FREE WHITEWATER

City, Police

Our Enforcement Culture

by  • 

Budgetary proposals are important, but there is a more important reform that Whitewater can undertake. Changes to the way that Whitewater imposes code-enforcement and criminal fines would do much to help our city step away from a reliance on futile punitive measures that operate as a regressive form of taxation, and as an incentive to catching and fining people to balance the city budget.

Whitewater relies on a large, expanding enforcement scheme of fines and penalties. Nuisance code violations, parking tickets, underage drinking citations – they all fill the city coffers. The scope of fines should be reduced significantly. There are five problems with current imposition of punitive fines and penalties in our city.

First, that sort of fine does not affect serious, violent crime. Those reprehensible criminal acts are not the subject of mere nuisance fines.

Second, Whitewater’s dependence on these fines to balance its budget places fiscal incentive in the way of legitimate enforcement. Everyone in America gripes that his speeding ticket, etc. is used to help his given city make its budget. It’s true in Whitewater.

Third, too many of those who issue fines and penalties are poorly led and trained. This is a police force led by those who disclaim responsibility for consequences. That’s a message of unaccountability. Without accountability, even the best officers, with the best initial training, will slide into mediocre practices. In a force from a small town, with a less competitive pool of applicants, the only hedge against mediocrity is accountability. Good leadership takes an average force and makes it better through discipline and high expectations. A weak leader shuns holding employees accountable, in the theory that they’ll like him more, and in the mistaken impression that they cannot do better in any event. Eventually, he makes any excuse and rationalization he can to puff them up, and justify their – and his — questionable conduct. That’s the problem we face in Whitewater.

Fourth, Whitewater has an undeniable problem with the inequitable imposition of fines and penalties. This problem is so endemic to Whitewater’s culture that it’s even been mentioned by elected officials at Common Council meetings. Signs, banners, etc. – some people get fined, some people do not. Our city is rife – far more than other places – with accounts of how some people are fined, and others are never cited, despite similar violations. It’s been a problem for years, and no one has made it better. Some people have – not without justification – concluded that they cannot be fined, based on their connections and status within the city.

(Under these circumstances, the current administration’s suggestion that we should add more neighborhood enforcement resources, etc. is ill-advised, and tone-deaf to the serious challenge from bias.)

Fifth, the over-dependence on these fines operates as a regressive form of taxation. (Readers know that I favor a much smaller government, requiring lower taxes. That’s a standard libertarian position.) Reliance on fines and penalties collected for revenue generation is fundamentally different from real estate taxes that derive from real property’s assessed value. Whitewater’s reliance on fines as a revenue source transforms a criminal and civil penalty into another source of revenue – a source of revenue that disproportionately affects lower income residents.

If fines were not so critical to balancing the budget – and if they were imposed fairly – justice would be their principal object, and penalties would be father removed from being merely another element of our budget.

When they become just another, vital element of the budget, they should be held to standards of taxation and fiscal policy, and not merely principles of punitive sanction. As a source of taxation, penalties imposed to generate revenue disproportionately impact poor and working class residents. That’s why they’re fiscally regressive.

The current administration is outwardly progressive and polite in manner, yet it consistently ignores the broken character of our enforcement culture. Inequitable administration of justice cannot be, by definition, justice. Silence, or politeness, helps us not at all.

My libertarian’s angle for two proposed changes for the city budget were difficult, and this proposal is more difficult still. It is as important as it is difficult: unjust enforcement is among the most serious problems our small city faces. We are citizens of a troubled city, where the fairness and impartiality of justice are in question. All the shrill cries of professionalism do not make it so – experience refutes those empty claims.

City, Economy, Free Markets

On the 2008 City Budget: A Libertarian’s Angle

by  • 

Here’s a libertarian’s angle on the Whitewater 2008 proposed budget. As I mentioned in my last post, it’s a cautious, competent budget.

In good times, a budget like this might make sense. Unfortunately, these are not good times for many of Whitewater’s families: the family poverty rate is higher here than in nearby communities. That’s the astonishing fact of life in a city that, by the appearance of her streets, looks better than ever.

