OKC Police & Fire needs

[Wambo36]

In the paper a few weeks ago it said firemen were making over $100k a year. I'll be the first to say I think that is way too much, especially for a job that allows you to have another nearly full time job. Not sure if it's like this in okc, but I know other cities have to pay the firemen as soon as they leave their house to go to the station. So if a fireman lives in, say weatherford, he gets paid as soon as he makes his commute.

Iron, fire and police get a percentage of city revenues. When revenues are up, fire and police get more, and this is what MAPS3 intends to do. It's really that simple.

What the newspaper did was cherry pick several individuals who not only work their ten 24 hr shifts a month but also have volunteered to be cross trained as emergency dispatchers. Then they are called to work in dispatch so the city can avoid hiring more dispatchers. This was the cities way of handling a shortage of dispatchers. It's fairly telling that this is the way they chose to handle this situation and then they go to the paper to complain about the cost. This all happened shortly after they lost their arbitration case to the firefighters. This story was put in the paper to set the stage for them to try to win in a vote if it comes to that. Those numbers apply to maybe 12 people who are in the relief dispatcher program. But the story in the paper never said that, did it.
And no, we don't get paid drive time. We start on the clock at 7 a.m.

[betts]

Smooth he's not talking about MAPS funds. He's talking about the increase in sales tax that has come in because of MAPS. He's asking, why, if MAPS has brought in so much extra income for the city, have city departments been losing positions ever since it passed. The argument put forth by many on this thread is that if MAPS 3 passes the city workers will get some sort of benefit from the new increase in income. What the police and fire workers are saying is that history proves this to be a false assumption.

Perhaps that extra income has been spent on other things besides extra positions. Perhaps salaries have gone up. I don't know if you factor in other personnel when you say that the department has been losing positions. Perhaps other types of personnel have increased. What you would have to look at, rather than positions, is whether the actual budget of the entire department has increased since MAPS has been instituted.

And, while people may have been implying that if MAPS passes again, the departments may get some benefit from it, no one has said that "workers" will get some sort of benefit as individuals. That is dependent not only on the city, but on the departments' allocation of resources. One would anticipate that sales tax revenue for the city would increase, which would increase proportionately, money available to the departments. However, when the economy suffers, any department dependent upon sale tax revenue suffers shortages. It has to be a "big picture" where one looks at income over a time frame, rather than month to month or quarter to quarter.

But, if MAPS 3 passes, the police and fire departments are far more likely to benefit individually than I am, since my income is independent of MAPS. I'm not saying, "What's in it for me specifically?" Shouldn't this be about a bigger picture than what's in it for me as an individual? Shouldn't this be about the city, and more than specifically jobs? It doesn't help me personally if we get a new convention center, but I can see where it might be beneficial to the city. It doesn't help me if senior citizens get aquatic centers. I'm not a senior citizen and I don't swim. I don't kayak either, but I can see that having a kayak course will expand our Olympic training center facilities, and I think that's a good thing, but not for me personally. This is far more about "we" than me. The we is my city. Again, the "we" doen't preclude increased money for more police and fire personnel, in my book. I can be for that as well, because we can have both, ultimately, if that's what is needed. If I were more in favor of MAPS than money for your department, I wouldn't vote against your department getting more money, if that election came first. I see the two as unrelated, and not mutually exclusive.

[andy157]

This arguement really bothers me. Now, the police and fire fighters may not have gotten more manpower since MAPS I but to act like they have not benifited is just wrong. The cities' Web site says Public Safety gets 55% of the city budget. You can't tell me that MAPS I did not increase that same city budget. MAPS I increased city budget and police/fire get 55% of that budget. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Are our public safety funding where it needs to be? Probably not (can you realy fully fund public safety as much as it is needed?). But to act like our police and fire fighters have not gained resources from MAPS I is simply wrong.

For the record Police and Fire are not consuming the entire 55% dedicated to Public Safety from the General Fund. Make no mistake, a majority of the Personal Service expense to the General Fund for Public Safety can be attributed to Police and Fire. However there are two other City Departments whose Personal Service cost come out of that 55%. Check the City's budget. The "Public Safety" budget funds, Police, Fire, Animal Welfare, and the Municipal Courts System. If the high cost to the G.F. budget for Public Safety is such a big problem the City Manager can solve the problem very easy. Simply transfer A.W. and the M.C.S out of the Public Safety budget into his budget. Then we can point our finger and complain about how much the City Managers budget is costing the G.F.

