E-group helps a community dialogue
EchoElysianParkNCForum group's "Alarm thread"

by Bill Murray and Andrew Garsten

We thought we'd take this opportunity to demonstrate for you the way a local community, in this case a Neighborhood Council, the EchoElysisnNCForum, has been using its e-group to have a dialogue about the recent Police Commission decision to change its Burglar Alarm policy (click here to see the official LAPD Press Release).

Having an e-group in a community is much like having an ongoing, electronic Town Hall ...

Typically an e-group is established through Yahoo! Groups, and is a free service that allows you to communicate in a convenient way, connecting with others who share the same interests and ideas. You can choose a variety of delivery methods for each group you join, and it's easy to follow a continuous discussion (called a "thread") as each individual member responds by ending an email with their thoughts on a given topic (called "posting") to the rest of the group.

An individual email address is listed for each post, allowing the option of contacting another member privately and "off-list" -- because responses to the tread itself will be seen by everyone listed as a member of the e-group.

The actual posts in the Burglar Alarm thread are duplicated below exactly as they occurred for the Echo/Elysian Park group. The only thing we've changed is we've omitted personal information as it was displayed (full names, email addresses and phone numbers, etc.) because we've not had time to contact all the members.

As you'll see the discussion began with a posting by Andrew Garsten, who we did contact directly for permission to use his name and other personal info (he said by all means). Andrew originally set up the e-group for his Neighborhood Council, and just happens to be an enthusiastic LACP participant and supporter, too.

A grassroots community activist in both the Silverlake and Echo Park areas (and probably others), Andrew wishes to make himself available to anyone who wants to email or call him with questions about establishing and using e-groups.

He says he'll be glad to assist:

Here's the actual EchoElysisnNCForum dialogue on Burglar Alarms, which began with a single post from Andrew, and resulted in a thread of eight other posts for just one day, Friday, January 10, and a couple more the next.

NOTE: At the bottom is a letter sent by email to the group by Councilperson Janice Hahn, explaining the City Council had decided to look into the alarm matter further, and describing how the process will continue.

Then, as you'll see, the discussion continues!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Original message:

Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 22:46:53 -0800
From: Andrew Garsten <andrew.garsten@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [Fwd: Neighborhood Councils and Burglar Alarms]

Not sure who else on the NC got this?

The interesting thing to me is not the content, but the fact that a private industry association is lobbying the neighborhood councils.

Please read and see what you think.

My gut reaction is that I think that the chief has the priorities right here. As I understand it, by not responding to alarms unless there is verified (by sight) activity, LAPD frees up much needed resources.

Andrew

p.s. If the forwarded message with .pdf does not go through, I will cut and paste into a subsequent e-mail.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For your convenience we've reproduced the PDF file written by the alarm company representative as a web page here - please see Alarm Company Perspective.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:10:46 -0800
From: TC <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Neighborhood Councils and Burglar Alarms]

Thanks for the notice about this alarm response issue. If the police aren't going to respond to my alarm, then I wonder if they're also going to stop charging the annual fee. And if the insurance companies get wind of this, no doubt they'll stop discounts on homeowner insurance for having an alarm ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:20:36 -0800 (PST)
From: JC <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Neighborhood Councils and Burglar Alarms]

When your dog wakes you at 2:00 a.m. one morning to alert you that someone is trying to break into a bedroom, you will not only appreciate the dog, you will appreciate having an alarm system.

I have my system as a matter of personal protection; burglary concerns are real, but secondary. If an intruder believes someone will respond to an alarm, however belated, he is less likely to invade a house with an alarm. If he believes no one will respond...well, I hate to think of what could happen.

Sure, there is a problem with false alarms. I admit that over a six year period I have been at fault three times (I stupidly left my dogs in the house!) I am a lot more careful now. A number of ways have been proposed to cut back on false alarms, and they should be implemented.

JC

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:24:46 -0800
From: Andrew Garsten <andrew.garsten@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Neighborhood Councils and Burglar Alarms]

Excellent point J!

If the police NEVER respond to alarms, they cease to be deterrents. Perhaps a modified policy needs to be put in place where they will "Respond to alarms whenever possible" which gives them the opportunity to not respond, or divert response, but keeps a would be burglar guessing.