The best medicine for an ailing municipal economy is less government spending, reduced taxation, fewer fees, and less regulation (regulation operating as a crypto-tax). The budget is only one of a municipality’s areas of opportunity: some reforms can be made through a budget, but others can be addressed only apart from typical municipal spending. Those other challenges include uncertain tax incremental financing schemes, counter-productive ‘smart growth’ strategies, and a regime of cumbersome regulatory hoops.

From a libertarian’s point of view, this is exactly the time – before a recession, but when the municipal economy is ailing – to reduce spending. The entirety of spending reductions should be passed on as tax relief. The amount of spending reductions might be based on a reduction of two current sources of revenue: (1) the tax levy, and (2) the fees that the city charges for permits, licenses, etc.

The proposed 2008 budget assumes an increase in the tax levy, but a reduction in the municipal tax rate. (The absolute level of levy increase rests on an increase in construction.)

These are relative matters, but a spending reduction in equivalent to five percent of the proposed tax levy each year for the next three would be a useful start. The levy currently stands at over two million dollars per year, so this reduction for the first year would amount to a reduction of approximately one-hundred thousand dollars. Over three years, the city would have spending significantly and noticeably less than 2007.

There is a second easy fix. An immediate reduction of selected city fees, license registrations, or permit charges, for businesses and consumers. This should be coupled with an agreement to forego any new fees without a super-majority agreement of the Common Council.

Both of these reductions in revenue must be offset through reductions in spending (a municipality or state government cannot run a deficit, lacking as they do the ability to issue currency).

The total cost of these reductions in revenue in these three years would be manageable. These estimated spending reductions, passed on as tax and fee relief, assume no lift in the city’s economy.

I am convinced, however, that they would create positive change in our local economy.

It’s never easy to see where cost reductions will take place. Hard as it may seem, I would suggest that these spending reductions be offset through a reduction in the municipal work force, with part — but only part — from a reduction in so-called neighborhood services and enforcement costs. There’s a double-gain by reducing there: (1) the city reduces spending, and (2) the city sensibly lessens a regulatory and enforcement culture that’s corrosive to individual liberty and economic growth. The push to increase Whitewater’s position as ‘nanny-city’ will undermine – not improve – life and property values. Our regulatory and enforcement culture does not improve neighborhoods; it burdens and inhibits liberty and growth. We cannot boost free-market real estate prices through code-enforcement diktat.

Now, I do not expect that anyone will take up either libertarian reform; in any given year, the need’s not so apparent. I do believe, however, that these proposals would do more to spur growth than the theory that municipally-financed construction will entice developers and spur growth. In time, I believe that it will become clear that the current course will not uplift enough people, and that a more reform-oriented (libertarian, to me) approach will be needed.

These are not only changes a libertarian might make for reform of the government and improvement in our economy, but they are feasible, simple changes in our budget. (I’ll have more on reform to tax incremental financing, Community Development, fines and penalties, and our regulatory culture, in other posts.)

City

On the 2008 City Budget: Overview

by  • 

Quick thoughts on the proposed 2008 City Budget. The presentation to our Common Council amounted to over 198 pages, presented in two increments, over the last two council sessions.

The October 23rd presentation involved six key areas: Finance, Parks and Recreation, Planning/Zoning/Code Enforcement/Buildings, Administration, Young Memorial Library, and the Library Special Revenue Fund.

The October 30th presentation involved twelve key areas: Information Technology, Parkland Development, Fire and Rescue, Cable TV, CDA, Police, Public Works, Water Utility, Wastewater Utility, Stormwater Utility, Solid Waste/Recycling Fund, Ride Share.

It’s a cautious, competent budget. The overall increase in the budget proposal is slightly over 2%. That’s a conservative increase, and nowhere as profligate as some federal increases, or increases in other states and small cities. It is, as the administration notes, an increase less than annual jump in the federal consumer price index.

I’ve read through these pages, and like anyone, I could always suggest a few areas that I might like changed. Out of millions of dollars dollars, a few changes would always be likely. Overall, though, it’s not significantly different from last year.

Because it’s not a significant departure from the past, the proposal will keep us on our present fiscal course. In the end, I do not believe that will provide enough growth for the city, but it certainly won’t take us off course, either.

