"It’s nice that we’re starting to rehire police officers," Burgess said, but "we really have wanted to get back on track for full implementation of the neighborhood policing plan."
Burgess didn't go into detail about what getting "back on track" would mean in terms of police staffing. So our One Question for Tim Burgess is: What kind of changes to the mayor's police staffing proposal will you support, and how are you going to pay for them?
Here's Burgess' response:
I think what I said to Ross was that some of my colleagues want to consider adding more police officers---for example, [Bruce] Harrell has been quoted as saying he wants 30 more, not 10. I don’t know yet for myself. We’re going to take the same approach that we took on the arena, which is that we’re going to dig in deep and do the analysis that needs to be done. As the weeks progress here---and we don't have many weeks, just eight [before adopting the budget in November]---we’ll start framing up our approach to the budget.
What I do know, and what is unquestionably proven and well-established and evidence-based, is that place-based policing—because crime is geographically anchored---works. We know that purposeful patrol---not just random patrol, but patrol activiites that have a purpose and focusing on persistent, high-frequency offenders---those three things work all over the US.
McGinn, for his part, has said that 10 new officers are sufficient because the city has managed to reach its neighborhood-policing goals---7-minute average 911 response times and 30-percent proactive time (that is, time not spent responding to calls) while officers are on duty---without hiring the 105 new officers in the original plan