Andrew

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:31:30 -0800
From: TC <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: URGENT: Police Commission new policy on alarm systems (action required by Jan 14)

Dear Councilman Garcetti,

I have received a communication via my neighborhood council (Greater Echo Park / Elysian) about a new policy adopted by the LA Police Commission regarding response to alarm systems. I am told that this matter requires your urgent attention prior to the City Council meeting on January 14, otherwise the policy decision will become permanent.

It seems that the new policy would be for the LAPD NOT to respond to burglar alarms unless the alarm is confirmed by a witness or a video observation. I have not heard all the pros and cons of this issue, but am concerned that it is being adopted with little attention and discussion. I would hope that some of these concerns are addressed:

(1) Deterrence. One of the primary values of an alarm system is the deterrence factor. That's why it is valuable not only to have an alarm system, but to advertise the fact (e.g. with a sticker by the door or a small sign in the yard). If would-be burglars know that their entry will trigger an alarm and will summon the police, many will be deterred. If it becomes known that LAPD has a policy of *ignoring* alarms, then this deterrence value will be significantly diminished.

(2) False alarms. Currently, because I have an alarm system on my home that is monitored by a service, I pay $30 annually to the City of LA for a permit. In addition, I am assessed penalties if I have more than 2 false alarms in the course of a year. (I believe that these penalties start at $95 per occurrence and may escalate.) Certainly the LAPD should have no concerns about responding to *real* alarms. If the rate of false alarms is too high, then appropriate steps should be taken to mitigate *that* problem. If these penalties are not sufficiently deterrent, then they should be raised, rather than ignoring the alarms. On the other hand, if the LAPD is going to ignore my alarms, then I should no longer be required to obtain any permit or pay any fee.

(3) Effect on insurance costs. Many insurance companies, including mine, offer discounts on homeowner's insurance premiums for those who have monitored burglar alarms. Obviously the insurance companies do this because they find it has a measurable impact in reducing burglary incidences and resultant claims. Most companies offer this incentive discount not just for having an alarm, but only if the alarm is monitored (i.e., meaning that the police will respond). If the insurance companies discover that police have adopted a policy of non-response to alarms, then they may likely raise my premium.

(4) Alarm most needed when no one home. It would seem obvious that most burglars would prefer to break in to my home when I am not at home. This is the time when an alarm is most needed. This is also the time when an alarm would not be able to be verified by a witness (and few if any homes have video surveillance). Requiring an alarm to be backed up by a witness report in order for police to respond means in practical terms that the police will ignore my alarm at the time I need it the most.

While I appreciate the desire of the LA Police Commission to optimize the deployment of limited police resources, and I also appreciate that there may be a problem with the level of police resources spent answering false alarms, I do not believe that the proposed policy is the right solution. I hope you will look into this matter and help to find a better solution. I look forward to your response on this issue.

Sincerely,

TC <street address and phone number withheld by LACP>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:40:07 EST
From: MB <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Neighborhood Councils and Burglar Alarms]

I thought the alarm companies have patrol people that answer alarms?????

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:41:17 EST
From: MB <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: Re: Re: [Fwd: Neighborhood Councils and Burglar Alarms]

They will respond if a human is at home and has activated the alarm system.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:17:18 -0800
From: WN <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: Re: URGENT: Police Commission new policy on alarm systems (action required by Jan 14)

Dear Councilman Garcetti,

I would urge you to look at this alarm policy calmly and intelligently. I am so sick of seeing LAPD issues decided by overheated uninformed people. In the past I've worked with the LAPD on burglaries I've learned a few things.

1. If the LAPD changes their policy on answering alarm calls, 90 percent of which are false alarms, it is probably based on better allocation of scarce officer time rather than an open invitation to burglars.

2. Alarm companies oversell alarms as a panacea. They aren't, they are a deterrent. The best thing a burglar alarm does is make noise and attract attention of people in the area. I would rank them well below dogs and elderly people who are always home. Most alarm companies response time is on the order of 45 minutes and up. I think I remember hearing 5-15 minutes as the maximum time the average burglar spends inside a house. Having a camera record the image of the 'intruder' or you forgetting to turn it off would have greater success than speeding through streets on the minimal chance of catching a burglar.

