Props To The Cops

At the recent City Council meeting Dunwoody's Top Cop advanced his pitch for alarm system registration and fines for what they determine are "false alarms". Not that the cops would deliberately incorrectly classify a call merely to generate revenue if simply because, as you're about to understand, they won't need to.

The back story is pretty mundane and follows the typical "City Goes Money Grubbing" plot line. The necessary crisis is built around the notion that an enormous and skyrocketing number of home alarm system calls are false alarms. Of course this is draped in the politically bullet-proof shield of "Public Safety" which as a tool for parting the public from their money is second only to "Educating Our Children". The equally mundane second cornerstone is the bratty little school child's excuse of "everyone else did it" which in bureaucratic City-Speak is known as "Best Practices".

In spite of some "Best Practices" where every alarm site pays a registration fee, this Smart City has heard from the voters loud and clear on the Bonds referendum and have determined that these preemptive fines can only be applied to businesses. As smart as they are they actually understand that businesses cannot vote anyone from office and if they vote at all it is only with campaign contributions or their feet. This strategy has already proven to mitigate public backlash by all but eliminating public attention.

The only point of inquiry from our elected Lords and Ladies is around the crank call policy the Top Cop intends to follow. Apparently after a specified number of "false alarms" you'll be branded as "the boy who cried wolf" after which our little shepherds will let the wolves have their day. Of course there is a path to redemption and that path is paved with gold. Your gold. All you have to do is pay some fines, you don't have to fix your alarm and you're back in the flock. If this looks like those credit card companies that want you to carry a balance so they can rake in usurious interest payments, then you have a pretty good grasp of the situation. Apparently this "we won't be taking your calls any more" approach offended the few remaining humanist members of Council so it became a point of inquiry.

And this is where it went from a rather plodding, almost doltish re-enactment of  "fleecing the flock" to something that was revealed to be nothing short of brilliant. During these inquiries it was revealed that the State Legislature is passing a bill, and it will pass, requiring "double verification" before alarm monitoring companies contact the police. At Council the Chief of Police acknowledged this would have a "tremendous impact on false alarms" and when questioned about any negative impact on this new revenue stream he indicated the impact would be "moderate".

In a nutshell, the City is poised to create a new revenue stream justified by a situation that will soon be all but eliminated by State legislation so that all this new money can be diverted to whatever the City wants. This is how a "fee", like an alarm registration fee, becomes just another tax.

As clever as that is, it isn't the brilliant part. That is based on incredibly skillful timing on part of the Police Chief. It goes like this. We have a problem with false alarms, the fix is registration [fees ] and fines and we need to implement this now. Shortly the problem will go away due to no action on our part but if we get this done just before the state law takes effect and false alarms plummet then the Police Chief can take credit "how well his program worked."

Now that's brilliant.