The council considered whether to renew the juvenile nighttime curfew, and whether to expand the curfew to include daytime hours (9am to 2pm) on weekdays.
The new law makes it illegal for children to be in public between the hours of 9am and 2pm on weekdays (there are several defenses: being accompanied by parent, school wasn’t in session, etc.). The purpose of the law is to punish truants with fines of up to $500. State law prevents schools from imposing fines or otherwise penalizing students until they have committed 10 offenses. Supporters argue that a daytime curfew will reduce juvenile crime.
While I understand the motivation of those supporting this ordinance, I cannot support a curfew that criminalizes children being in public places. I also cannot support an ordinance that will further burden our police when they are struggling to respond to serious 911 calls. Furthermore, because Dallas has dozens and dozens of private and public schools, all with their own calendars and holidays, imposing a juvenile daytime curfew will prove an administrative nightmare for police.
The daytime curfew is unnecessary. If the purpose is to get truants off the street, the police already have the authority to stop truants and taken them back to their schools.
I voted against the nighttime curfew (it passed 13-1). The council unanimously delayed the daytime curfew decision to May 13.
Deputy Chief Vince Golbeck sent along the good news this morning:
Officers responded to a carjacking at 4117 Abrams Rd last night at 9:00 pm on service #103196-W. Anticipating this may be the same suspect in the string of recent robberies, other officers headed to points near the freeway that head South. An Officer was at Mockingbird/Central when he observed the suspect driving the victim’s stolen vehicle. He followed him until other squads arrived.
After a brief vehicle and foot pursuit the suspect was apprehended. He was transported to the Central Investigative Unit where he was interviewed and admitted to several of the previous carjacking offenses. So far the suspect is being connected to the following offenses: 74459w, 74831w, 79525w, 85654w, 09-001621 (Desoto PD), and 88266w. The suspect has not admitted to the offense on Martel involving the children or the offense on Matilda but we strongly feel he was involved in those as well.
WE ARE NOT RELEASING NAME/PHOTO UNTIL ALL THE VICTIMS CAN VIEW A LINE UP. This could jeopardize the remaining cases.
We will release his name once the Detectives tell us all victims have been shown the line up.
Deputy Chief Vince Golbeck provided the following update on East Dallas carjackings late this afternoon:
I know there is a lot of concern regarding the recent individual robberies that have occurred in and/around your neighborhoods. This is an update to the bulletin I sent at 4:00 pm. I want to clarify some misinformation that is being distributed through private individuals’ email networks that I’ve received since so please share the following with them:
A carjacking incident involving a wf/35 occurred today approximately 1:25 p.m. in the 6300 block of Martel Avenue. There were no other robberies today in this area. The driver had her 7 y/o daughter and 9 y/o son in the vehicle when she was backing out of her driveway into the rear alley. She exited vehicle to move a trash container when the suspect approached her and was wearing an orange/yellow reflective work type vest over dark blue sweatshirt. Suspect had a toy chrome handgun that we recovered at the location after the complainant struggled with the suspect since he was driving away with her children in the vehicle. The suspect did allow the children to exit the vehicle. There were no injuries. Suspect fled in complainant’s vehicle – 2005 Green Ford Expedition. He matches the description of eight previous incidents since February 5th that have occurred in Central, Northeast, Southwest, and one possibly out of town. Several of the vehicles have been recovered in South Central Division.
There was information being distributed that there was another offense today and that it occurred at Stonewall Jackson Elementary and that is not the case. There were concerns of the elementary school being in lockdown but the principal can make that decision for student safety reasons, however, the incident did not occur near the school.
Further Suspect description is: Black Male, 35-50, 5′8″ – 6′2″, 160-180 pounds. Suspect may be unshaven with a little gray and have missing or gaps in teeth. Also please confirm any additional information with the Dallas Police Department before distribution and we’ll keep you posted on any updates.
We had added additional patrols in the neighborhoods, which will continue, and intel has been distributed Departmental wide.
Here are some highlights from today’s council meeting:
Apartments Crime Reduction Program – We approved an ordinance that will require apartment complexes with excessive crime rates to participate in a mandatory crime reduction program administered and enforced by the Police Department. Run-down apartments are a breeding ground for crime, so this new program is absolutely critical. As I said today, though, we can’t make crime prevention a burden that’s born solely by our police; we must invest MUCH more in code enforcement.