3. A burglar is far more likely to get caught by your neighbors than by your burglar alarm. About 10 years ago we had a streak of 45+ hot prowl burglaries a month. A 'hot prowl' burglary is when someone enters an occupied house. This person was caught by education and vigilance. Burglar alarms played absolutely zero part in catching or deterring this individual.

4. The vast majority of burglaries are committed through unlocked doors and windows or poorly secured back doors.

5. I think the best way to resolve this controversy is by looking at the statistics of burglaries in our area, police arrests of burglars and the incredibly high percentage of false alarms.

I think education and not pandering is the best way to handle the controversy generated by this change in policy. Educating people on the realities of home burglaries will do far more than answering false alarms.

Sincerely,

WN <street address and web address withheld by LACP>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:22:10 -0800
From: Andrew Garsten <andrew.garsten@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: URGENT: Police Commission new policy on alarm systems (action required by Jan 14)

I suspect that attempts to break into homes that post "Burglar Alarm" are much lower than for those without, just like cars with alarms get broken into infrequently.

Interestingly, car alarms do not alert police, yet they do have a significant deterrent effect. As William said, the noise and the neighbors is worse to deal with than no noise and disturbed neighbors.

My guess is that burglar alarms do work as a deterrent, and that police response (or lack thereof) has probably very little to do with it.

Andrew

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 11:27:01 EST
From: CP <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: Re: URGENT: Police Commission new policy on alarm systems (action required by Jan 14)

Dear TC,

Thanks for forwarding your excellent letter to Councilman Garcetti about the new policy on alarm systems. As an Echo Park resident who also uses an alarm system, I'm very concerned about this new policy - would it be beneficial to send a group letter, and perhaps send a copy to James Hahn and our new police chief?

Many thanks,

CP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 09:42:26 -0800
From: From: WN <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: Re: URGENT: Police Commission new policy on alarm systems (action required by Jan 14)

I think Joe Writer, SLO-LAPD-retired, said it best.

There were at least forty people at an emergency meeting about the Hot Prowl Burglar. Two NE Burglary Detectives were speaking to the crowd packed into a living room (no civilian names have been used to protect the innocent), and even more people were outside having the information relayed out to them. One of the burglary detectives said, "We can't catch your burglar. That's not what we do." The place went crazy.

Joe Writer finally got everyone quiet and said (I paraphrase), "I think what the detective was trying to say is that there are not enough police resources to catch a burglar. The way burglars are caught is that an alerted community watches for suspicious behavior. If you see someone acting furtively, carrying household items-like TVs coming out of your neighbor's yard-call, the police. Give them a description and describe any vehicle, direction etc. Then call someone you know in the direction the suspect headed and ask them to look out, etc …

And within about ten days this is exactly what happened. A man was observed removing a bicycle from a yard. 911 was called. The witness's spouse then drove in the direction the suspect was headed. Joe Writer and two patrol officers arrived. The witness got a call with the present position of the suspect and Joe & his officers caught him. He was a homeless guy living in a house that was for sale. He was entering houses at night mostly to steal food. It was very scary to see some guy in your kitchen at two in the morning--and it happened several times.

A curious footnote is that I spent a couple of nights at the top of Princeton watching for the suspect. This was pre cell phones. I saw two men walk over the Princeton hill on the trail and Donaldson steps. One was the suspect, the other was later suspected in garage & yard thefts. Neither were carrying anything, neither looked the least bit suspicious. The actual burglar I figured was just a guy heading to the bus at 4am for an early morning job.

The best alarm is actually a dog. Burglars will tell you this. An alarm may or may not work. A homeowner with a gun is likely to screw up but a dog is just about 100%. A female dog is more attentive to intruders, a male dog is more likely to go after anyone trying to grab or hurt a family member. Mean or trained police type dogs are more of a liablity than an asset. A nuetered mutt from the pound who has a warm place to sleep, regular food and an occasional pat on the head is just about as perfect a burglar deterent as you can get. A dog would have definitely barked at the burglar I didn't pay any attention to.

WN <street address and web address withheld by LACP>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 23:43:23 -0800
From: Andrew Garsten <andrew.garsten@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [Fwd: Message From Councilwoman Janice Hahn]

The message below to Neighborhood Council members throughout LA is about the LA Police Commission's decision regarding home burglar alarms.