[smooth]

Prove how? What sort of evidence would convince you that police aren't always wholesome and pure? You want me to cite cases of LEO misconduct, because that's easy.

The incidents of OHP assaulting people like Trooper Martin and those OHP blokes and not getting punished fit it? Or Sheriff Whetsel's sending an angry e-mail response to an arrest to the media to get a man fired? Or those police down in Dallas who fabricated citations (for driving while not speaking English) when writing tickets and have thus far seemed to escape punishment? Or those two police officers in Noble who killed the kid and were able to escape jail time? Or the Sheriff in Arizona who has admitted profiling, busted into federal buildings at night in full riot gear to intimidate non-white night staff, and has gone against federal orders to continue to do so?

Or just OKC? Or the OKC officer who pulled over a man for an anti-Obama sign on his truck? Or the older case of the OKC police officers who beat the ever-loving hell out of an unarmed and non-combative black man and weren't prosecuted? Or the case of the officer harassing the video vigilante (who was actually issued a letter of apology since he was lucky enough to be doing something that allowed him to carry a camera with him everywhere he went.)

Major cases of police abuse and misconduct aren't exactly hard to find.

Or do you want a more personal situation, like getting pulled to the side and interrogated by a beat officer for the crime of "walking while not white?" Once that sort of thing happens and you realize what had happened, you tend to be less trusting of the boys in blue. Or seeing people yelled at and thrown in the back of cop cars for encroaching too close to the yellow crime-scene line and wondering why their home has been blocked off. Cameras don't tend to catch all those things and people don't report them for a variety of reasons (largely because they know that without video evidence or a media blitz nothing would be done).

Or is this even a real request and you'll find some reason to ignore all such complaints of allegations for whatever reason? When you ask for something it really helps to know what you want.

You asked because you can't prove it. So, your allegations are friviolus. Sure, a VERY small number may abuse authority or power, but that happens in every profession. Some of you think just because a person wears a badge, they abuse it. FAR from true. Plus, I don't know if you are black, white or blue (doesn't matter) but that example of "walking while not white" is the lame excuse (not reason, excuse) of "pulling out the race card."

I doubt seriously you know all the facts. The suspect may have tried to resist. The suspect may have called the cop a disrepectful term. YOU DO NOT KNOW. You made the claim, now either prove it or move on. I'm sick of all this all cops are punks routine. Now....

[Midtowner]

The suspect may have tried to resist. The suspect may have called the cop a disrepectful term.

And that gives the officer the authority to do what exactly?

I agree with most of what you said -- the VAST majority of LEOs are highly professional. There are a few, however, who do need to go. Unfortunately, their brother officers won't cross the blue line to get such a process underway.

[iron76hd]

I don't trust them to protect me, only to come in and try to figure out who it was that burst into my home and shot me dead.

chance...i've ignored just about everything you've posted. I'd bet either your traffic record or criminal record is as long as my arm.. If not both.

we were talking about police and fire needs. If you want to talk about police brutality you've apparently witnessed go to a local briefing station and report it. otherwise.. take a hike.

I am very surprised Midtowner even commented on any of the stuff you've posted. You sound like some of our very misguided youth.

Stat for both of you. Less that 1% of LEO are corrupt. I think that's good. And i can't speak for everyone, but if i see an officer do something ILLEGAL i won't have any problem calling them on the carpet. Even if it costs them their job. so ur barking up the wrong tree on that bull.

And that gives the officer the authority to do what exactly?

I agree with most of what you said -- the VAST majority of LEOs are highly professional. There are a few, however, who do need to go. Unfortunately, their brother officers won't cross the blue line to get such a process underway.

why don't you dive into some police training and read or ask about what LEO's are taught. Then you can easily comment on what you saw. Rodney King...half of that was text book and legal and the other half was over the line.

the trooper on the news...come on ..that was text book handcuffing. what you didn't hear is the troopers yelling numerous time for the subject to put his hands behind his back...that's all for another thread though...

thank you smooth. 180mph weaving through traffic for over thirty minutes...alot of which was not with LEO behind him...he lost them really quickly...families in those cars he was passing on the shoulder etc...

he still continued to drive in that manner...thank god for news9...

you see it's a game to him...he's having fun...anyway...another thread...

[iron76hd]

For the record Police and Fire are not consuming the entire 55% dedicated to Public Safety from the General Fund.

so they are wrong huh...big surprise. thanks andy

That's all I could get. The detailed study was put on the OKC site for one week. That's what had the recommendations for everything...the Gang Enforcement unit needing to increase from 12 to 40 plus etc..


http://www.okc.gov/police/police_powerpoint.pdf

Midtowner. if you know of a reason why some "need to go" then please go to your local station and report why. it sounds like that's your opinion only though.

