Critics blast Detroit's new verified response policy

**carlscomputers** · August-30-11, 09:45 PM

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/Cen...toring/1322307

**brizee** · August-31-11, 12:34 AM

"You know what I hear when I hear that? I hear [[Oakland County Executive) L. Brooks Patterson calling me, loud and clear."

I really am over Dave Bing's bullshit.

A police force that won't respond to breakins.

A fire department that will watch as houses burn.

Pay taxes while and watch other neighborhoods actually get service.

This guy really thinks he's the smartest person in the room.

**MSUguy** · August-31-11, 12:47 AM

Just don't move to Houston, Dallas, Salt Lake, Milwaukee, Las Vegas or Winnipeg because they all do the same exact thing for alarms

**SWMAP** · August-31-11, 06:24 AM

Unamed, unattributed critics - except for the head of alarm industry alliance-what else did you expect - are the only critics mentioned. I guess a few of the people on this Board were the others. Of course the alarm industry is against more municipal regulation.

**corktownyuppie** · August-31-11, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by brizee

I really am over Dave Bing's bullshit.

A police force that won't respond to breakins.

A fire department that will watch as houses burn.

Pay taxes while and watch other neighborhoods actually get service.

This guy really thinks he's the smartest person in the room.

I don't blame you for being angry. I think your anger is misplaced.
This isn't Bing's bullshit. Or Kwame's bullshit. Or Archer's bullshit. Or Coleman's bullshit.

This is financial bullshit. The city has half the budget as it used to.

Pay taxes while and watch other neighborhoods actually get service.

Well the solution here isn't to blame the messenger. The solution here is for you to move to one of the neighborhoods that's easier to serve. If you don't think Bing is the smartest man in the room, I'm sure he and everyone else is open to other suggestions.

**brizee** · August-31-11, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

I don't blame you for being angry. I think your anger is misplaced.
This isn't Bing's bullshit. Or Kwame's bullshit. Or Archer's bullshit. Or Coleman's bullshit.

This is financial bullshit. The city has half the budget as it used to.

And they're about to make the situation worse and they have only themselves to blame.

Did you read the article?

A business owner is voicing his honest concerns. He's been broken into 30 times over 20 years and he has to hear the police are putting the responsibility of checking on him.

How is an industrial operation supposed to move to a nicer neighborhood? A big ass factory makes a neighborhood not nice. There really isn't any place for industrial business in the current vision for downtown.

Move to another part of the city? The owner just explicitly verbalized where his moving options are.

Well the solution here isn't to blame the messenger. The solution here is for you to move to one of the neighborhoods that's easier to serve. If you don't think Bing is the smartest man in the room, I'm sure he and everyone else is open to other suggestions.

No
The solution is to move to an actual city.

Why would I stay in a location when the powers that be have already made it clear I'm not worthwhile to provide the services that are expected in a third world country.

All of the whining about not having the money is going to be rendered completely moot when [[not if) these policies backfire.

One death/injury from a burned out house that was thought clear or an unverified break in and all the supposed savings go down the toilet.

Look I want to stay in Detroit as much as anyone. I plan to move Downtown soon. But some things I just will not cosign on.

ferntruth · August-31-11, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by MSUguy

Just don't move to Houston, Dallas, Salt Lake, Milwaukee, Las Vegas or Winnipeg because they all do the same exact thing for alarms

They may have the same policy, but they don't face the problems that are unique to Detroit. While it may work there, there is already a perception that the Police are ineffective in Detroit [[deserved or not). This decision just reinforces that perception.

In other words, I'd trust Winnipeg's finest to implement this policy whereas I would not trust DPD to do the same.

**ResurgetCineribus** · August-31-11, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by brizee

Did you read the article?

A business owner is voicing his honest concerns. He's been broken into 30 times over 20 years and he has to hear the police are putting the responsibility of checking on him.

How is an industrial operation supposed to move to a nicer neighborhood? A big ass factory makes a neighborhood not nice. There really isn't any place for industrial business in the current vision for downtown.

Move to another part of the city? The owner just explicitly verbalized where his moving options are.

No
The solution is to move to an actual city.

Why would I stay in a location when the powers that be have already made it clear I'm not worthwhile to provide the services that are expected in a third world country.

All of the whining about not having the money is going to be rendered completely moot when [[not if) these policies backfire.

One death/injury from a burned out house that was thought clear or an unverified break in and all the supposed savings go down the toilet.

Look I want to stay in Detroit as much as anyone. I plan to move Downtown soon. But some things I just will not cosign on.