GEPENC has been asked to weigh in. There has been a good discussion about this so far, but I urge all of those on this list that have an opinion and/or know of other opinions in the neighborhood, to at least let us know how you feel. You don't have to write a letter. You can just say:

"I support the Commission's decision" or
"I am against the decision" and/or
"Three of my neighbors agree and one disagrees"

This is not scientific, and it's not a referendum, but it would be good to see if there are other opinions out there besides those of us who are inclined to write :)

If you do not want to send out to the whole forum, please feel free to e-mail me directly - andrew.garsten@sbcglobal.net, or contact any of your neighborhood council representatives.

Thanks,

Andrew

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Message From Councilwoman Janice Hahn
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:58:43 -0800
From: "Courtney Chesla" <Cchesla@council.lacity.org>
To: Andrew Garsten <andrew.garsten@sbcglobal.net>

January 17, 2003

Dear Neighborhood Councils:

Neighborhood councils, concerned homeowners and small business people from throughout our city appeared at our City Council meeting on Tuesday, January 14 to protest the Los Angeles Police Commission decision to institute a citywide non-response policy for residential and commercial burglar alarms without seeking the input of the community. In response to your outrage, the Los Angeles City Council voted 12-1 to assert jurisdiction over the Police Commission's Policy.

The new City Charter created and empowered neighborhood councils, and the current members of the Los Angeles City Council promised that we would do things differently at City Hall -- primarily by integrating neighborhood councils in our decision-making process. The Police Commission failed to notify or seek input from our neighborhood councils, homeowners groups or even Community Police Advisory Boards regarding this policy. Let me be clear, no commission or board can ignore the community, and Tuesday's council vote reaffirmed the City Council's commitment to the people of Los Angeles.

What's Next?

Now, the City Council must either veto or sustain the non-response policy within 21 calendar days. This issue was jointly referred to the Education & Neighborhoods Committee, which I chair, and the Public Safety Committee. We will hold a joint hearing on this issue on Monday, January 27 at 10 a.m. at City Hall. I urge you or a representative to attend this meeting and defend the role of neighborhood councils in Los Angeles.

The Council's decision to take jurisdiction of and reconsider this policy was the first step for neighborhood councils. Now, you must contact your Councilmember and urge him or her to veto the Commission's decision. Some will argue that the neighborhood councils and the public will be educated and consulted as the non-response policy is implemented. But, we believe that you should have been educated and consulted before the policy was adopted. A Council veto of this policy will send a clear message to all City boards, commissions and departments -- neighborhood councils are here to stay and you must be included in all decision making in the City of Los Angeles.

False alarms in Los Angeles are too high. No one can argue that. But the Police Commission cannot create a policy without your input. Let's start the process over with everyone at the table -- LAPD, alarm industry representatives, neighborhood councils, homeowner associations, Community Police Advisory Boards, business groups and other impacted parties. Surely, together, we can solve this problem.

I hope to see you on Monday, January 27th. In the meantime, please feel free to contact my office at 213 / 473-7015 on this and other issues of importance to neighborhood councils. Thank you in advance for your support.

Sincerely,

Janice Hahn
Councilwoman, 15th District

Courtney Chesla
Director of Communications to Councilwoman Janice Hahn
City of Los Angeles District 15
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 435
Los Angeles, CA 90012
213 / 473-7015

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:33:58 EST
From: S <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Message From Councilwoman Janice Hahn]

I support the commission's decision.

S

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 18:08:37 -0800
From: WN <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Message From Councilwoman Janice Hahn]

I urge Councilman Garcetti to vote to support the Police Commission. I think the GENPC has no business gathering information for Janice Hahn. This is an education and information issue. Her's seems to be a short sighted political issue, her position is ill informed.

There are no cogent arguments to continue wasting 15 percent of our police officers' time chasing false alarms. The basic food chain is alarm companies sell their services with fear and false promises. Panicked neurotics from wealthy communities haven't had a single legitimate argument. (One lady from Brentwood said before city council "now we can be raped and murdered in the comfort of our own homes.") Criminals and burglars already well know about the strengths and weaknesses of alarms and about police and alarm company response times.

Trust the experience and knowledge of Chief Bratton and our cops. Not alarm company lobbyists and not a bunch of people freaked out by letters from those companies.