[Midtowner]

Midtowner. if you know of a reason why some "need to go" then please go to your local station and report why. it sounds like that's your opinion only though.

My firm (not me) has actually done that in some criminal representations. Once got a Yukon officer fired for thumping a kid so hard on his hood that it dented the hood (was stopped for speeding). Also won a nice civil rights judgment.

What seems to happen more often though is that the police officers will charge the client with some trumped up felonies then we'll trade the felonies for a covenant not to sue so that the whole thing goes away and the officers are not held accountable.

I have some good friends in law enforcement -- don't get me wrong, I'm very, very pro-law enforcement. But your house ain't squeaky clean. That's all I'm saying.

[jc4455]

I didn't move here because of MAPS, but I didn't move away because of MAPS. I was planning on leaving as soon as I could, but grew enchanted with being part of a city that was determined to improve itself. I moved downtown because of MAPS and the Ford Center MAPS, which means, instead of shopping in and eating in Edmond, I shop in OKC and eat in OKC. I pay property taxes and pay for bond issues in OKC. I've got neighbors who can say the same.

What kept me here? Change, the hope for the future I saw in people here, new things to do downtown, a professional basketball team (I love basketball, and seriously missed the professional sports I'd known all my life in Minneapolis and Denver), getting excited about buildings being built and renovated, trees being planted downtown, people living downtown. I love being able to walk to the Brick or the Ford Center to watch a game, to pop over to the Harkins theatre to see a movie, to walk to Starbucks with my dog on the weekends, to wave at my neighbors riding their Segways to Trattoria il Centro, to walk to Bricktown to eat if I feel like it, to watch the trees on the canal change their leaves, to see the Christmas lights there when it's time, to see people walking their dogs in Deep Deuce. None of that would be there if not for MAPS.

The majority of OKC citizens don't live downtown, they can't afford it.

What has MAPS done for the people who can't afford downtown living, can't afford to get a $5 cup of coffee every weekend or to pop into the Harkins theatre or the cost of a meal in Bricktown?

It is these people that will be, and have been, paying for MAPS.

[OSUFan]

The majority of OKC citizens don't live downtown, they can't afford it.

What has MAPS done for the people who can't afford downtown living, can't afford to get a $5 cup of coffee every weekend or to pop into the Harkins theatre or the cost of a meal in Bricktown?

It is these people that will be, and have been, paying for MAPS.

Come on, you don't have to live downtown to benifit from MAPS. I don't live downtown but I enjoy visiting downtown or the river.

[Chance23]

You asked because you can't prove it. So, your allegations are friviolus. Sure, a VERY small number may abuse authority or power, but that happens in every profession. Some of you think just because a person wears a badge, they abuse it. FAR from true. Plus, I don't know if you are black, white or blue (doesn't matter) but that example of "walking while not white" is the lame excuse (not reason, excuse) of "pulling out the race card."

I doubt seriously you know all the facts. The suspect may have tried to resist. The suspect may have called the cop a disrepectful term. YOU DO NOT KNOW. You made the claim, now either prove it or move on. I'm sick of all this all cops are punks routine. Now....

Nope, the reason I asked is because I had a pretty good suspicion that it was a rhetorical question. That no matter how many incidents of LEO misconducted I mentioned (and I did mention quite a few), that you would ignore them all as isolated incidents, which is exactly what you did, thanks for confirming every hypothesis. You don't want incidents showing it, you want a cop coming out and criticizing their department for it, knowing that they're too interested in covering their own behinds to ever truly examine their own conduct across the board. Yet how many "isolated incidents" should it take before we begin the question the sanctity and purity of the people behind the badge?

The badge gives them license to do things that we can't, most of the time it takes the form of little things that you don't think about until it happens to you, but are still needless shows of force or power that will never get spoken of again. It's like the fire that destroyed that old school on the south side. You saw on the news that they were fighting it, you didn't see the police officers yelling at people a half mile away, people who were in no way threatened or getting in the way of anything. There were people a lot closer than any of them, but the officer stationed there needed someone to show his authority over. That was a pointless show of power. Police have power over people's lives, we have a right and a responsibility to be skeptical of their actions.

