

I think part of the problem here is that no one is clear on what the definition of "verified" is. My understanding is that the alarm company will contact a list numbers to make sure that it wasn't a known false alarm. In the absence of any answer, or by homeowners that are away and can't determine...they send the cops.

This is my understand and I might be wrong.

I think the problem is that many alarm companies don't even have that step. As soon as the alarm goes off they call the cops.

[Crumbled_pavement]

I think part of the problem here is that no one is clear on what the definition of "verified" is. My understanding is that the alarm company will contact a list numbers to make sure that it wasn't a known false alarm. In the absence of any answer, or by homeowners that are away and can't determine...they send the cops.

This is my understand and I might be wrong.

I think the problem is that many alarm companies don't even have that step. As soon as the alarm goes off they call the cops.

Yes, "verified" does definitely need to be defined. That would be a major step forward. The scenario you described would be fine, Godbee needs to come and explain what he means.

[CLAUDE G]

First of all, im one of those persons who have an alarm system at my business that will frequently report false alarms. Due to this fact, very rarely will I ask the police to be dispatched

However instead of dispatching police everytime, here is the solution.

#1 The Alarm company has a list of contacts that they must call when the alarm goes off. They call my cell phone, and im the one who makes the decision to call the police. Before video monitoring, I would drive down to my business as I live a few minutes away.

#2 Instead of getting the cheap $99 special that includes 2 door sensors and 1 motion sensor, I have multiple sensors installed at key points in my building. In the event that someone decides to break in, the burgler will trip several sensors as they move from room to room.

#3 Video Monitoring. There is a company in southfield called Security Central Protection, and they monitor my place on video 24/7. In the event of an alarm, they check out the cameras to actually verify the alarm

But overall I think this is a good policy, as I have taken the extra steps for the security company to verify the alarm and I think that having cops spend less time on false alarms will make them take real alarms more seriously..

[Zacha341]

Yeah, the 'details' are the mirco, the macro is what the criminals will read off this "no cops" announcement: easier to break in and not get caught. Weee!

Yes, "verified" does definitely need to be defined. That would be a major step forward. The scenario you described would be fine, Godbee needs to come and explain what he means.

[ResurgetCineribus]

Yes, "verified" does definitely need to be defined. That would be a major step forward. The scenario you described would be fine, Godbee needs to come and explain what he means.

I would blame part of the ambiguity on the news report too.

[JStone]

Well here is your clarification.

http://detnews.com/article/20110822/...y-begins-today

Looks like what I thought. DPD is essentially no longer responding to burglaries. Sweet.

[internet_pseudopod]

Well here is your clarification.

http://detnews.com/article/20110822/...y-begins-today

Looks like what I thought. DPD is essentially no longer responding to burglaries. Sweet.

So you mean in order to get a response you have to arrive at the scene first and wait around with a drug crazed, possibly armed robber in your house....faaaaantastic! Message to Detroit Cops: Put in an application with some of the suburban police forces because soon there will be no one here left to pay taxes.

[corktownyuppie]

Well here is your clarification.

http://detnews.com/article/20110822/...y-begins-today

Looks like what I thought. DPD is essentially no longer responding to burglaries. Sweet.

I agree with your sentiment. But to clarify, DPD *is* still responding to burglaries. They just won't respond to alarms until someone tells them it's a burglary.

I'm pissed off about this. But then I also get the problem when 98% of alarms turn out to be false alarms. There's got to be a better solution than this.

[Det_ard]

It is possible that this change will result in less crime, more arrests and a safer city.

Why? Because a police force that responds to alarms that are 98% false is wasting thousands of man-hours. Take those man-hours and apply them to 911 calls from actual people, not from faulty alarm systems. The police ought to be able to do more real policing in the time rescued from the 98% false alarms than they would do in the 2% real alarms.

[corktownyuppie]

So are 'home invasions' next to be 'included' in this new RATIONING!???

You talk about rationing like it's a bad thing. The point of rationing is to get scarce resources to places it's needed the most.

If you were trying to feed the hungry, and your strategy was drop off baskets of food door-to-door...how would you feel if you later found out that 98% of the homes you went to were vacant and the food was just eaten by wild animals?

What about the 2% of the people who actually got the food but only had one meal that day. You're gonna tell that person..."hey man, I would've given you more...but you know. I had to deliver to 49 other houses just like yours. Except, of course, that the homes were empty."

And then what about all the hungry people who didn't get food at all?

Look, I know that this isn't a perfect solution. And I've directly stated my issues with the way it's being implemented. But if you think that RATIONING is the source of the problem? Then maybe we have two different understandings of what the problem actually is.

[Crumbled_pavement]

You talk about rationing like it's a bad thing. The point of rationing is to get scarce resources to places it's needed the most.

If you were trying to feed the hungry, and your strategy was drop off baskets of food door-to-door...how would you feel if you later found out that 98% of the homes you went to were vacant and the food was just eaten by wild animals?

What about the 2% of the people who actually got the food but only had one meal that day. You're gonna tell that person..."hey man, I would've given you more...but you know. I had to deliver to 49 other houses just like yours. Except, of course, that the homes were empty."

And then what about all the hungry people who didn't get food at all?

Look, I know that this isn't a perfect solution. And I've directly stated my issues with the way it's being implemented. But if you think that RATIONING is the source of the problem? Then maybe we have two different understandings of what the problem actually is.

My alarm system has always been set up like this: My alarm company gets a signal that there is a break in. They then try to contact me by phone. If I answer and tell them it isn't a false alarm or if I don't answer at all, they call the police.