Ask Echo Park's Security Patrol about alarm companies response promises. Ask Joe Writer. Ask any LAPD burglary detective. What stops burglars? How are they caught? How are people best protected?

We all want police reform so we hire a new chief. Next we micro-manage the guy? Let him lead. Do we really need another LAUSD?

Tell Janice Hahn to get stuffed. She is out of line to attempt a straw poll of the city via e-mail. She's looking for a knee jerk response from a limited group of people. Everything she has said or done on this issue has been ill informed demagoguery.

Janice Hahn is seeking power and leadership through scaring people. Councilman Garcetti should bring any message or poll, from this community and the GEPNC to the Council. I would urge our Councilman to set an example for Hahn, and show real leadership by presenting the facts, statistics and success not chasing after false alarms has had in other cities.

How the GENPC handles this issue will show whether they truly represent a pragmatic Echo Park--which has effectively dealt with burglars and other crime issues or whether they are just aspiring suburbanites. I sincerely doubt that the vast majority of people in Echo Park want our police chasing false alarms in Tarzana over protecting our streets and families.

WN

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 4
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 22:30:07 -0800
From: BK <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Message From Councilwoman Janice Hahn]

I think it would be wise to read Councilmember Hahn's letter before blasting her with a personal attack. The issue is ***not*** burglar alarms. The issue is opening up City Hall and giving LA's communities an opportunity to voice their opinions on matters they think are important. When the voters passed Article IX in the new City Charter, the language was very clear:

Sec. 907. Early Warning System.
The Regulations shall establish procedures for receiving input from neighborhood councils prior to decisions by the City Council, City Council Committees and boards and commissions. The procedures shall include, but need not be limited to, notice to neighborhood councils as soon as practical, and a reasonable opportunity to provide input before decisions are made. Notices to be provided include matters to be considered by the City Council, City Council Committees, and City boards or commissions.

Sec. 908. Powers of Neighborhood Councils.
Subject to applicable law, the City Council may delegate its authority to neighborhood councils to hold public hearings prior to the City Council making a decision on a matter of local concern.

Sec. 910. Monitoring of City Services.
Neighborhood councils shall monitor the delivery of City services in their respective areas and have periodic meetings with responsible officials of City departments, subject to their reasonable availability.

This is the law; it can only be changed or deleted by a majority vote of LA's voters. The City departments and their commissions are just beginning to understand and appreciate this mandate from the People they serve. They should not approve CUP's for cellular towers that exceed the underlying zoning, change policies on police response to burglar alarms, amend the Community Plan, widen the freeway, turn off the street lights, etc. until those who suffer/enjoy the consequences and those who pay are heard. Maybe the decision makers will learn something from the advisory groups that they didn't know before.

BK

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 6
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 00:08:25 -0800
From: Andrew Garsten <andrew.garsten@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Message From Councilwoman Janice Hahn]

Thanks WB, although I think we already heard your opinion before. Anyway, I think we all got it.

I believe that Councilmember Hahn oversees the city department that's over the Neighborhood Councils. Her position is that Neighborhood Councils are supposed to be informed and consulted according to the city charter. She is defending her turf, which happens to the same turf as GEPENC.

Yes, Councilmember Garcetti is the one who casts a vote to represent most of Greater Echo Park (Councilmember Reyes having the other part) on City Council.

Interestingly, the Neighborhood Councils have direct consultative relationships by city charter, with all of the city departments - something that only one city elected official has - the mayor.

Thanks again,

Andrew

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 13:19:44 -0800
From: WH <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: ... in support of changing the policy for responding to burglar alarms

Since others are weighing in, just thought I would add my two cents here--some reasons why I think changing the policy re. automatic police response to burglar alarms is actually a very sensible one.

I support the policy of ceasing to respond to all burglar alarms. (Although I was also glad to see Janice Hahn's letter trying to make sure policy changes are made through correct procedures).

Reasons why:

As our new chief police has pointed out, cuts have to be made somewhere. L.A. has far fewer officers per capita than many other large cities, and no money for more. Something's got to give. Often, with policing, cuts are made in areas of policing which, intentionally or not, disproportionally affect lower income areas/portions of the population--i.e., precisely those folks with fewer means and opportunity to protest, who also often have to suffer living in higher crime areas. Cuts affecting the more privileged among us (such as the changed burglar alarms response policy) tend to get a lot more protest noise, though, than cuts in other areas: not necessarily because of the proportionate effect on neighborhood safety, but because the folks with burglar alarms are more comfortable writing, calling, emailing and faxing the folks in charge.... and more likely to have access to the technology and rhetorical skills to make their case seem perspective.