Next: How a libertarian might change the budget, to reduce the scope of government, spur additional growth, and make Whitewater a less-regulated place.

Police, Press

Catching up with the Register, October 25th Issue

by  • 

From the October 25th issue, on a story about an arrest in an overnight standoff —

How many police officers and sheriff’s deputies does it take to persuade an apparently suicidal man to leave his home? In Whitewater, it takes approximately 30.

What is a “suicide type statement,” by the way? It’s how an inarticulate man describes someone who reportedly threatened suicide.

What did Whitewater Chief Coan say about the apprehension of a despondent domestic-abuse suspect, surrounded by thirty armed officers?

Wait for it …. “Coan commended his officers for their poise and professionalism in the stressful, tense situation.”

Doesn’t anyone just say “good work,” and leave it that that, any longer?

Uncategorized

October 2007

by  • 

Thanks much to my readers. It’s been another solid month at FREE WHITEWATER. Despite traveling unexpectedly and being away for a week this October, traffic to the site has been high, and up again over the prior month.

I wrote recently that I have “grown old in this beautiful city.” That’s true of everyone – no one is getting any younger. I’m not lacking for energy, though, and I have many email messages to thank for the fact. For every message I publish, I’ve received many more, and it’s impossible to be old with so many messages (favorable or unfavorable). Some have been heart-breaking, yet even then, those writing have offered me more than I could ever give back to them.

I’ll try my level best, though: Give back I will. This is a site of personal commentary, about life in our small, but troubled, community. It’s written from one common man’s perspective. I’ve written what I believe to be true, or funny, or beautiful about Whitewater. I’ve not hemmed or hawed, or trimmed my sails, to please a few stodgy, our-way-and-only-our-way-forever people.

The best, hardest work lies yet ahead.

Thanks for stopping by – there’s more on the way.

Holiday

Boo! Scariest Things in Whitewater, 2007

by  • 

Here’s the FREE WHITEWATER list of the scariest things in Whitewater. I’ll start in reverse order, from least frightening to super-scary.

10. Fear of Outsiders. You’d think that Milwaukee and Madison were Lord-of-the-Flies nightmares. If you’re describing someone from another country, you might as well be describing an extraterrestrial. It’s not that they’re scary, it’s that you’re afraid of them.

9. Mosquitoes. Squadron after squadron, swooping down upon you. They’re parched, and you’re just Gatorade® to them.

8. Squirrels. They only look innocent. They’re small, fast moving, silent killers. Whitewater has an ordinance against injuring squirrels; I can assure you that squirrels have no similar ordinance against attacking people.

7. College Students. I don’t think they’re scary, but quite a few of the entrenched town clique think they’re little monsters. Perhaps, somewhere in town, there’s a councilman sitting in his bed, curled into a ball, shivering at the thought of students running lose in the city.

6. Pratt Institute. Whitewater was once a center for ‘spiritualism,’ the crackpot notion that people could use crystal balls, or séances, etc. to talk to the dead. They had the arrogant notion that, through their for-fee training, they could distinguish between good and bad spirits, and engage the former, and manage the latter. Some people may think that all these spirits are the reason Whitewater’s such a mess now, but I doubt that. The fault is our own lack of vigilance over the living, not the dead.

5. The Bypass. Nothing scares a business owner more than the realization that hundreds of consumers can easily and conveniently circumvent the city. Years ago, some people foolishly thought that the bypass would benefit the city by reducing congestion. It didn’t reduce congestion; it reduced ordinary consumer traffic through town.

4. Our Former Municipal Judge. Disgraced, perpetual vulgarian Steve Spear may never leave; he told attendees at a Kiwanis meeting this summer that he was thinking of running again. He’s not the one who should run; you should run, as far away from Spear as you can.

3. The Whitewater Register. Only Pravda was worse. Carrie Dampier writes poorly, with a tired bias in favor of the worst, stodgiest, most selfish faction in the city. We don’t have a community newspaper – we have a weekly press release for the status quo. It’s not right that countless trees should be ground into pulp for this unworthy purpose. Feel free to contact the Sierra Club at 415-977-5500 and complain.

