Baldwin Park police officers oppose s...

Baldwin Park police officers oppose switch to sheriff's service

There are 31 comments on the San Gabriel Valley Tribune story from Feb 13, 2013, titled Baldwin Park police officers oppose switch to sheriff's service. In it, San Gabriel Valley Tribune reports that:

Police Department employees have officially come out against a proposal to contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for the city's police services.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at San Gabriel Valley Tribune.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
NSBALDWIN

Downey, CA

#22 Mar 4, 2013
F*CK THe POLICe !!!!!!!!! Bunch of scared B*tches my homie ENANO proved you f*gs are cowards
BIG BAD NS BOLEN X3 CONTROLS U PIGS PAPAPA
Really

United States

#23 Mar 4, 2013
Please check all the city's on benefit packages for city council and top management. This will shock you BP is the highest in Southern California it is a joke.
I wonder does Marlen remember when she was taking 1200.00 dollars a month for two redevelopment meetings plus all the other pay. That is why redevelopment was stopped because of city's who abused the funds. That's right council made over 50,000.00 dollars a year for part time job and no education.
wait

Los Angeles, CA

#24 Mar 4, 2013
Really wrote:
Please check all the city's on benefit packages for city council and top management. This will shock you BP is the highest in Southern California it is a joke.
I wonder does Marlen remember when she was taking 1200.00 dollars a month for two redevelopment meetings plus all the other pay. That is why redevelopment was stopped because of city's who abused the funds. That's right council made over 50,000.00 dollars a year for part time job and no education.
Even assuming that your statement that the council members each made over 50,000 a year is accurate, so what? It doesn't change the other numbers. Even if you think they are grossly overpaid for the job they do (which, is debatable in my opinion), it's still peanuts compared to the other budgetary issues.
Enano

Santa Ana, CA

#25 Mar 4, 2013
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Enano is taking a dirtnap, courtesy of the BPPD. Get a job web gangster.
grudge

United States

#26 Mar 4, 2013
wait wrote:
<quoted text>
Even assuming that your statement that the council members each made over 50,000 a year is accurate, so what? It doesn't change the other numbers. Even if you think they are grossly overpaid for the job they do (which, is debatable in my opinion), it's still peanuts compared to the other budgetary issues.
......sounds an awful lot like a former councilman who is trying to justify his benefits he is still receiving...and argues like a 3rd rate attorney....hmmmm
Same old

Los Angeles, CA

#27 Mar 4, 2013
grudge wrote:
<quoted text>......sounds an awful lot like a former councilman who is trying to justify his benefits he is still receiving...and argues like a 3rd rate attorney....hmmmm
Does every discussion on this website eventually devolve into "you sound like a councilman"?
Hunter

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#28 Mar 5, 2013
numbers dont lie wrote:
<quoted text>
Your arrogance and attempt to condescend to me are cute, but do not change the facts ont he ground.
40% of the cities listed DO NOT match Baldwin Park's budget. Some may have a similar general fund number, but have an overall budget that doubles or triples that of Baldwin Park. And per capita? Then there is absolutely no city in the State that mirror's Baldwin Park in the entire state using that metric.
I read fine. You're just trying to pull a fast one with the numbers.
The reason I asked the question is because I know the answer. There isn't one in the entire state.
Thank you for proving my point. You see there are several cities smaller and larger that are run by competent professional city staff. No matter how you look at it the acknowledgement of this council and city manager is they are incompetent and not capable of running any city, much less a city of this specific size and dimension.