Little Forest Hills Conservation District – (District 9) On Councilmember Kadane’s motion, we denied this CD. On zoning cases, I generally defer to the councilmember who represents that district because (1) I believe the voters in that district elected that person to reflect their values (which will be reflected in the councilmember’s zoning decision), (2) voters can vote out someone who makes zoning decisions they don’t agree with, (3) that councilmember has usually worked closely with the community on zoning cases and can best represent their position. I am very supportive of CDs because I’ve seen in my own neighborhood how beneficial it’s been. Someone at the meeting suggested that CDs reduce property values. The facts belie that claim: property values have risen significantly in the M Streets and other CDs in our city; people like the certainty of knowing what type of development can go up around them. Councilmember Kadane had asked the LFH CD proponents to attain 65% support from all residents, and they fell short, with 58%. I know how hard their worked, and my heart goes out to them. I hope LFH is able to find another way to protect their trees and keep themselves “funky,” such as through a planned development district, as was suggested today. Otherwise, I fear we’ll lose what is one of the coolest neighborhoods in our city.
Goodwill Drop-Off on Haskell – Here, Goodwill wanted to put in a small building that would serve as a drop-off for donations. It wouldn’t have had any retail component at all. Surrounding neighbors worried about an increase in traffic on an already busy street, as well as the possibility that people would drop things off while the site was closed, resulting in litter and a haven for the homeless or theives. I worked with Goodwill and the neighborhood for months to try to reach a compromise, and delayed this case more than once. As a matter of right, Goodwill could put in a retail store today without special dispensation from the city, and that is a more intense use than a drop-off. However, at the end of the day, 41 property owners voted “no,” and 41 voted “yes.” With such a split, I couldn’t justify a zoning change. To me, the zoning on the ground is the default, and the property owner has to show a compelling reason to change it. Part of that reason may be that the neighborhood strongly supports the change. Here, that wasn’t the case, and I couldn’t support a zoning change. Goodwill is such an amazing organization and does so much for our city. I wish the neighbors had been able to reach a compromise here.
Far West SUP – Residents near the Far West club at Gaston/Grand had grown frustrated with problems stemming from the club — crime, noise, traffic, etc. Usually, bars have to have a short-term “specific use permit” that lets them operate under certain conditions. The SUP process involves a public hearing and approval of the City Council. A bar that causes problems runs the risk of the neighbors opposing the renewal of the SUP, so the bar has an incentive to be a good neighbor. That is dependent on an SUP that expires every couple of years. Here, for whatever reason, the City Council gave the predecessor to Far West a 99-year SUP. That’s nuts. At the request of the neighborhoods I recommended the city reduce the time period for the SUP and put other restrictions in place. After working cooperatively with the club owner and residents, we were able to reach an agreement on a 5-year SUP with traffic and safety requirements. I’m very proud that we were able to make this change.
Dog Run for CityVet on McKinney – I postponed this for a month so the applicant can work with the surrounding neighbors on trying to reach a compromise.
GPS System for Garbage Trucks – At a cost of $700k, the GPS system is supposed to help track trucks, reduce inefficiencies, and save money. That sounds good, but having ridden on a garbage truck, I saw firsthand some of the problems our sanitation workers encounter that slow them down: overgrown alleys being #1. If we cleared the problem alleys, we’d speed up service and prevent our men from speeding down streets to make up for lost time (not that they should be speeding anyway). I don’t really think we’ve got the money to do this, given today’s economy, but if we do have an extra $700k, I think we should spend it on giving our sanitation workers a raise. They make minimum wage right now, and $700k would almost get them to a living wage (a $3/hr. increase). Alternatively, we could spend that on cleaning up alleys, or hiring 1-2 mechanics that are needed to fix air-conditioners and heaters in the trucks (that are frequently broken). A majority of the council, including me, voted to postpone the matter and have a briefing to get more info.
UNT Law School in Downtown We unanimously authorized the City Manager to enter into final negotiations with the University of North Texas to establish a law school in what is currently the city courthouse. (We desperately need a new courthouse and will include that in the 2010 bond program.) The legislature has to approve the law school, but I am very hopeful that it will pass this session.
Lastly, I’m not shy about speaking up when I disagree with the Mayor, so I want to take a moment to compliment him on the way he handles public hearings. One, he is very respectful of the time people take out of their schedules to come down to City Hall, and tries to move up cases involving large groups of people. Before I was elected, I remember coming to City Hall and spending 8 hours waiting for our neighborhood’s case to be heard. This is a welcome change.