I lived on the East Coast (New York City, sections of Long Island just outside of NYC, and the Hamptons--working for various people) in the '80s, when burglar alarms first became popular, and proliferated and overwhelmed police depts., and decisions had to be made similar to Bratton's. In town after town, alarm response was overwhelming police depts. Not only did many towns change policies because their resources were being overwhelmed by mostly false alarms; there was also a sense of something a bit undemocratic about it: the alarms gave those with the financial means to install them a way to insist, loudly and immediately, that fears for THEIR property (via the alarms going off) be protected more quickly than other issues of public safety. Ceasing automatic responses, such as has been suggested we do in LA, never led to a dramatic increase of break-ins in any of these communities that I recall (I read the NYTimes daily, and trust me, there would have been a barrage of articles had this been the case...its readership is as vocal and letterprone as those of us on these local eGroups).

Instead the change simply moved the onus of responsibility to the homeowner and alarm co. to come up with a means of quicker and more accurate response.... this could result in homeowners having to pay more for their alarm systems, or in companies that operate them having to develop better response methods, but it's not the responsibility of the LAPD and city taxpayer money to help subsidize these services, in effect, by serving as a faster interim response method to the private services.

By all means the city should respond immediately to all burglar alarms-when we find a way to provide the alarms to all LA residents (perhaps through special low-income programs, for ex., such as we have with DWP and phone service) and when we find the means to fund the police force sufficiently to carry out the volume of police response that would entail without sacrificing more critical policing.

RE: The deterrent effect of car alarms, to which the home alarms were compared at some point in the list discussion:

There was mention of home alarms acting as a successful deterrent in a way similar to car alarms. In fact, studies have shown (would have to do more research to give exact citations, this is from accumulated reading and memory) that car alarms aren't actually much of a deterrent to theft, in part because of people frequently setting them off by accident (as some list users here have described repeatedly doing). With car alarms this in part because, on the rare chance the alarm is legitimate, the thieves will be long gone by the time even the fastest police respond, and only a fool would try to personally get involved just to save a car stereo and some CD's. At least one study showed in quantifiable ways (cited in the NY Times, a few years ago) that car alarms actually cause more harm than good, at least in dense cities--like LA--because the dollar value of loss from car thefts was more than offset by the disturbance it caused to neighbors' lives, including lost sleep and resulting lack of productivity once these were measured in terms of their financial value. Car alarms became popular not because they deter thieves, but because insurance companies often give discounts if you have one. I used to wake up every Fri. and Sat. night in NY (when out-of-towners would come in to go to restaurants/bars, and be foolish enough to leave items in their cars) as thieves would move systematically down the block, setting off one alarm after another, cleaning out the cars. No one stopped them...why risk our personal safety? (This, by the way, was before Bratton was police chief there, and before the whole Giuliani administration focus on quality-of-life crimes; don't know the situation now).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:28:56 -0800 (PST)
From: YP <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: Re: ... in support of changing the policy for responding to burglar alarms

"By all means the city should respond immediately to all burglar alarms-when we find a way to provide the alarms to all LA residents (perhaps through special low-income programs, for ex., such as we have with DWP and phone service) and when we find the means to fund the police force sufficiently to carry out the volume of police response that would entail without sacrificing more critical policing."

THIS MAKES SENSE....
in the meantime geese are good protection from intruders as well as dogs ... too many some landlords don't allow pets.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 1
Date: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:44 PM
From: Andrew Garsten [andrew.garsten@sbcglobal.net]
Subject: [Fwd: Police Commission Agenda]

Thomas and GEPENC Executive Board:

Here is a summation of responses I have seen or received to the Police Commission's recommendations regarding non-response to unverified burglar alarms:

Besides the comments sent to the Forum, I have received off-line several more. I would say that the margin is 3-1 in favor of the Commission's recommendations to cease responding to unverified alarms.

