NYC Going to Hell: Cops to Be Laid off?

I hadn't heard that he was laying them off. I'd heard that he was delaying the upcoming class of police academy graduates, and wouldn't be hiring as many in the future. Will also lead to decline in force, but presumably not as quickly. Although I did hear he had a pissy fit over lack of support for his real estate tax measures, and said that if they didn't go through he was sending his agency heads back for another $1.4 billion budget cut, effective like immediately.

Yes, the next NYPD and FDNY classes have both been cancelled. I heard that too.

The only source I have seen discuss NYPD layoffs is NY1. I just happen to be watching it the other day when I heard about cop layoffs:

As Budget Shrinks, NYPD Faces Possibility Of Layoffs

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/90568/nypd-faces-possibility-of-layoffs/Default.aspx

As if we didn't know this was coming.

The city and state budgets are in shambles. We managed to spend pretty much all of the revenue increases from the past few years (short of a bit Bloomberg managed to hide) and now that we're losing a healthy chunk of that revenue... something has to give...

So when the murder rate triples and you get robbed, be sure to thank subprime mortgages!

alpine, I could have sworn we were supposed to thank the credit rating agencies? or was it Greenspan? Maybe MBSs? My, this could confuse a poor soul, not knowing who to thank for escalating crime. I would think that many other communities have much more to be thankful for, however. Certain places in Ohio, Florida, California, and so on, and so on.

I'm no fan of Boston Bloomberg, but isn't it entirely possible that the City has more cops and firemen right now than are needed -- as reflected in the ridiculously low crime rate, and what I can only assume is also a record-low number of building fires? There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

I can't agree on such a thing as too little crime, but I see cops EVERYWHERE, and I swear that 95% of the time they're doing nothing remotely useful. I am no expert, but I get the distinct impression that utilized effectively and efficiently, half the current number could do just as good a job and keep crime at current levels.

Actually, yes, altough I don't know if the credit/blame can be given to Mayor Mike. Rudy was responsible for the huge increase in the police force. City employment being what it is, times being what they were (lots o cash), Mayor Mike probably felt disinclined to change the numbers. The question now, however, is how deep the cuts will be and possibly more importantly, which neighborhoods will see the greatest cuts. Also, given the mayor's seemingly inexhaustible desire to use cops to raise revenue through parking tickets, Houston, we could have a problem.

No, Dinkins was responsible for the huge increase in the police force -- and he successfully pressured the Federal govt. to fund the increase. All Giuliani did was his usual weaselly tricks, like graduating a class of cadets a couple of months early during re-election season -- which meant that the whole class was inadequately trained, but it helped boost an image that couldn't be formed by substance.

I know Dinkins implemented the program, but the number of police officers actually peaked in 2000 at 40,800.

"Rudy was responsible for the huge increase in the police force."

You've got your history wrong there. Actually, it was David Dinkins who was responsible for the decision radically to expand the NYPD's numbers. Rudy only took credit for it.

Dinkins started his Safe City program in 1991, the first police recruits under the program started in 1994, Rudy took office in 1994. Dinkins got funding and got the program going, but Rudy kept it alive, and certainly didn't cause the budget to be revised downward.

I hate Rudy. I don't necessarily think this is anything he should be proud of (arresting sleeping people on subways as vagrants, etc.).

You are all completely out of your element in this discussion. First, bemoaning a crime rate that is at record lows because you've decided it is a done deal that it'll "triple" is moronic. Isn't there enough actually wrong now without wringing hands and sounding like Aunt Tillie about imaginary spiking crime rates? Do you hear yourselves?

Second, expansion of the NYPD was linked in significant part to federal Byrne funds that the Bush administration and Republican Congress saw fit to cut about a year ago. So much for the "law and order" party. It left prosecutors and police forces across the country scrambling to figure out how to suddenly have to do their jobs with much less federal financial support. The cuts essentially came without warning or explanation.

Third, whether you see cops standing around or not, the city's 35,000 force is unique in many ways because its mission is so unusual. How many US cities do you think have the security force needed to protect dozens of heads of state once a year, or host the President throughout the year, or maintain an internationally trained and connected counter-terrorism fore, or regularly provide security at countless large scale demonstrations, parades, marches, public gatherings in a city of 8.5million people? Who is the dope above who thinks we have "extra" cops? That is the stupidest thing anyone has said on here in the last year.

Stick to real estate discussions. You don't like arresting sleeping vagrants? Pointing only to a programs excesses doesn't accurately assess its overall value. Talk about fixing the broken parts, but don't just shoot your uninformed mouth off about who you "hate" and feel you add to a discussion. Do you know how many warrants for violent, horrible crimes were vacated by that same program because turnstile jumpers were printed and no longer given a summons if they had no ID? How many cold case DNA hits for the most horrific rapes you can imagine were generated by collecting DNA from low level crimes that were being arrested and printed and prosecuted like trespass (e.g., being on the LIRR tracks when you weren't supposed to) and petit larceny? Of course we can find excesses in any program or politician. But broad strokes are more befitting the Fox Network than an informed discussion of any value about the economy, city spending, and the police.

Yes; bloomberg is laying off lots of cops due to the city's budget debacle. Violent crime is already up this year, even in areas like the upper east side. In the next several years, as the economy worsens and we head into depression, expect the crime rate to return to 1980's levels. Dark times are ahead for this city.

Kylewest, I lived in NYC in the '80s and the '90s. There is always a tradeoff in terms of numbers and costs. Do I think that going back to the police force in the 20 thousand or so range that was present during the 70s and 80s would be a grand idea? No. Do I believe that the 40K that Rudy saw fit to keep on staff was appropriate? No. I believe we are now in the 34-35K range for policemen, and the budget had room for about another 1000 that were not hired.

