Hate at the useful idiots destroying our collective history, not you bro.Rioters continue to tear down statues. Ulysses S Grant this time.
Protesters tear down statues of Union general Ulysses S. Grant, national anthem lyricist Francis Scott Key
If the county were to stand up a department that handled parking enforcement, the work could be done by non-sworn employees who would be paid less but probably in the role longer because there would be a career path that led to managerial roles.I don't get what reallocating the funds has to do with the legal ramifications that LE's required for parking enforcement. You'd need more funds for more officers to be able to enforce the laws as they stand now.
If the county were to stand up a department that handled parking enforcement, the work could be done by non-sworn employees who would be paid less but probably in the role longer because there would be a career path that led to managerial roles.
An upside for law enforcement is that officers would be able to do more of the work they want to do than the work they don't want to do.
The bowdlerized version of "defund the police" can very easily get in the way of a serious conversation about "what's the best way to spend public funds." There's a website Transparent California that allows one to look at how much public employees earn. And budget information for municipalities and counties are readily available, as are job descriptions.
Officers are not paid as much as they should and their job descriptions include tasks that may not be the best use of their time. If boxes were moved around on organizational charts and money were reallocated, you could get more bang for the buck without necessarily firing anyone or cutting anyone's pay. (You get rid of a couple of bad apple officers, fill their roles with officers who were previously doing parking.)
The relationship between civil disturbances and a lack of economic development years later is not always linear.
Sorry, I wholly disagree.
If the county were to stand up a department that handled parking enforcement, the work could be done by non-sworn employees who would be paid less but probably in the role longer because there would be a career path that led to managerial roles.
An upside for law enforcement is that officers would be able to do more of the work they want to do than the work they don't want to do.
The bowdlerized version of "defund the police" can very easily get in the way of a serious conversation about "what's the best way to spend public funds." There's a website Transparent California that allows one to look at how much public employees earn. And budget information for municipalities and counties are readily available, as are job descriptions.
Officers are not paid as much as they should and their job descriptions include tasks that may not be the best use of their time. If boxes were moved around on organizational charts and money were reallocated, you could get more bang for the buck without necessarily firing anyone or cutting anyone's pay. (You get rid of a couple of bad apple officers, fill their roles with officers who were previously doing parking.)
Police in most of California are very well paid, especially considering there is very little educational requirement. Idk how much you think police should be paid, but that seems like it is enough.
If the county were to stand up a department that handled parking enforcement, the work could be done by non-sworn employees who would be paid less but probably in the role longer because there would be a career path that led to managerial roles.
An upside for law enforcement is that officers would be able to do more of the work they want to do than the work they don't want to do.
The bowdlerized version of "defund the police" can very easily get in the way of a serious conversation about "what's the best way to spend public funds." There's a website Transparent California that allows one to look at how much public employees earn. And budget information for municipalities and counties are readily available, as are job descriptions.
Officers are not paid as much as they should and their job descriptions include tasks that may not be the best use of their time. If boxes were moved around on organizational charts and money were reallocated, you could get more bang for the buck without necessarily firing anyone or cutting anyone's pay. (You get rid of a couple of bad apple officers, fill their roles with officers who were previously doing parking.)
LA is not the only model. You can look at several cities as @Polar Bear listed. Following these riots the cities lost massive investment that they previously had. Red tape or not these companies choose to go elsewhere.For your position to be correct, every decision to not invest in a project in areas of the greater L.A. region is driving by a single consideration every time.
FWIW, my point of view is based upon my work at a consultancy that does a lot of work in the L.A. area, it remains my position that the decision making process is complicated and, IME, the assessment of risk is not about the possibility of riots or natural disasters.
In much of urban California, police are very well compensated. My cousin ( SD county Sheriffs deputy) made well over 150k in total compensation, and over 105k just in base salary(no overtime or shift differential included) That is two years old, (as that is how Transparent California normally works.) Police in most of California are very well paid, especially considering there is very little educational requirement. Idk how much you think police should be paid, but that seems like it is enough.