Two, even when a group’s time to speak before the Council has expired, the Mayor lets opponent/advocates come to the microphone and enter their name and opinion into the record. This takes a little time, especially with large groups, but I think it really shows a great courtesy to citizens who have taken off work to spend their afternoon at City Hall.
We’ve got a lot of work to do to make Dallas a safer city, but I was really pleased by the report I received this week on crime reduction for 2008. Basically, Dallas’ crime rate is lower than it’s been since the 1960s, and the total NUMBER of murders — not just per capita — is also the lowest it’s been since that tie-dyed era. MORE….
I share the frustration that, yet again, Dallas appears at the top of the pack for crime. But I take issue with the argument I’ve read elsewhere that “the City of Dallas won’t dedicate the resources necessary to reduce the crime rate.”
The issue is not one of funding. The Council is adding $40M in next year’s budget for 100 more cops, new police cars, a new computer dispatch system, and more 911 operators.
But, you say, we need even MORE cops. And you’re absolutely right. But the problem isn’t that the Council won’t fund more police. The problem is that we can’t get that many QUALIFIED recruits to fill more than 100 positions a year (assuming we can fill that many).
Keep in mind, we lose about 150 cops a year to retirement, resignations, etc., and we’ve got to fill not only their positions, but hire an additional 100 on top of that. In years past, we just haven’t had enough qualified recruits to fill the positions.
There are two keys to addressing this problem. First, we have to increase bonuses/other benefits to lure recruits. This year, the council approved a $10,000 recruit bonus (which they get over 18 months), and this has already resulted in a significant increase in applicants. (In my opinion, if recruits don’t remain with Dallas, and head to the suburbs after we trained them, they should pay us back.)
Second, we must increase police benefits and pay to make their compensation comparable to surrounding areas. Again, the council approved a good compensation package for police and fire earlier this year, which was supported by all the police associations.
We can and must go further with a strong compensation package for our DPD, to retain and attract the best police officers, and these measures are a good beginning.
Lastly, Dallas’ crime rate is going down. I know this doesn’t change the fact that compared to other cities, we have a long ways to go. But the fact is, the efforts of our new police chief and investment by the Council are paying off.
If you’ve got ideas about improving public safety, I welcome them.
Last night around 2 a.m., a man was shot and murdered on Martel near Greenville Avenue. Two bar patrons apparently got into an argument, and one man took a gun from his truck and shot the other. The murder suspect, a Plano resident, is in police custody.
On Lower Greenville, four people were hospitalized after leaving a bar. The suspect remains at large.
This type of violence is unacceptable in our neighborhoods. I will be meeting with Police Chief David, Central Division Chief Brian Harvey, and Northeast Division Chief Jan Easterling to address these problems.
Today the City Council approved verified response for commercial (not residential) properties.
Because 97% of all alarms are false, starting in February, the police will no longer respond automatically when a commercial burglar alarm goes off. The business will first have to confirm that there is a crime taking place. The ordinance will not apply to residential properties.
I voted in favor of this version of verified response primariliy because our Chief of Police explained that it would help him get 20 more officers on the street instead of chasing false alarms. We’ve got a real shortage of police (which we must fix), but instead of using them to patrol our neighborhoods, we’ve got them out there chasing alarms that are false 97% of the time.
We hired the Chief to be our top strategist on how to improve the safety of our city. He has to use his experience and best judgment to make resource allocation decisions. And Chief Kunkle has overseen a 17% reduction in homicides this year and a 5% decrease in overall crime. When he supports an initiative to get more cops on the street, I think we need to listen.
We need more police officers, so why doesn’t the City hire them?
We’re among the least safe cities in America. We’ve got one of the highest crime rates in the country. I’ve held a dozen listening sessions throughout District 14 for the last two months, and our need for more police officers ranks as one of the top two priorities consistently. Every neighborhood I’ve been to, every resident I’ve talked with, has expressed the exact same frustration: Why don’t we hire more police officers?
I don’t know. I don’t know why we don’t discuss this problem for an hour at every council meeting. I don’t know why we’re talking about pocket bikes in our Public Safety Committee meetings for two hours and not focusing on a long-term PLAN to hire more officers and make our city safer. I do know that I’m frustrated.
Here’s what I have been told: We’ve got a “plan” to hire a net of 50 additional officers a year for the next several years. To get that additional net of 50, we’ve got to hire 250 (we lose 200 a year due to attrition — retiring, firing, resigning, etc.). To get 250 qualified police officers, we have to sift through about 2,500 applicants.
