Comments on: Two reports focus on KCPD

By: Former cop

Former cop — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 04:01:52 +0000

I agree KCMO needs more dispatchers. I’ve sat on hold before and it’s frustrating in an emergency…not to mention the drastic results in a life-and-death situation.

I strongly disagree with take-home cars and one-man cars. With one-man cars you end up with one officer arriving on scene and waiting for his backup before approaching. I had a domestic in my building recently and was happy to see two officers roll up in a car and go to work.

Take-home cars is a complete waste of money. How will this increase response times? An off-duty officer is not going to suit up in uniform and rush down to the neighborhood domestic or burglary. It will waste an enormous amount of money on cars and equipment used only 40 hours per week. I’m sure KCMO will want to pass some kind of sales tax to fund this.

Grrrrrrrr. I agree with the person who posted spending $250K was a waste of money to find this out…sit down a group of 25 citizens or 25 police officers and save some money.

Just my thoughts…I realize everyone thinks differently.

BTW, I’m not a former KCMO officer but worked for a suburb of KC for almost five years.

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:21:21 +0000

Yes, I live in the city (just off 39th & Roanoke) and use public transit quite a bit, including the stops at 39th & Main. It doesn’t feel very safe (especially after dark) with some people hanging around indefinitely just waiting for an “opportunity”. I have personally felt threatened more than once, but am not an easy target. I know someone who was mugged near there recently, and there is plenty of obvious drug dealing going on in the area.

By: murph

murph — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:01:51 +0000

Tim,

Having lived in the city for 29 years now, I’m at a loss for where you come up with the image of “rampant criminals.” I’m having an even tougher time imagining how you came up with that for the Midtown area.

Is there crime? You bet, but not enough for scare myself and many other people away from the area. Is it “rampant” enough to discourage new economic development? No. I’d blame the city’s rapidly deteriorating infrastructure and City Hall apathy for redeveloping Midtown before I’d blame “thugs and crack dealers.”

By: kcmo guy

kcmo guy — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:10:27 +0000

Tim, do you live in the city? You never answered this question. I do live in Kanas city and do not see the legions of crack dealers and criminals of whicy you speak. I see more a problem of transient populations of people who need mental or chemical dependancy healthcare treatment. I also see a transportation deficiency that allows for massive amount of traffic, both foot and auto, through residential areas. Add the fact that you have two or three universities in the area and a nearby interstate, and you are set for lots of petty crime, such as the many car break-ins. Add one more thing–the many bars in the area, and that prodcues the assaults. Finally, the gradient between the marginalized poor eastern half of the city and the wealthy western side creates a front, like in weather, where storms will happen. Put it all together and get a complex picture. Or make up a cartoon image about crack dealers and thugs.

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:05:45 +0000

Murph,
I think the city probably thought the Glover Plan would bring further development and help solve the problem. That didn’t happen, obviously. In fact, the Glover Plan itself took years to become more than a hole in the ground. So it is time to ask what next. I think that getting rid of the rampant criminals is a good start.

By: murph

murph — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:54:22 +0000

Tim,

Do you live in the city? Or frequent Midtown? If you did, you’d know there’s very little to recommend vast swaths of the area even to “thugs and crack dealers.” It’s hard to blame the decades-long neglect of the area on crime or a lack of police presence. It has more to do with a lack of interest or political will coming from City Hall to make sure the area is redeveloped. After the Glover Plan was finally completed the city sort of lost interest.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:23:18 +0000

The reason some of these areas between Downtown and the Plaza remain shabby is because there is because there is not enough police patrol for the number of thugs and crack dealers that hang around in those areas. Nobody is going to invest good money in an unsafe area. Get rid of the criminals (i.e. bring in more police), and the area will improve.

By: DKC

DKC — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 02:46:41 +0000

$250,000 to find these things out? Any citizen for $10 and a cup of coffee could have come to the same conclusions… and certainly our own police brass should have known what was needed without the expenditure…

By: murph

murph — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:40:25 +0000

What “booming central corridor between Downtown and the Plaza”? Large portions of Main Street, Broadway, Southwest Trafficway and Gillham Road and many of the neighborhoods in between still look as shabby and neglected as ever. It’d be awful hard to justify police foot patrols between Linwood and 39th Street on any of the major thoroughfares because there is very little there.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:32:17 +0000

I agree that speeding is at the top of the list. I know it’s a big problem in my neighborhood. There is a reason that the speed limits are there; I think they should double the fines in neighborhoods as opposed to highways. They already do that in construction zones, and I think residential areas deserve it too.