If this process still results in a police officer coming to my house to investigate, then I am fine with this new "rationing" program. If not, and a neighbor of mine or the alarm company has to come onsite to verify a break-in then I am not fine with that. As I stated before, the police wouldn't be needed at all in that scenario. Trust me, if my next door neighbor has to come over to my house to see if there is a break-in, he's coming prepared to shoot. No need to call the police, just call an ambulance.

[SWMAP]

He won't shoot if he's smart. Too much trouble over a television.
The problem is that your alarm co over-promised you about how they can command the DPD to come at their mostly faulty command. You wouldn't have this concern if the industry were more reliable and less fear-mongering.

[Crumbled_pavement]

He won't shoot if he's smart. Too much trouble over a television.
The problem is that your alarm co over-promised you about how they can command the DPD to come at their mostly faulty command. You wouldn't have this concern if the industry were more reliable and less fear-mongering.

What? My alarm company promised they'd call the police, they never promised me anything about commanding anyone to do anything. And it's not just a television set, it is what a burglar could threaten to do to harm someone.

[Crumbled_pavement]

He won't shoot if he's smart. Too much trouble over a television.
The problem is that your alarm co over-promised you about how they can command the DPD to come at their mostly faulty command. You wouldn't have this concern if the industry were more reliable and less fear-mongering.

Exactly what do you think a buglar is going to do if a neighbor detects them?

Let's follow this whole scenario out. The alarm company gets a signal of a break-in at a residential location. The alarm company correctly calls the owner to find out if it's a false alarm. The owner says, "oh gee, I don't know, I'm at work, a good 50 minutes away. Let me call my neighbor and ask him." So the owner calls his next door neighbor who happens to be home at the time. Following SWMAP's advice, he's unarmed when walks around his neighbor's entire house in the darkness [[because it's night time and burglars turn off lights) to find that the back door on his neighbor's house has been broken in. The neighbor calls the police and waits at the back door for the cops to arrive. Does the burglar wait with the neighbor with a "drats, you caught me" look on his face? Or does the burglar run off. Damn, the burglar gets away. Or worse, does the burglar shoot the neighbor [[because he's following SWMAP's advice and is unarmed)? Either way, the neighbor is doing the job of the cops. If you ask me that makes calling the cops useless. As someone else already pointed out, I hope police officers in Detroit plan on applying to surburban police forces because there won't be any taxpayers left to pay their salaries in Detroit.

[SWMAP]

I said that your neighbor isn't going to shoot a guy carrying a television out of your house no matter how much you hope he will. Too much trouble and criminal unknown for him. He would probably wait for the police from a safe place and then give his name [[ so he can get the ticket if he says it's legit and it's not) when the scout car arrives.

[corktownyuppie]

I guess we'll need to see how this plays out. I don't like the solution. But what if the time saved by responding only to "verified" burglar alarms would result in a 90-second response times to the verified burglaries.

Might that change my opinion on it? It might.

The decision is made. We've all weighed in. Let's see what happens for the next 180 days. Hell, it can't get much worse than it already was.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

I guess we'll need to see how this plays out. I don't like the solution. But what if the time saved by responding only to "verified" burglar alarms would result in a 90-second response times to the verified burglaries.

Might that change my opinion on it? It might.

The decision is made. We've all weighed in. Let's see what happens for the next 180 days. Hell, it can't get much worse than it already was.

The Cheif should never announced his new policy. The primary reason is that INSURANCE PROVIDERS will increase rate more.

Telling you insurance provider that you have an alarm system will mean moot point. No more discount for an alarm system.

[Crumbled_pavement]

I said that your neighbor isn't going to shoot a guy carrying a television out of your house no matter how much you hope he will. Too much trouble and criminal unknown for him. He would probably wait for the police from a safe place and then give his name [[ so he can get the ticket if he says it's legit and it's not) when the scout car arrives.

You have obviously never met my neighbor. He doesn't believe in all that 5 finger discount nonsense.

But you're really missing my point. If no one is available to walk all around my house in the middle of the night to verify the break-in, then hang out and wait 30 minutes for the police to show up [[if they show up), the thief has nothing to worry about to begin with. They can just take their time and grab some extra goodies they'd usually be in too big of a hurry to steal.

[MSUguy]

The city was in the process working on a ordinance requiring registration for alarms and with penalties, etc. I've seen brought up in the public safety committee meetings of council and it was discussed in their last meeting[[7/25) before they went of recess. So you can expect that down the line.

[Crumbled_pavement]

Okay, I feel better now, but this whole process is going to cost me an additional $36 a year. Just chalk it up to another tax that must be paid to live in the city. Anyhow, my alarm company sent me a letter explaining they will comply with the city's policy change with the proceedure below:

• 1) First attempt to contact the customer's premises by telephone to verify whether an alarm event is real.
• 2) In the event we are unable to contact someone at the customer's premises, a second verification call attempt is made to a designated person on the customer's Emergency Contact list to very the alarm event.
• 3) If we are still unable to contact anyone by phone, we will attempt [[??? - don't know why this would be an attempt, and not successful, but it's what they wrote) to notify the police department and will dispatch a guard to visually check the exterior of the premises from his or her vehicle to determine if an actual alarm event has occurred [[sounds like the thief will have to break in the front of the house, how will the guard be able to tell if the break-in occured in the back of the house?).
• 4) If the guard reports evidence of a criminal or other unauthorized intrusion, we will provide follow-up notification to the police department.
• 5) On your next bill, you will see an additional monthly charge of $3.00 for guard service, a charge unfortunately made necessary as a result of the change in the police department's alarm response policy.

This is workable and acceptable. I hope it saves the city money and the police are able to be more effective. Judging by the last few decades of Detroit's history, I doubt it, but whatever.