2. Poverty. We must be afraid of poverty and the poor, because as a community we seldom dare speak of a poverty rate higher than neighboring communities. The poor are the only group in the city capable changing a conversation with the town clique: mention poverty, and suddenly the whole room’s looking for an exit, or asking about the Packers, the weather in Mongolia, anything.

1. Our Current Police Chief. Here’s the number one fright for 2007. We have one of the least honest, least capable police chiefs this side of …. well, Mongolia, I suppose. That’s certainly scary.

All across America, thousands of police officers do diligent work each day. Someday, someone will lead this force properly, and he’ll have heroic work ahead of him, to fix the force that Jim Coan and his ilk will leave behind. Until that better day, their failed leadership is the scariest, saddest part of life in Whitewater for 2007.

City, Economy, Free Markets

Sub-Prime Mortgages and the City Budget

by  • 

Over at the Banner, there’s an October 30th mention of a recent New York Times story on how pressures in the sub-prime mortgage market may affect city budgets. The entire article, and the excerpt at the Banner, raise a good deal of worry, predicting that foreclosures on sub-prime mortgages will cause a drop in state and local tax revenue. The article warms that hundreds of millions in tax revenue might be lost nationally.

We have reason to be calm, dire cry notwithstanding: (1) sub-prime mortgages are minority of all mortgages, (2) only a minority of all sub-prime mortgages are at risk, (3) only the tiniest fraction of those sub-prime mortgages could possibly be in Whitewater (the article never mentions Wisconsin), (4) the NYT article cites not actual foreclosures, but a prediction only.

There’s no sound reason for Whitewater to plan based on the article cited at the Banner.

Inbox Reader Mail, Police

Inbox: Reader Mail (ID Theft)

by  • 

I received two emails from a reader who asked to remain anonymous. One is about supposed identity theft, the second about sundry other matters in Whitewater. Her remarks in black, my reply in blue. As you’ll see, we do not share the same views.

Anonymous Reader:

Mr. Adams, you stated:
“Real identity theft ­ not the odd, distorted definition that the Whitewater police use involves theft of consumer credit cards, access to bank accounts to pilfer funds, etc.”

This is wrong. That definition may be the one the media has led you to believe, but that doesn’t make it correct.

The Federal Trade Commission states:

“Identity theft occurs when someone uses your personally identifying information, like your name, Social Security number, or credit card number, without your permission, to commit fraud or other crimes.”

The Department of Justice states:

“Identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to refer to all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person’s personal data in some way that involves fraud or deception, typically for economic gain.”

The Social Security Administration states:

“Misuse of someone else’s SSN is a violation of Federal law and may lead to fines and/or imprisonment.”

You went on to state:

“Truly responsible and truly professional police forces, unlike our police department, know that identity theft is a serious matter of consumer fraud, not an opening wedge to an immigration action.”

Have you gotten a hold of the individuals whose social security numbers were fraudulently used by the employees at Star Packaging? Several have some very interesting things to say about how their lives were affected, and are still being affected. One of the victims was a four-year-old child. I have a hard time believing you think stealing someone else’s social security card is not “a serious matter.”

I have been asked for my SSN when pulled over by an officer. When one states one doesn’t have his or her license with one, the officer then asks one for other forms of ID, such as “student or employee ID, credit cards, social security cards” and so forth. Seeing as most illegal immigrants hold no driver’s license, I am not surprised that an officer would fish for further identification as to who the driver truly is.

As much as I felt, and still feel, for the families who suffered during the Star Packaging raid, I still believe the law is the law.

Adams:

I’m not persuaded.

There was no genuine, solid ‘identity theft’ investigation. See my earlier post entitled, “The Identity Theft Excuse” for information on how responsible, capable police departments investigate identity theft to protect consumers. That’s not what happened in Whitewater. In actual police practice, what happened in Whitewater doesn’t happen elsewhere. By the admission of the prosecutor in this case, no other district attorney in the state — in over a year since the raid — has copied this sort of prosecution. Not one other county in Wisconsin. They’re all alone in Elkhorn. You can look in all the dictionaries, catalogues, encyclopedias, etc. that you want. In practice, this prosecution was an aberration from Wisconsin practice. If it were such a good idea, other prosecutors in bigger counties would have followed suit. No one did.