In 2001 I had my cell phone stolen and someone ran up over $1600 in charges. It was extremely easy to determine who it was with the phone bill. I filed a complaint with the police, they closed the case the same day. That would be considered larceny, but what do I know, ignorant plebe that I am.

And no, I don't see much value in arresting a worker who fell asleep on the train because he was tired, and the police claiming that they thought he was homeless and thus "eligible" for arrest, even if they may have gotten some DNA from the guy. Due process, rights, all those left-wing things I hold so dear.

Of course, unlike you, I feel you are entirely welcome to share your opinion. If you value having eight cops at each corner during a parade, well, good for you. Some other people don't. This morning my husband was at our car at 7:01 to move it, and the traffic cop was already there writing the ticket. Yes, he was a minute late. And that's what I want to see my cops doing.

but isn't there a better place to cut corners than having less police on the streets?

admin, it depends on how much you have to cut, the first cuts can usually be done without tremendous amounts of pain, although there will always be complaints. but, for example, many states are running out of money for unemployment insurance (obviously not NY, at least not yet). do you allow homelessness to increase, or food supplies to decrease, or medical programs to be cut? how about schools? in some places prisons are releasing non-violent offenders early because our prison system is way too expensive. in certain economic times everything needs to get cut, and usually no one is happy, but that's a nasty recession for you. often it seems extreme, because while most mayors/governors do not put aside enough during good times, they seem to be a bit more proactive at seeing disaster continuing once it strikes, so they may cut a bit more than seems rational at the moment.

In theory, yes. But what else we got?

The teacher's mafia? You think they'll let any of that be cut?
Fireman? (we've already been cutting there).

Keep in mind that MUCH of the budget goes to pension/healthcare for retirees the state passed a law saying we can't cut....

So, we're fucked by the teachers and the state...

> No, Dinkins was responsible for the huge increase in the police force

The problem is, the idiot kept them away from the crime. Putz didn't send the cops to crown heights until AFTER 3 days of rioting.

Rudy / Bratton brought in the community policing model and compustat that made the difference.

Dinkins was a joke.

The Crown Heights "rioting" was a product of Murdoch's NY Post. At the end of it all, there was one person dead, a handful injured, and not much property damage. It was what would otherwise be called three days of angry protesting.

Dinkins had a gift for diplomatic handling of angry people during desperate times, and that strategy probably defused many full-scale riots (see Los Angeles at around the same time, for example, or of course Chicago).

> It was what would otherwise be called three days of angry protesting.

It was what otherwise would have been handled by cops on the first day.

Don't leave out his stupid handling of the canarsie fire-bombing and "angry protesting".

Again, I say Dinkins was a joke.

Handled by cops on the first day:

"The Los Angeles riots of 1992, also known as the Rodney King uprising or the Rodney King riots, were sparked on April 29, 1992 when a jury acquitted four police officers accused in the videotaped beating of black motorist Rodney King following a high-speed pursuit. Thousands of people in the Los Angeles area rioted over the six days following the verdict. Widespread looting, assault, arson, and murder occurred, and property damages totaled one billion dollars. Many of the crimes were racially motivated or perpetrated. In all, 53 people died during the riots." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_riots

I'm sorry your car was ticketed at 7:01. But you don't get a "I just broke the rules a little" exception. The city is in search of revenue and summons are a big way of getting it. Dont want to participate? Then move your car on time. When do you think the ticket should be issued? 5 mintues after the law says you have to move it? 10? 30? 60? Cops don't do well with having discretion. They are paramilitary and do best with bright line rules. It protects the citizenry as much as it might frustrate. And please don't come up with silly examples of isolated ridiculousness in who gets arrested. Falling asleep on the train does not result in your arrest if you just show your ID. You get a summons. Have no ID? Then don't fall asleep on the trains. Don't want a summons? Sleep somewhere else. Have no where else to sleep? Get social services. The subway is not an option.

> Handled by cops on the first day:

Yes, and cops under Dinkins were not did shitty work - as in your example - but they also forgot to show up.

Dinkins managed to get all the worst traits in his police force. Crappy, and no-show.

sorry, were not only doing shitty work...

And yet only one death in the "riot" that you're still talking about 17 years later, and that one happened three hours after the "riot" began. So it sounds to me like the cops did a pretty good job.

Dinkins started the Safe City program but it was never funded because he refused to mandate staffing levels per precint and how the cops would be utilized. The city council wanted to know how many cops would actually be walking the streets and where and not hiding behind desk jobs and doing civilian work. It was Gulliani who got it fully funded, did away with the three seperate departments which were Transit, Housing and NYPD and merged then into one. He also revolutionized the way police handled street crime such as drug dealing on city corners and said he would fire any cop who referred citizens to contact specialized units like TNT.In other words it was up to the beat cop to know where the drug dealers were, to breakup drinking on city corners.....etc

PS I battled drug dealers, drinking and crack heads in front of my property and small business to no avail for years to no avail.I had many friends on the job who all tried to help but it was always call the specialized units which they did. When Rudy became mayor it was amazing to see beat cops who actually changed my neighborhood by aggressive street policing. Dinkins was a clown and only made thing's worse appeasing the Sharpton three ring circus.

> So it sounds to me like the cops did a pretty good job.

They didn't ANY job. They weren't there...
LOL

"PS I battled drug dealers, drinking and crack heads in front of my property and small business to no avail for years to no avail.I had many friends on the job who all tried to help but it was always call the specialized units which they did. When Rudy became mayor it was amazing to see beat cops who actually changed my neighborhood by aggressive street policing. Dinkins was a clown and only made thing's worse appeasing the Sharpton three ring circus."

Bingo...