I’ve asked our Police Chief, other councilmembers, and our City Manager why we’re only hiring 50 net new officers a year. Why not 600 or more? I’ve been given various reasons: We can’t recruit more than 250 qualified applicants AND/OR our DPD can’t “assimilate” more than 250 new officers a year AND/OR our DPD can’t put more than that many new officers through training.
Somehow, though, the discussion seems to end there. Here’s the problem I have with that: The question doesn’t end there, it starts there. The obvious next question is WHY can’t we recruit more than 250 new officers a year? WHY can’t we assimilate more than that, and WHY can’t we expand our training facilities/trainers/equipment to accept more recruits?
I haven’t gotten satisfactory answers to these questions, but one of the responses I’ve heard about recruiting is that it comes back to money. Apparently, we don’t pay our new officers (years one through five) enough compared to surrounding cities. And it seems to me, we’d not only have to be on par with our neighboring cities, we’d have to pay a little more to make up for some morale issues that continue to linger. From what I understand, officers in years seven or better are doing well financially. Pay and benefits are GREAT. It’s the young officers that aren’t making enough money. So, the most obvious solution in my mind is PAY OUR YOUNG OFFICERS MORE MONEY. Better pay equals more, better-qualified recruits.
But there’s a problem: A lawsuit.
Back in 1979 there was a police pay referendum. Voters passed it, giving the police a raise. But there are some former police officers who have sued the City, claiming that the referendum meant that the city was supposed to “lock step” officer pay raises forever and ever. So if you give a year-one officer a $10,000 raise, you’ve got to pay a year-two officer $10,000 more, all the way up the chain of command. Incredibly expensive and unnecessary: Year-seven and above, they don’t need the same exact pay raise that new recruits need. But that issue is being litigated right now, and frankly, I don’t see an end in sight.
So does that mean that we can’t increase the pay for officers years one through six? I don’t think so, but I also don’t agree with the interpretation of the 1979 pay referendum. I say we do whatever we need to do to get more officers, and if that means we “violate” this imaginary restriction that’s keeping us from increasing police pay, so be it.
I’ve asked city staff to research the following: Pay scales for Dallas Police compared to surrounding cities, including benefits packages. When do our officers leave and why (already completed)? How much would it cost to increase police pay for years-one through -five to be comparable with surrounding cities? There are also some other things I am researching that I can’t discuss now.
Here is my challenge to you. Help me develop a plan to increase our police force by at least 600 officers. A pay increase is one idea. We could eliminate City of Dallas property taxes for officers. We could help police officers purchase homes in Dallas.
I need your help to expand this list. Got ideas from other cities? I want to hear them. I would also really like your opinion on the pay referendum issue.
But first, let me tell you some of the the things the city IS doing to try to get more officers:
In the Spring, the DPD began allowing 4 years active military service in lieu of college requirements in the hopes of getting more recruits. The DPD has also doubled its recruiting staff this year, to 12, and is taking the following steps to develop a formalized recruiting program:
Dallas Police Chief Kunkle has recommended that the City go to a verified response system for burglar alarms in order to free up police to respond to other crime. The proposal is to require alarm companies to respond first to their burglar alarms, then contact the police only after verifying that an actual crime is occurring. The city would still respond immediately to burglar alarms that are the result of someone pressing a panic button. Residential alarms would no longer require a permit fee. Commercial alarms would still pay a permit fee.
The verified response proposal arose due to the incredibly high rate of false alarms. In 2004, the DPD received about 62,000 burglar alarm calls. Of those, 97% were false alarms (60,100). Responding to these false alarms took approximately 47,000 police officer hours, which equals about 41 full-time police officers at a cost of approximately $3.485 million in police time. This takes our officers away from responding to real crimes in our city.
Many residents have written me to suggest that the City increase the false alarm fee. Unfortunately, the State Legislature has taken away a city’s ability to set false alarm fees, and cities may only charge $50 after the first three false alarms.
I was initially very supportive of the verified response system, given the remarkably high number of false alarms. However, residents have raised some important questions, such as how other cities that have adopted verified response have fared, and I am looking very closely at this issue.
The City Council will likely vote on this issue before the end of the year, though no date has been set yet. I have heard from a lot of folks who have burglar alarms (14% of Dallas residents), but I would like to hear from those who DON’T have burglar alarms (86% of Dallas residents). What are your thoughts on verified response? Please shoot me an email.