I was waiting for someone to write about the four-year old supposedly a ‘victim’ when her Social Security number was allegedly used by an adult. The whole idea of referring to the small child as someone victimized is a vulgar play on emotions, and an attempt to conjure notions of the real and serious problems of child abuse — when children are victims. They’ve used this description in Elkhorn, and the Whitewater Police (and supporters like you) have picked up on it. It’s not at all like true victimization of children. It’s a shabby, ham-handed appeal to emotion from someone who thinks it’s clever, and damning. It’s not so clever, and I can respond to it easily.

Unlike real, despicable physical victimization of children, in this case a four-year old never knows the effects of the alleged crime, and a credit report can be repaired without any lasting physical, emotional impact on the child. In fact, there’s no good, decent reason for a parent to tell a four-year old child about this sort of matter; it would be reprehensible and confusing to burden a four-year old with this sort of knowledge.

This alleged identity theft does not ‘victimize’ a child in the way that instances of physical harm constitute victimization. This is nothing more than over-the-top hyperbole to prejudice unnecessarily people against a defendant who never physically injured anyone.

One of the great moral gaps in life is between those who use a serious charge (e.g., racism, victimization, anti-Semitism) when it should be used, and those who hurl it for temporary advantage. You, and those who hurl this charge, fall on the wrong side of that gap.

The Whitewater Police reportedly abandoned the practice of requesting Social Security Numbers after inquiries about the fairness of the procedure. If they were justified in their conduct, then why did they desist (as always, without acknowledging that anything might have been wrong in their prior conduct)?

It’s improbable that they desisted from any recognition that the prior practice was wrong; does Chief Coan even acknowledge that his force might — ever — do wrong by someone? It’s equally improbable that the Whitewater Police acted out of an abundance of caution; they’re as arrogant as they are ill-trained. These are men and women poorly led, held unaccountable, and ignorant of how far they fall from solid, responsible police departments elsewhere.

The most probable conclusion is that they stopped only when someone called them on it.

As for your second email, unpublished here, it speaks for itself, and none too well. I’ll offer one example, from among several. Your repeated description (four times) of disabled children at Lakeview as ‘misfits’ pretty much says it all. You write as one put upon by having to attend elementary school with disabled classmates. I’m unsympathetic to you. Their right to be in the classroom trumps your discomfort.

Police

High Fives?

by  • 

I have been a critic of police conduct in our city. I am convinced that leadership here is poor, and excuse-making. This is a mediocre, ill-trained force in a city that deserves far better. Any yet, even I find myself surprised by what I sometimes read. Consider a comment posted on the UW-Whitewater Royal Purple‘s website, in response to an editorial about underage drinking near campus.

Here is an excerpt from the comment on the Royal Purple website as of 10/25:

In response to your editorial entitled “This just in: Police still give tickets to underage drinkers,” I would like to correct some misguided information. No one at the party that night is disputing the fact that they received a drinking ticket. Everyone there knows what they were doing is illegal. The problem we have with this situation is the manner in which the Whitewater City Police Department acted. We feel that sending in undercover officer into a college party in a college town is simply unethical. Also, to barge into the door screaming “Whitewater P.D.” as if this was some kind of drug sting is totally unnecessary. Worst of all, when the dust had settled and the tickets had been written, the police were seen high-fiving each other as if they had just won a game.

Really? Can this be true, that Whitewater Police ‘high-fived’ each other after completing the raid on the residence? What mature man high-fives a colleague after citing underage drinkers? I’m not much for the high-five in any event, but it’s a callow person who’d act that way. As for bursting through the door, shouting ‘Whitewater P.D.,’ that’s too funny. You’d think that they were arresting Bin Laden, or liberating Grenada.

(Quick reminder: you cannot scare students from underage drinking by looking ridiculous.)

Did it happen this way? Write me at adams@freewhitewater.com and let me know.

Over on Comedy Central, there’s a show called Reno 911!, about over-the-top, buffoonish police antics. It’s just a television program there; it is police practice here?