First off, did you read the article? His alarm went off 30 times, only 6 of those were actual break-ins. This idiot Pappas worries about the police no longer responding, yet he is the exact definition of the problem. Also, nobody is saying there won't be mishaps. There is definetly going to be unverified alarms that are actually break-ins, and there is going to be people squatting in abandoned houses that burn down. However, these are the exceptions to the rule, and that is the point.

Also, you should go to a third world country, and then rethink your statement.

**MSUguy** · August-31-11, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by ResurgetCineribus

First off, did you read the article? His alarm went off 30 times, only 6 of those were actual break-ins. This idiot Pappas worries about the police no longer responding, yet he is the exact definition of the problem. Also, nobody is saying there won't be mishaps. There is definetly going to be unverified alarms that are actually break-ins, and there is going to be people squatting in abandoned houses that burn down. However, these are the exceptions to the rule, and that is the point.

Also, you should go to a third world country, and then rethink your statement.

This . He's the exact reason why the city is going this route. He alone is resposible for 24 false police runs think about how much time that waste when you have a city full people doing this exact same thing.

brizee, do you think maybe, just maybe, the city's ability to fight real crime is effect by going on so many false alarm runs?

**Detroitnerd** · August-31-11, 11:08 AM

This Detroit Works mentality is pretty amusing. It's not the city's fault that it can't provide services. It COULD provide services, if it weren't for all those pesky RESIDENTS with all their unfair NEEDS.

The real joke is some of you believe this claptrap.

**Detroitej72** · August-31-11, 11:26 AM

What the city should do is start charging these people for false alarms. That way, the city brings in revenue and all you people who want them to respond to false alarms will get what you want. I'm sure after a few bills, the joker who had 26 false alarms might have his alarm readjusted to eliminate this kind of waste.

I'm sure all you folks who are complaining about this would bitch just as loud every time the police failed to come to your aid after an actual emergency because they were busy responding to someone else's shoddy alarm.

ferntruth · August-31-11, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

What the city should do is start charging these people for false alarms. That way, the city brings in revenue and all you people who want them to respond to false alarms will get what you want. I'm sure after a few bills, the joker who had 26 false alarms might have his alarm readjusted to eliminate this kind of waste.

I'm sure all you folks who are complaining about this would bitch just as loud every time the police failed to come to your aid after an actual emergency because they were busy responding to someone else's shoddy alarm.

Charging for false alarms makes more sense than having a police department not respond at all until it can be proven there was an actual break in.
Detroit is not helping itself any with these new policies regarding the Fire and Policy departments. It's just reinforcing the perception that both agencies are incapable of carrying out their assigned missions.

**pkbroch** · August-31-11, 11:37 AM

What makes you think that the So Called " Better Neighborhoods" get better service.

If we got such great service from DPD would we have hired private security patrols for the past 30 plus years. And we still have new streetlights that the city can't even get to work on all streets.

Our Association still plows the snow, cuts the Woodward greenbelt, plants and maintains the traffic islands. But I do like my historic neighborhood.

**yupislyr** · August-31-11, 11:40 AM

False alarms got bad enough over here in Windsor that they had to bring in an alarm registration bylaw.

All alarms have to be registered with the city/police. Any unregistered alarms are automatically assigned a lower priority.

On the 4th false alarm in a 12 month period, the city/police charge the owner a fee for that false alarm as well as any more after that. Also any subsequent responses will be automatically downgraded to non emergency until they pay up.

Don't pay up and/or have too many further false alarms, their registration is suspended and police won't respond anymore to that alarm.

Seems to work here from what I can tell.

**pkbroch** · August-31-11, 11:43 AM

Charging for false alarms is a decent idea. But DPD would have to actually respond to charge, which is not the case for most of the alarms in my area.

We had two in two years never saw DPD. Came home ourselves to check after central station alerted.

**pkbroch** · August-31-11, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by yupislyr

False alarms got bad enough over here in Windsor that they had to bring in an alarm registration bylaw.

All alarms have to be registered with the city/police. Any unregistered alarms are automatically assigned a lower priority.

On the 4th false alarm in a 12 month period, the city/police charge the owner a fee for that false alarm as well as any more after that. Also any subsequent responses will be automatically downgraded to non emergency until they pay up.

Don't pay up and/or have too many further false alarms, their registration is suspended and police won't respond anymore to that alarm.

Seems to work here from what I can tell.

This is an idea that works well in many cities. But Detroit just skipped over that model and went to this no service system.