The council and city manager are acknowledging their incompetence and lack of capable management skill by deferring to the county. Why not just dissolve the city completely, oh wait that would mean they would serve no purpose, further acknowledgement. You are right they serve no functional purpose, so why not get competent people and rid the city of these lesser minds.
not exactly

Los Angeles, CA

#29 Mar 5, 2013
Hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for proving my point. You see there are several cities smaller and larger that are run by competent professional city staff. No matter how you look at it the acknowledgement of this council and city manager is they are incompetent and not capable of running any city, much less a city of this specific size and dimension.
The council and city manager are acknowledging their incompetence and lack of capable management skill by deferring to the county. Why not just dissolve the city completely, oh wait that would mean they would serve no purpose, further acknowledgement. You are right they serve no functional purpose, so why not get competent people and rid the city of these lesser minds.
Nothing I said "proves" your point. Neither City Staff nor elected officials have much of an impact, if at all, on the size of the general fund, or even the entire budget for that matter. While there are policies that can be forwarded that, over time, will have an impact on those things, most city staff and electeds are forced to deal with the budget size (at least on the revenue side) that they inherit.

The population size of the City has a direct impact on public safety costs. So a city with 10,000 residents will have a smaller expenditure for public safety than a city with 100,0000 residents.

Thus, when you post a list of cities that have a similar population size, but far more robust budget and/or general fund, you're not comparing apples to apples.(E.G. West Covina; they also fund and run their own Fire Department. Why? Because they can afford to do it).

Same problem applies if you try to compare a city with the same size budget or general fund, but with a much smaller population.

As I stated before, you can't point me to a comparable city that still runs and funds their own police department, because there isn't one. Find me a city that has at least 75,000 residents and a general fund/budget ratio of 25 million/41 million that funds and runs their own police department. You can't, because BP is the only one.
Tony

Elk Grove, CA

#30 Mar 5, 2013
The worst the Baldwin Park PD can do is screw the junior officer's league chicks. Bring in the sheriffs and they'll be doing everybody.
www.dontgrowoldinreno.com
Hunter

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#31 Mar 5, 2013
not exactly wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing I said "proves" your point. Neither City Staff nor elected officials have much of an impact, if at all, on the size of the general fund, or even the entire budget for that matter. While there are policies that can be forwarded that, over time, will have an impact on those things, most city staff and electeds are forced to deal with the budget size (at least on the revenue side) that they inherit.
The population size of the City has a direct impact on public safety costs. So a city with 10,000 residents will have a smaller expenditure for public safety than a city with 100,0000 residents.
Thus, when you post a list of cities that have a similar population size, but far more robust budget and/or general fund, you're not comparing apples to apples.(E.G. West Covina; they also fund and run their own Fire Department. Why? Because they can afford to do it).
Same problem applies if you try to compare a city with the same size budget or general fund, but with a much smaller population.
As I stated before, you can't point me to a comparable city that still runs and funds their own police department, because there isn't one. Find me a city that has at least 75,000 residents and a general fund/budget ratio of 25 million/41 million that funds and runs their own police department. You can't, because BP is the only one.
Ok you asked. By the way this took me 10 minutes to find.

City of San Ramon. Population 74k. General fund 41 million. Police budget 16 million. Municipal Police city of San Ramon. If you want more you will need to contract for my services as a consultant.

Next argument?
not exactly

Los Angeles, CA

#32 Mar 6, 2013
Hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok you asked. By the way this took me 10 minutes to find.
City of San Ramon. Population 74k. General fund 41 million. Police budget 16 million. Municipal Police city of San Ramon. If you want more you will need to contract for my services as a consultant.
Next argument?
You have to be right first. San Ramon's total budget for this year 81.9 million; Baldwin Park's total budget is around 65 million.

The General Fund (i.e. unrestricted discretionary spending) for Baldwin Park is 23 million. San Ramon is 36.5 million.

Try again.

http://sanramon.patch.com/articles/city-budge...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rowland Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 hr Evan 32,266
News Try home remedies for neuropathy (Mar '08) 7 hr Bruce 224
LMSA Soccer (Feb '10) 9 hr Soccer parent 6,496
talk is cheap 14 hr Tiresome 5
News Gang member held in shooting of 9-year-old (Oct '09) May 1 TurkBandit 46
News A girl waves a Mexican flag during rallies in L... (Mar '06) Apr '16 Que Er 4,509
Married with lesbian desires Mar '16 BrenRey 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rowland Heights Mortgages