Anaonymous Cop wrote on September 04, 2008 03:29 PM: I have been a cop with Metro for a very long time--since the days of John Moran. I know one thing about this proposal. This is more about someone trying to establish a legacy than it is about trying to be more efficient.

Just a few years ago the detective bureau was all consolidated into one large building. What we have learned is that there are some specialized units that do not belong in a centralized location. Some units need to be apart from the rest of the department where they can be left to do the good work they do without the bother of interbureau cannibalism of assets and resources.

Some of the bureau's detectives have now been decentralized out of this big building back to the area commands so that they can provide a better service to the community. Learned that one the hard way.

Putting all of the eggs in one basket is an idea that will lead to an even less efficient workforce.

What the Sheriff is trying to do is improve commnication between different parts of the department. So they are trying to take the easy and more expensive route by putting everyone in the same box and telling them to talk to each other. That's what failed leadership does--tries to throw money at a problem hoping a solution comes out of it.

Stop trying to run the police department like a corporation and run it like a police department.

For the community and for the cops that do their jobs because they care about their community: start praying that some good, decent candidate surfaces for Sheriff next time round.

Steve wrote on September 04, 2008 02:22 PM: Now you know where the next tax increase is projected for. Gillespie will never admit he's a thief and liar and that this requested increase is to "put more cops on the street".

Martin Dean Dupalo wrote on September 04, 2008 12:54 PM: I agree with the efficiency offered by consolidating some of the potentially 50 separate sites, there is a balance of community presence that is also warranted, and other important considerations to be asked and answered.

How many of the potential 50 de-centralized sites that are currently leased or other can be consolidated while maintaining a positive police presence in the various communities (obviously minus the substations)? It was stated publicly that some 22 sites are currently rented. What are the projected cost savings annually over the current situation?

The most recent notable project to consolidate services is the Regional Justice Center (RJC) which while positive in many respects is also a legal and financial debacle, costing the public literally millions of dollars due to overruns, litigation and poor leadership and a lack of oversight. Furthermore, if one reads occasional articles about it, the relatively new RJC has been outgrown already and are asking for another building.

Initially, one would believe it would be better to purchase outright than to lease. Leasing means there is a middleman and there is a profit margin that does not need to exist. But noting the recent poor track record in regard to the RJC, perhaps it would be a decent alternative.

Considering the current fiscal situations of municipalities and downturn in the local and national economies, that has not appeared to have settled as of yet, the timing of the project is a major concern to many in the community, not simply politicians.

And clarifying the issue of lease-option projects in regard to the prevailing wage should be clarified beforehand here and elsewhere.

It appears the Sheriff is proceeding down the correct path with the public and numerous entities – all political at some level, involved and with major concerns to properly engage and navigate.

Kl wrote on September 04, 2008 11:53 AM: Is this where the cops sales tax dollars go? Maybe the cop slush fund will pay for it? Either way its the tax payers that will flip the bill.

When will these cops wake up and see that this is considered Fraud, Waste and Abuse.

People, we just don't need so many cops. Its un-American. Its abusive. Its oppressive. Its excessive. Its wrong...

bad deal 4 the public wrote on September 04, 2008 09:55 AM: Business as usualy this is a sweet heart deal for the developers. The developer will make tones of money at the public expense, and Gillespie like all the others elected officials has a debt to pay and this is it. Good for Chris G.and Lois T. they are the only officials concerned enough to ask the real questions and are not in the pockets of the power players. wake up public and take notice of what is going on with your tax dollars. These politicans can care less who they spend out tax dollars.
William Bonzy is on target and correct.

ET wrote on September 04, 2008 07:21 AM: The location is in the west side,why not buy and built on MLK and Washinton or further north where property prices are the lowest in the valley ? Buying takes the graft out

John wrote on September 04, 2008 06:05 AM: No William, you are wrong. If the property owner won't sell THIS is the kind of project that eminent domain should be used for. At current market value, the land should be a steal.

I agree, the lease w/ option to buy is a big moneymaking scheme for the developer and them alone. With the budget problems we have this year, can we afford to waste ANY money???

William Bonzy wrote on September 04, 2008 05:48 AM: Leasing is a huge waste of money. If one leases something for a short term, that makes sense. It's kind of like renting. If the long term goal is to keep and own the property, the dumbest thing one can do is rent(lease)it first. Because the rent is a waste of money. Lease money or rent if you want to call it that is never put toward the purchase price. All leasing does is line the pockets of the property owner-developer. The only one who makes sense here, is Lois Tarkaniam. Brager is completely wrong. If the property owner won't sell, find another property.