**SWMAP** · August-31-11, 11:49 AM

And don't you understand yet? The alarm company sold you an assurance that your alarm would be responded to. The DPD never got in that contract.

But now I see that the bigger local alarm companies will send a car to their subscribers property to vet the situation and bring in the police. Now the false alarms are on their dime - which, imo, is just how it should be. And if they can't get there quick enough - why do you think the DPD with volumes more calls than one measly alarm company will field, should be able to get there faster?

With their cheap technology and pandering to scared old ladies, the alarm industry is a racket.

**JStone** · August-31-11, 11:55 AM

ferntruth tells the truth - I agree.

**iheartthed** · August-31-11, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by ferntruth

Charging for false alarms makes more sense than having a police department not respond at all until it can be proven there was an actual break in.
Detroit is not helping itself any with these new policies regarding the Fire and Policy departments. It's just reinforcing the perception that both agencies are incapable of carrying out their assigned missions.

...or it might actually free up the manpower to allow them to be more effective at actually policing.

**cramerro** · August-31-11, 12:08 PM

I don't live in the city, so I'm not as personally invested in this conversation, but I have thought a few times about the whole charging a fee/penalty/ticket for false alarms. I think that the DPD may have gotten it right this time, placing the onus on the property owner [[and/or vis-a-vis the alarm company) to have some way to confirm that it's worth pulling cops away and not a false alarm.

Charging fees/penalty for falses sure sounds like a great idea - the DPD gets more money in the coffers, etc, but look at the problem the city has collecting on other debts - property/income taxes, parking tickets, and fines. Perhaps exaggerating the problem, but there is a variety of data that shows terrible collection rates - I'm sure this case would be no better. Then you're into, 'well, if they don't pay, then they're on a no-check-without-confirm-list' or whatever, but that's a lot of extra red tape and administrative work in a city that has had too much for too long. Food for thought.

**Meddle** · August-31-11, 12:10 PM

A business owner is voicing his honest concerns. He's been broken into 30 times over 20 years and he has to hear the police are putting the responsibility of checking on him.

Where it should be.

What the city should do is start charging these people for false alarms. That way, the city brings in revenue and all you people who want them to respond to false alarms will get what you want.

Agreed. And the fee should increase every time.

And don't you understand yet? The alarm company sold you an assurance that your alarm would be responded to. The DPD never got in that contract.

But now I see that the bigger local alarm companies will send a car to their subscribers property to vet the situation and bring in the police. Now the false alarms are on their dime - which, imo, is just how it should be.

Exactly. The alarm company and/or the keyholder should respond and verify the building has been breached. If a door or window is broken out, they should wait for PD to go in with them

**kraig** · August-31-11, 12:49 PM

This is nothing but another excuse for the police not to respond. The police don't respond after there has been a verified break in, robbery or car theft. Whether they have an official policy or not doesn't make a difference. They aren't going to show up anyway.

Bing is looking to get the City out of the public service business and into the pay per service business. However, he's still going to take all of our tax dollars.

ferntruth · August-31-11, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

...or it might actually free up the manpower to allow them to be more effective at actually policing.

Absolutely it will, because this is the biggest problem facing Detroit and the DPD. It's not the lack of response time in general. Its not their CONSCIOUS DECISION to pull staff from the streets and put them in admin positions behind a desk somewhere. It's false alarms.

I am amazed at how some on this forum have just accepted idiotic decisions as good ideas. You want to charge for a false alarm that is responded to..fine.

But the decision to simply not respond until verified is just plain stupid. It is the job of the police to respond to suspected criminal activity, or at least it used to be.

**Meddle** · August-31-11, 03:11 PM

It is the job of the police to respond to suspected criminal activity, or at least it used to be.

Alarm activations are so often false, they are no longer indications of suspected criminal activity.

**iheartthed** · August-31-11, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by ferntruth

Absolutely it will, because this is the biggest problem facing Detroit and the DPD. It's not the lack of response time in general. Its not their CONSCIOUS DECISION to pull staff from the streets and put them in admin positions behind a desk somewhere. It's false alarms.

I am amazed at how some on this forum have just accepted idiotic decisions as good ideas. You want to charge for a false alarm that is responded to..fine.

But the decision to simply not respond until verified is just plain stupid. It is the job of the police to respond to suspected criminal activity, or at least it used to be.

What's amazing is that you never seem to connect the logical dot between sub par police response times and the problem of limited resources, which is at least in part due to responding to nonsense calls. It's really not rocket science that if 98% of the alarm calls are false then maybe they should de-emphasize responding to alarms as part of their tactics to reduce crime.