As for the "suspect," which one? The one they had on video on the news the other night? The guy led police on a chase, he deserved to get arrested. Then he gave up, got on the ground, and spread eagle. One OHP Trooper approached with a gun, the other walked up and punched him in the back. You can see that the man wasn't struggling, and it wouldn't matter at all what he said to the officer, verbal exchanges aren't cause for physical violence. Do I know everything? Of course not, neither do you, but the difference is we can see the guy surrender on video and we can see the trooper walk up, press his knee into his back, and strike him. Then the supervisor came on and said it was standard to strike a guy on the ground, meaning it's standard procedure to get a free shot in. Thankfully the media got it all on film.

And you think I care if you think it's a "lame excuse to pull out a race card"? There's nothing illegal about walking down a sidewalk doing an errand for work and people have every reason to be upset about when an officer expects you're committing a crime by doing so. It was the middle of the day, a busy sidewalk, and there were other people around, yet for some reason the officer decides to question the person who isn't white of all the people there? You're a fool if you think we shouldn't be upset if we're singled out for no reason.

chance...i've ignored just about everything you've posted. I'd bet either your traffic record or criminal record is as long as my arm.. If not both.

Ahh, guilty until proven guilty. That's how the criminal justice system tends to operate now, right? And no one who doesn't have a rap sheet can be critical of those in power, right? No one has any reason to have lost faith in the system?

If you wanna play, fine. I've had a few speeding tickets in my youth. I paid them off and was put on probation, haven't done a thing since. I last had one... 4 years ago, I think. No criminal record, I legally own everything I've ever owned and have never destroyed someone else's property.

Further, I have no problem with people getting arrested for doing something wrong. That guy on TV the other day, I have no issue with him getting arrested. My problem stems from the fact that OHP said it's standard policy to essentially get a free shot on someone who has surrendered. I have a problem when I see police hassle people who have done nothing wrong or yell at people who come home after work and are worried about why there are five police cars blocking their street.

we were talking about police and fire needs. If you want to talk about police brutality you've apparently witnessed go to a local briefing station and report it. otherwise.. take a hike.

Hah, how rich. You feel like you can bully others in threads but as soon as someone doesn't bow down to the almighty badge and calls police out on their tactics you plead to "stay on topic." You had no problem straying off when you were chastising others for their occupation and pulling out the "isolated incident" to condemn them. Midtowner made a comment that we have no reason to be against police or fire, and I responded to it. You obviously just aren't a fan of anyone daring to think differently than a person with the almighty badge, and your actions have proven a blatant hostility against people who do, which is exactly what I expect from police. Your actions prove the attitude that you're claiming isn't there.

[OSUFan]

For the record Police and Fire are not consuming the entire 55% dedicated to Public Safety from the General Fund. Make no mistake, a majority of the Personal Service expense to the General Fund for Public Safety can be attributed to Police and Fire. However there are two other City Departments whose Personal Service cost come out of that 55%. Check the City's budget. The "Public Safety" budget funds, Police, Fire, Animal Welfare, and the Municipal Courts System. If the high cost to the G.F. budget for Public Safety is such a big problem the City Manager can solve the problem very easy. Simply transfer A.W. and the M.C.S out of the Public Safety budget into his budget. Then we can point our finger and complain about how much the City Managers budget is costing the G.F.

To me the percentage that actually goes to Police and Fire doesn't matter to the arguement. Some of you keep saying MAPS has done absolutely nothing for Police and Fire which is wrong. My point was Police and Fire get a percentage of the pie (no matter what the percentage is) and that pie has grown.

[Midtowner]

The majority of OKC citizens don't live downtown, they can't afford it.

What has MAPS done for the people who can't afford downtown living, can't afford to get a $5 cup of coffee every weekend or to pop into the Harkins theatre or the cost of a meal in Bricktown?

It is these people that will be, and have been, paying for MAPS.

It gives them job opportunities for one thing -- how many restaurants, sporting events, hotels, conventions, events, etc. happen now which can be directly attributed to MAPS?

A better economy benefits EVERYONE. MAPS is not about downtown residential growth. It never was. What a silly notion.

[andy157]

To me the percentage that actually goes to Police and Fire doesn't matter to the arguement. Some of you keep saying MAPS has done absolutely nothing for Police and Fire which is wrong. My point was Police and Fire get a percentage of the pie (no matter what the percentage is) and that pie has grown.

Some may have made the claim that MAPS has done absolutely nothing, but I don't happen to be one of them. I agree the pie has grown, and yes Police and Fire have received a share of that pie. I was only responding to your statement, and I quote. " MAPS 1 increased City budget and Police/Fire get 55% of that budget".

