Second, where is the additional cost? It is not like the responders are not already on duty. It is not like the car is not already running.

Third, the security firms are not charging for a police service. Individuals and security firms place calls. The police respond to calls. This is another case where the chief is trying to make some money off of the citizenry the same way the mafia does: Because he can.

EDITOR NOTE– Gotta side w/ Chief on this one. Just because you buy an alarm doesn’t entitle you to special police responses. To put it in perspective, how many time have YOU called the police when you heard a car alarm honking a horn? It is a waste of time to respond and in most cases the cops are answering a call for service from an alarm company in a remote city from a “command post” saying they have a signal of an intrusion—no different than calling in a car alarm.

I agree with you. Even though the POST cadet motto last year was “Don’t get PTSD, go out and spread it”, they probably didn’t mean “write more tickets”. Or did they? Did the union have any stand on that motto? Just curious.

I agree with dog about it being a naturally occuring plant. I’m not a believer in the 6000 year theory but the rest of his idea makes sense. We have way too many puritans in this country.

Anyone know of other God invented things that grow or occur in Nature that America decided is illegal?

The Union understands that the police are part of the public and not separate from those that we serve. We also understand that many, if not all, of the citizens that we serve are undergoing some form of economic hardship or stress at this time. We absolutely will not agree to a strategy of “cost containment” that passes along more of an economic burden to our citizens, especially at a time of economic distress.

The Union fundamentally believes that even in good economic times that traffic enforcement should never be used for the purpose of revenue generation. Policing is not about, and should never be used for revenue generation, as we are charged with serving the public, not taxing them.

While receiving a traffic citation is unpopular with everyone, it is a form of service that can reduce traffic fatalities and improve driving behavior. The use of traffic enforcement for these reasons is appropriate and makes the streets safer for all of us. Fines and penalties are meant to be the deterrent to stop driving behavior, and not a reward for the entity issuing the citations. It is obvious how the latter could contribute to the perception of corruption, and it should be our mission to fight that perception at all times.

The Union also recognizes that while the police are part of the community that they serve, the relationship between the public and the police is one that needs constant attention to be maintained. The Union believes that the proposed “cost containment strategy” will only serve to deteriorate that relationship, which would ultimately serve to erode the quality of life in our wonderful community.

The mission statement of the Boise Police Department is to “enhance public safety through proactive problem solving and increased community partnerships.” We believe that this “cost containment strategy” flies in the face of our fundamental mission and places the burden of our budget shortfalls on the taxpayer’s shoulders. The Union believes that we should enhance our “partnerships” with the community by bearing the brunt of this economic cycle appropriately, just as we expect our citizens to do. Therefore, we adamantly oppose the “cost containment strategy” proposed by Chief Masterson.

And the result is the same: Coppers stop more motorists, coppers get more money.