Police Chief Denise Turner has made a pitch to the City Council
to re-write the city’s ordinance governing response to alarms.
She’s presented numbers
– false alarms are costing the city $145,965 annually – that
should be thoroughly analyzed and questioned by the Council.
That really has not happened.
1. Why not enforce the currrent laws before branding them ineffective?
Police Chief Denise Turner has made a pitch to the City Council to re-write the city’s ordinance governing response to alarms. She’s presented numbers – false alarms are costing the city $145,965 annually – that should be thoroughly analyzed and questioned by the Council.
That really has not happened.
More bothersome, though, is that the current ordinance has not been enforced for quite some time – even though there are 38 chronic false alarm offenders, according to Turner, one of which totaled 58 violations in a year.
Why not enforce the law on the books for a year, then come back with effectiveness data?
It begs the question: Is Gilroy trying to write an effective ordinance or trying to squeeze more money from local businesses in hard times?
Adding insult to the injury of advocating for a massive change in the law when the current one isn’t even being enforced, is the fact that the police, citing some obscure and irrelevant law, aren’t releasing the names of law violators.
So, Gilroy wants to smack the offenders hard with fees and fines where it hurts – in the pocketbook – but doesn’t want to tell the public where the problem is. The word ludicrous certainly comes to mind.
2. Honestly, a revamped law seems all about ‘making’ more money
The city code reads:
3B.4 Alarm systems; violations.
It shall be unlawful for any person to own, operate, install or maintain any mechanical or electrical alarm system which:
(2) Is activated more than three (3) times within a twelve-month period from negligence, mechanical or electrical failure, or any cause or causes other than unauthorized entry. Each such “false alarm” within any twelve-month period shall constitute a separate offense.
and …
3B.5 Cost recovery for repeated false alarms.
Owners or operators of alarm systems will be held jointly and severally liable for the cost of providing police or fire personnel after the third false alarm within any twelve-month period. The personnel utilized during a response after the third alarm, shall be deemed to be on special security assignment over and above the services normally provided. The costs of such special security assignment may include minor damages to city property and/or injuries to city personnel. A fee charged will not be in excess of five hundred dollars ($500) for a single incident. The city reserves its legal options to elect any other legal remedies when said costs or damages exceed five hundred dollars ($500).
and …
3. Council should not rubber stamp this, adding more bureaucracy
3B.6 Non-response to repeated false alarms.
Unless response is required by the Uniform Fire Code, after seven (7) false alarms at any one location during any twelve-month period, the city administrator may direct, upon recommendation of the chief of police, or fire chief, that no further emergency responses be made to that location. A request to be placed back on a response mode may be made after alarm malfunctions are corrected and certified by a licensed alarm technician.
Clearly, it’s time for a critical analysis by the Council. Adding more bureaucracy and hiring a outside-party contractor to monitor alarms before enforcing the current law only makes sense if the ordinance is truly just aimed at “making” more money for city coffers.