[OSUFan]

Some may have made the claim that MAPS has done absolutely nothing, but I don't happen to be one of them. I agree the pie has grown, and yes Police and Fire have received a share of that pie. I was only responding to your statement, and I quote. " MAPS 1 increased City budget and Police/Fire get 55% of that budget".

Gotcha, defintely worded it wrong. Thanks for clearing that up.

[iron76hd]

Chance.

just ask. Someone give this man a hug. Chance I could verbally spar with you about some of the issues you've raised, but I doubt it would do any good.

We were talking about Police and Fire needs. If you want to start a thread on police tactics or police brutality feel free. I wasn't trying to bully you. I just didn't see how we went from one topic to the one you're ranting and raving about. You want to discuss police topics that you know little about. Which is ok. I was trying to discuss Police and Fire needs.

I just didn't want you and I to take over the thread with a bunch of nonsense. You obviously have alot of bottled up frustrations toward law enforcement. I don't know If I can explain some things to you about the job that may let you have a better understanding of just what exactly is going on during each incident you've seen and don't like.

You seem very hostile yourself.

Let's talk about police and fire needs. Chance take a deep breath and count to ten. Police Officers don't mean to be bullies. Most are just trying to do a job. If one asked you to do something like step away from a crime scene I think you'd take it that way. LOL

Once got a Yukon officer fired for thumping

Geez..He was fired wasn't he? No one is perfect Midtowner. I don't dare suggest that, but there is alot less misconduct than you suggested.

[iron76hd]

What seems to happen more often though is that the police officers will charge the client with some trumped up felonies then we'll trade the felonies for a covenant not to sue so that the whole thing goes away and the officers are not held accountable.

That doesn't happen more often than not! That a complete fabrication. Your reaching Midtowner. Don't go there.

Let me tell you what happens more often than not. Lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits. Lawyers bank on a city's paying lawsuits to avoid legal fees. That's more often than not. You and I both know that. Let's hold lawyers accountable for frivolous lawsuits. We'd weed plenty out. If you file a lawsuit for something and it's dropped because of no merit. Let's make it where if you have 5 of those in a certain period of time. You lose you license for a couple of years. Let's bankrupt the bad ones and hold them accountable.

Come on now. Let's get back to the real topic.

[Midtowner]

I've actually never seen a "frivolous lawsuit" and if one is filed, it won't survive a Motion to Dismiss which should come right away, be granted and no more lawsuit. If a Motion to Dismiss is filed and not granted, then the judge doesn't think the lawsuit is frivolous.

Then, there's FRCP Rule 11 and Oklahoma's rule which says the same thing. Lawyers filing frivolous suits can be sanctioned by the courts.

And if you've ever litigated with the city (and I have), you'll know that they don't just settle things or pay money to avoid litigation. Unless they're hiring outside counsel (and they won't for most cases), answering a lawsuit or ignoring it costs the same since it's all handled by the Municipal Attorney.

[Chance23]

We were talking about Police and Fire needs. If you want to start a thread on police tactics or police brutality feel free. I wasn't trying to bully you. I just didn't see how we went from one topic to the one you're ranting and raving about. You want to discuss police topics that you know little about. Which is ok. I was trying to discuss Police and Fire needs.

I just didn't want you and I to take over the thread with a bunch of nonsense. You obviously have alot of bottled up frustrations toward law enforcement. I don't know If I can explain some things to you about the job that may let you have a better understanding of just what exactly is going on during each incident you've seen and don't like.

That's fine, I just find it a tad disingenuous coming from a person who was fine going off topic to rant about how he didn't think doctors earned their pay, trolling them about incidents where they make mistakes, and going completely off topic to chastise them only to turn around and ask to stick to the topic if someone does the same about police.

You seem very hostile yourself.

Let's talk about police and fire needs. Chance take a deep breath and count to ten. Police Officers don't mean to be bullies. Most are just trying to do a job. If one asked you to do something like step away from a crime scene I think you'd take it that way. LOL

I don't consider myself hostile as much as very critical of those in power. Given the authority we've given them, I think it's worse that people aren't. Of course you're defensive about it (I'd be more worried if you weren't, frankly), but I don't see why we should be fine questioning the actions of everyone except police officers. Why is questioning law enforcement taboo when you're fine accusing everyone else of wrong doing? For not meaning to be bullies, most people don't mean to make the mistakes they make. It doesn't absolve them from that.

