It’s a vicious cycle. The municipalities that have the most need for good police protection are often the least able to pay for it. So what happens? Crime fighting is inadequate, a lot of people and businesses move away and the situation gets worse. Then crime spreads to neighboring areas, people move away again, and . . . lather, rinse, repeat.
That’s about to happen again in Southeast Michigan unless regional and/or state-level action is taken to stop it. As I write this, Detroit is contemplating the layoff of hundreds of police officers – a move that could reverse impressive progress the city has made in reducing overall violent crime. Meanwhile, the much-smaller Inkster Police Department just announced it will lay off 12 officers, leading to fear that criminals there will see an opportunity and take it.
Those are just the latest examples of a trend toward reducing police protection where it least makes sense to do so – simply because local city budgets are tight and money to pay for more officers is not there. You can score one for the crooks; that is, unless we develop a regional approach to police funding that is less vulnerable to budgetary problems of any particular community.
By now, you may have guessed where I am going with this. Some of you who live in the suburbs are thinking: “Hey, wait a minute, the place where I live is safe. Are you suggesting that I should have to help pay for police for those people over there, using my tax dollars? How is that fair?”
Let me end the suspense. Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. And yes, it is fair. Hear me out.
As I mentioned in my Nov. 23 column, I strongly believe the way we govern Southeast Michigan ignores reality. Metro Detroit is more than just interconnected; it really is one big community. It’s a place where, except for purposes of divvying up tax money and political power, municipal boundaries have long ago ceased to matter very much. It’s typical for a family to live in Place A, but have husband-and-wife breadwinners who work in Place B and Place C. When they go to the movies or out to dinner, they might drive many miles to Place D.
Here in Southeast Michigan, we think nothing of making a 45-minute daily commute or driving an hour to take in a show or visit the in-laws. Thanks to our freeways, we routinely wander over a land mass that puts to shame the “home range” territory of an average mountain lion.
Thus, it is myopic to assume that crime “over there,” (meaning a place 15 or 25 miles away) is not a threat to folks “over here,” wherever that might be. “There” and “here” are just different parts of the same big place. And crime is the common enemy of decent people all over. We need to be unified against that more than we are divided from one another.
There are different ways we could move in that direction. For example, additional resources devoted to helping local police departments coordinate their efforts would be money well spent. But if we really want to ensure this region is able to combat crime in a consistent way, we need to do more than just share information. We need to share cops.
Other places are doing it. In New Jersey, for example, officials are considering plans to provide public safety entirely at the county level. I am skeptical about entirely abolishing local-level police forces. It makes sense for at least some cops to have a close connection to the neighborhoods they patrol. But, clearly we need to find ways to deploy officers in a flexible way and fund them in a manner that is sustainable in the long run.
One way to do that would be to supplement our down-sized city and county police departments with a new, shared police force serving the entire seven-county Southeast Michigan Council of Governments region. Such a force could help fight crime that stretches across municipal boundaries – notably drug trafficking – taking some strain off local officers over-burdened by routine police calls. It also could deploy officers, as needed, to help local police defuse crime “hot spots” and deal with emergencies anywhere in the region. Over time, such a force might serve as the vehicle for the sharing of expensive things like crime labs and advanced technology.
Such a plan could be paid for any number of ways. Probably the fairest and best way would be to levy a small, seven-county property-tax millage that would provide a dedicated, predictable and transparent revenue stream directly to the regional police force. Governance could be handled by elected or appointed board members representing each of the seven counties, with members apportioned based on each county’s population. To protect the interests of smaller counties, the rules of the board could require a super-majority for big decisions.
As with any human enterprise, there are numerous ways a region-wide police force could become screwed up. The potential for infighting and politicking would always exist. But if we could remain focused on defeating the common enemy – crime – a region-wide assault on the bad guys could make a big difference.
An aside: This week saw yet another stunning and example of unhelpful hand-wringing and doomsaying by the Detroit News.
On The Michigan View, a blog operated by the News, Bill Johnson, former chief-of-staff for the Wayne County Commission, and a Detroit-based consultant, declared Detroit to be more or less a dead city walking. “The city is like a comatose patient on artificial life support.” Johnson wrote in a post dated Nov. 28. “Its health is beyond the best corrective measures of an astute emergency financial manger. It must mercifully be allowed to die a natural death.”
I have no idea what Johnson means by that and he does not explain it. Does Johnson think the city should be disbanded? If so, what would come next? Would it be turned over to Wayne County? Broken up into smaller, bite-sized towns? Evacuated and then bulldozed? That’s hard to say. Maybe Johnson will make that clear in a future column.
