If only the Council would return to the semi-monthly meetings so that Administration would not complain that time requires immediate action since a months delay would be disastrous. Citizen's participation and input at the comment time is important, but the length of meetings discourages it. Yet ther is enough on tap tonight for being there. If I can see the Resolutions early enough I shall comment later.
Several resolutions on tonight's agenda should require in depth consideration by the Council before their action. Specifically:
(344-10) The request for a PILOT agreement for the " West Second Street Commons" While the project on paper appears to be one of the best proposed redevelopment proposals for downtown, Council should be sure that we are not giving away the "farm" for new residential;l properties. The last PILOT awarded the new purchasers of the Senior Apartment on Park Ave. was needless and costly to our taxpayers. PILOTS were designed to encourage commercial properties are for Federal funding, not for secondary investors so the can have a sweetheart deal.
(R343-10) Global Agreement designating Landmark LLC as developers for North Ave Extension. as well as Properties in Plainfield. Not having seen the Resolution I can only surmise that this is the Bank and other buildings on Park ave, the North Ave. Extension must be the Widening of the Driveway to two way street size to access rear building parking. The fact that the railroad makes it blind for northbound Park Ave, traffic would make it an dangerous intersection needing a traffic light. Opinion delayed.
(R339-10) This is a resolution decreasing the appropriation and a bond issue for the Senior Citizen Center from $4,300,000.00 to $800,000.00 -it was over a million when presented last Tuesday. Supposedly for furnishings this may be an attempt to sneak through the $250,000plus payment to Dornoch that Administration first presented in April. Furnishings could never be that amount unless everything is gold plated.
(R341-10) Resolution approving of an Ordinance-and the Ordinance-of a gunshot location system. Is this an answer in preventing crime? Only to hasten Police response? Is it a one time charge or are there yearly expenses? Can the funds be better used? Most of the installations have also needed cameras to be effective in identifying perps etc. This article from the company's propaganda is typical.
BROCK PARKER - The York Dispatch
Article Last Updated: 09/11/2008 10:50:36 AM EDT
York City Police have begun targeted patrols based on information from the city's new ShotSpotter system.
Police Commissioner Mark Whitman said Wednesday that adjustments to the gunfire detection system are enabling police to more precisely pinpoint the location of gunfire, instead of simply using the system identifying the general area of shots.
As a result, Whitman said, police have started some "more directed gun patrols" and are hoping they lead to more arrests and deterrence.
In August, the ShotSpotter system detected 83 incidents of gunfire in the city -- down from 157 gunshots picked up by the system in July and 103 shots detected in June, according to York City Police.
"I think 83 is a very high number," Whitman said. "Our goal is to get it to as close to zero as we can."
The number of firecrackers detected by the ShotSpotter system in August was 707 -- down dramatically from the 4,463 incidents in July and the 1,339 firecrackers the system detected in a single day on July 4th.
Whitman said police are also about to install two additional sensors for the ShotSpotter system to address areas where gunfire has been verified by police officers, but went undetected by the system. The system of sound sensors and cameras is designed to detect gunshots, map their location and notify police and York County 911 within seconds. It will cost the city $650,000 during the next five years.
Early results: Despite continuing needs to adjust and "tweak" the ShotSpotter system throughout the first year of its use, Whitman said, police are already seeing results.
He said police were able to use the system to help identify some people at the scene of the fatal shooting of Ian Chambers, who was shot in the area of South Penn and West Princess streets Saturday afternoon.
Whitman said the ShotSpotter system detected the gunfire simultaneously or possibly even prior to the first report police received of the shooting, and he said police did recover one gun at the scene.
By being able to quickly identify the exact location of a shooting, Whitman said the ShotSpotter system often allows police to arrive at crime scenes more quickly, and as a result they can collect better evidence to build a case.
In other instances, Whitman said, police have used the ShotSpotter system to "verify or knock down" the stories of people who arrive at York Hospital with gunshot wounds, and claim to have been shot in certain locations of the city. Sometimes the stories have checked out, or have been disproved by the ShotSpotter system, Whitman said.
"As an investigative tool, it's been beneficial," Whitman said.
Reach Brock Parker at 505-5434 or bparker@yorkdispatch.com.
Erin Lopez |
Sounds like the County is getting fat and happy while our Ccouncil doles out tax breaks. We did not gave a tax break to Monarch and we should not give a tax break to this guy?
ReplyDeleteI find it curious that this was not mentioned at all in the Ccouncil meeting.
This has a very strong odor to it.
I just want to know - when am I getting a tax abatement?
What a sales pitch! Buy your condo here cuz we've got lousy schools, no jobs, out of control taxes, and ShotSpotter technology that'll permit the cops to get to the spot of the shot more rapidly after your kid has been wounded in the leg.
ReplyDeleteVery funny Doc, 'Sucka' is the word I need to enter for verification that I'm not a computer. That sums it up pretty well.