And it does go back to the subject at hand. Like I said, I think fire deserve everything we can give them. I can't stress enough how much I think that. I think it's ridiculous to consider them a variable expense in society, especially considering the vast array of duties they have to perform. If a fire truck breaks down, someone trapped in a home could be dead by the time another fire battalion gets there. Someone trapped in a car could bleed out before EMT's could even get them into the back of an ambulance. That's a service we shouldn't consider cutting.

But when you lose faith in the law enforcement system and in the premise that all law enforcement actions are always in the best interest of the citizens, it becomes a lot harder sell. If I don't have faith in their actions to protect me, even if one was directly present, I'm going to be hard pressed to feel sympathetic toward their plight. And when you see police bullying or hardballing those who disagree, it does more to reinforce those feelings than alleviate them.

[andy157]

Gotcha, defintely worded it wrong. Thanks for clearing that up.

No problem, and your welcome.

[dismayed]

Dismayed,
Between 1988 and 1989 was when the police department added 200 officers to make up for years of not adding additional officers. (sound familiar) Since this addition, officers have been taken from patrol duties to staff specialized units and meet other police positions required by the growth of the city. The City through the years has also eliminated many civilian positions within the police department staff but these job duties have not gone away. So, patrol officers have been pulled to fill these civilian positions. The City has elected to do this because it is easier to eliminate civilian positions. But as I said these duties don't go away. This is why you have fewer officers in the field responding to calls for service then you have in years past.

Thank you HowToRock for replying with some factual information. It is disheartening to see 18 pages of fluff and bitterness on this subject and so few snippets of real information. I appreciate you breaking the streak.

[Patrick]

Everyone keeps mentioning the Berkshire study. I hadn't seen it posted here, so here it is:

http://www.okc.gov/police/police_powerpoint.pdf

If we're looking at the results of this study, slide #13 shows how we compare to other cities in regards to manpower per population. We're pretty close to average.

Slide #8 shows population increase versus staffing increase. They seem to be in-line. We're pretty comparable to where we were at in 1988.

In the last 20 years, we've added 200 officers, or approx. 20-25% increase, comparable to population increase.

Slide #9 shows that crime has actually decreased with a downward constant trend since 1988.

Slide 15 shows we're below avg when you look at officers per square mile, but again, city limits in OKc is pretty broad and includes a lot of uninhabited land. So I don't really think it's fair to look at officers per mile.

They recommend about 200 more officers, but none of their methodlogy is explained on how they came up with that figure.

[betts]

Again, when you consider how light our traffic is, I don't think officers per square mile is terribly relevant.

[How to rock]

Thanks for the complement Dismayed. Patrick, if you will look at post 422 you will see some explanation for the numbers you sight.

Concerning the comments by Patrick and Betts talking about the officers per square mile issue. I agree it is not a fair statistic to compare overall but I would like to point out that the areas of Oklahoma City that used to be cow pastures and creeks are quickly being developed into sprawling housing developments. Since 1990 to present the City has added over 55,000 new residential and commercial structures. We have also added over 100,000 people according to census estimates. These are added people and structures that eventually require service from the police or fire departments.

The square miles serviced is most represented in the response times documented in the Berkshire. Think about waiting almost ten minutes for an officers to arrive in a life threatening emergency. This response time has been most effected by the reduction of first responder units preforming patrol duties combined with the officers having to cover these large areas.

I would like to point out that the Berkshire Study was a project requested and authorized by the City of Oklahoma City. This study was paid for with tax payer dollars. This study was completed without any input from the Fraternal Order of Police. This study documents that the police department is in need of 277 sworn positions and 39 civilian positions.

I wanted to point this out because there seems to be some confusion about where the study came from. This issue came to light during a conversation I was having with some friends today. I just wanted to clarify it for anyone who might have the same questions.

Once again, I appreciate the open debate of the issues at hand.

[Larry OKC]

...MAPS is not about downtown residential growth. It never was. What a silly notion.

While it is true that none of the MAPS projects (past or present) have directly built housing etc., the MAPS projects were designed to increase business, tourism and residents (especially in MAPS 3, primarily in the downtown area). This hasn't been a secret. A vibrant downtown means 24/7 not just before 5 pm when most businesses close or on the weekends when Bricktown is busy. To get to that you have to have a high concentration of residents. You have seen the Core to Shore report? There is TONS of residential in it. The Park and the boulevard and convention center are the initial building blocks of the whole C2S plan. Described by the Mayor as a 30 year project costing $3 billion in public and private investment.