Akeley is the latest Minnesota city to consider going without its own police in response to declining local-government aid (LGA) and, in some cases, population.
Akeley would join a growing club that now includes Remer, Longville and Hackensack, among others. Hoyt Lakes and Aurora might combine their police forces. Wyoming is downsizing its force by switching to uninsured part-timers.
Pawlenty would like you to think that, because of his “no new taxes” pledge, you are now getting more bang for your buck. But while our property taxes soar, we are receiving fewer and fewer services from our state and local governments. We can’t even rely on the basics like effective police protection anymore.
LGA cuts are the only reason this town of 412 people doesn't have a huge police force? But who will respond to the tractors that are stuck in the mud???
The county sheriff can cover this bustling metropolis. It is called efficiency.
Wikipedia says the city has a total area of 1.5 square miles! And no police force?!?! Ha!
wikidipedia: The source of idiots.
Waaaah waaaaa — C'mon, even Barney Fife needs a job!
This is a very serious problem up here, although few people realize it. Its not just the population density, but the response time in emergencies. Frequently, sheriffs are the first responders to medical emergencies, and with fewer of them to go around (LGA cuts being a part of the problem, but not the only part) it means more of us will be in peril if we need emergency services.
Having local police with defibrillators in their cars SAVES LIVES. You conservatards can go to hell.
While it may be fine for enforcing the law, it does suck for response time of emergency services. Its in Hubbard County which is about 1000 square miles and the main city is Park Rapids which is only about 20 miles of back highway and several lakes away.
Akeley's main problem is enforcing the speed limit at 'the turn'. Its a popular pass-through for those on their way to Bemidji.
Perhaps it is the popularity of Meth that makes our conservative posters laugh at the need for actual cops in Greater Minnesota? Or maybe they just don't care if small towns die on the vine in out-state? The real issue here is that 50% of Minnesota lives in small towns and rural ares while 50% of economy is agriculturally based. That is one of the reasons we go through recessions better than other states with an unbalance.
But who cares about little towns there is no crime there why do they need cops and even worse actual help from the state government? I'm a little surprised that the Conservatives and Religious Right fails to realize that much of their support comes from rural Minnesota. Then again their purpose in life seems to be angry white guys dedicated to pissing off everybody they can piss off.
You don't need to delve deeply into this one. The reason conservatives laugh about cops being lost has nothing to do with anything you suggested. The reason is that they have a reflexive opposition to anything favored by Democrats or liberals, as well as an incapacity to admit they were wrong (in this case, about LGA).
Enjoy making up statistics?
It was 70/30 Urban in 1990 and it's getting heavier toward urban every year.
And there's no way ag makes up 50% either unless you stretch the definition (ex. construction workers need to eat farmers food and they build houses with wood which is an ag product).
No actual don't… but I'd like to see your definition of rural versus urban. And a source for your "fact."
When it comes to distinguishing rural from urban, researchers and policymakers employ a dizzying array of definitions. There are at present the more than two dozen rural definitions currently used by Federal agencies and they are the experts. For the 1910 Census, rural meant open countryside and any place with fewer than 2,500 people. Over the same time period, thresholds for some USDA rural development programs were adjusted upward. For example, the Rural Housing Program began in 1949, serving communities with fewer than 2,500 people, but it now sets eligibility at less than 20,000 people.
So Mr. Moose exactly what does your definition of rural involve? Depending on what you use for the boundary choice and population threshold, the share of the U.S. population defined as rural and its socioeconomic characteristics can vary widely. In 2000, 21 percent of the U.S. population was designated rural using the Census Bureau’s land-use definition (outside urban areas of 2,500 or more people), compared with 17 percent for economically based nonmetro areas (outside metro areas of 50,000 or more). Alternative definitions increase that range to 49 percent rural.
So lets do the analysis… give me your specific definition of rural.
Not having a local police force is nothing new in some parts of the state. In Wright County for instance, of the thirteen municipalities, only three — Annandale, Buffalo, and Howard Lake — have their own force. All the rest contract with WCSD. In neighboring Meeker County, both Dassel and Grove City in recent years moved to contract with the county. Take a moment to talk with the folks in those communities and see how they feel about having county patrols. Some of them have been doing so for nearly four decades.
Facts once again need to be shared….
Akeley 2003 LGA Paid - $69,479
Akeley 2009 LGA Paid - $56,543
You lose $13,000 and you have to get rid of your police department? In other news it is raining today…clearly Tim Pawlenty’s fault.
Did all other costs remain constant? Health care costs for employees went up over 40% alone. What about retirement benefits?
With a city clerk, water and maintenance, public works and parks employees, it was probably the one cut that could be made where some of the work can be filled in from a contract (yes, they still have to pay the county sheriff for services).
Pawlenty cut LGA, dude.
Think, then post.
I get now that you were being obtuse.
$13K is probably half the salary of the local constabulary, as well as the rent for the office.
You should pitch in.
If towns believe that they need to have police protection then their citizens should pay for it.
Would everyone enjoy having other people's taxes pay for their own local services? Sure.
Let me tell you how we feel. Scared. We all know there it is unlikely a county sheriff would make it in time if we had a medical or violent emergency. Doing without is something people in rural areas are acquainted with. But emergency services are different. Its a matter of life, not convenience here.
The LGA reductions are a part of this, but a loss of thousands of dollars is certainly enough to lose personnel.
And let's not go down the road of "pay your own taxes for your own services" road. Unless, of course, we are all willing to educate our own kids, pay for our own emergency services, pave our own roads, hire our own air traffic controllers when we fly, and so on.
I think that pooling services like this makes alot of sense. The town I live in has been pooling fire, police, and education for some time and it is good. I wish they would pool their city offices as well — it would improve services to all and decrease cost.
I get better service from the pooled functions than I do from the standalone ones… but my example is just one person's opinion.
Is your town pooling with itself? How do you qualify "better service"? And which standalone functions are you using as comparison?
Sorry the town is too small to be found on other websites…and too small to need a police force!