There were several other suggestions that are worth passing along:

a.. Modify the recommendation to say that the police WILL respond to unverified alarms on a random basis - randomness allows for there to be some continued and unknown risk to would be burglars, and should suffice as a deterrent as long as the police really do respond to some alarms, and on a random basis.

b.. Continue to respond to alarms, but enforce the city license for alarms, which apparently is on the books but not enforced. Revenue could offset police cost??

c.. Continue to respond to alarms but charge an escalating sum to owners for false alarms in any 12 month period, with the minimum charge covering the cost of police response, and becoming increasingly punitive for successive false alarms. Revenue would off-set police cost, and then add some additional revenue to fund more officers.

Finally it is worth noting that Echo Park Security Association subscribers can have Select Patrol respond to unverified alarms for no additional charge. People with alarms (or thinking of getting alarms) who are members of EPSA ($15/month), can ask their alarm monitoring company to call Select for any alarm event that occurs during patrol hours. If Select verifies an intrusion or attempted intrusion, they will call the police, who will then respond.

If anyone is interested in learning more about EPSA and Select Patrol, please e-mail me directly.

Thanks:

Andrew Garsten
District 1 Representative

EDITOR'S NOTE: Andrew also posted the complete Police Commission agenda for the following week so that anyone who was interested could attend. These are always presented here on the LACP website under "Police Commission" which is accessed at the top of the LACP Home Page.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:24:53 -0800 (PST)
From: JC <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Police Commission Agenda]

Sounds like a good plan, Andrew.

I hope you or someone else from the NC will write this up, deliver copies of the proposal to the commissioners at the next meeting and use your one minute of comment time to ask them to read it. While I would rather they respond to all alarms, your suggestions are a good compromise.

JC

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 5
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 00:22:35 -0800
From: TC <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Police Commission Agenda]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for an excellent summary. I think that all three of the suggestions made are very helpful.

Just a point of information for you: the city does enforce the fee for alarms (although perhaps not vigorously :-)). I pay $30 per year for an alarm permit. This cost in itself probably doesn't cover much more than the processing of the alarm fee notices and payments. The penalty for false alarms is $95 for the third false alarm. (The first two are free.) Not sure if it escalates after that. Perhaps the penalty is too low, and should kick in sooner. If the penalty were sufficient, then people were take more care to prevent false alarms.

Thanks,

TC

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 11:27:47 EST
From: MB <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Police Commission Agenda]

I still want to know why people pay for an alarm company and the police have to come?????

Select Patrol will add on to the regular patrol service -- a service that will answer your alarm -- they are already in the neighborhood---most of the time.

MB

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 11:06:19 -0800
From: WN <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Police Commission Agenda]

Don't miss the L.A. Times article today on the misallocation of police resources in the city.

Every new chief and every few years, the LAPD tries to change the old system of allocating officers, detectives and resources based on population and Council Districts. Its the old Duchy System of LA Policitcs.

Echo Park and Councilman Garcetti being in the pivotal area of LA with regards to crime would do well to support the new Chief's efforts to put the cops where they are needed. Ignore the squeaky wheel bellowing of the pannicked well to do-as we all heard on the alarms issue. To borrow from Jesse Jackson "Allocate our police based on crime, not whine."

South Central Detectives have 40 percent greater case load than Valley detectives. Murder solution rate in South Central is 17 percent.

Echo Park has a proud history of working with the LAPD to proactively lower crime. When Ramparts Division told us that they couldn't allocate CRASH resources to Echo Park, our Stop-In Center group said, "OK we understand." NE CRASH moved a little south when needed. It made sense, it was right and the proof is that it was susccessful. (Losing Rampart CRASH involvement was of course a blessing in another way.)

For the disproportinate allocation of LAPD resources to continue with the murder rate in South Central greater than that of Bogata, Columbia would be 21st Century lynching.

WN

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:27:57 -0000
From: Eric Garcetti [ericgarcetti@yahoo.com]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Police Commission Agenda]

Dear Echo Elysian Neighbhorhood Council:

Thanks to everyone for their input on the issue of burglar alarm policy in the City of Los Angeles. Today, I voted to uphold the Police Commission's policy change, and I voted to set up a task force that would add community input to any final policy implemented by the LAPD. During the course of this debate, it was wonderful to see neighborhood councils get involved in the issue. I trust this chief and police commission on this policy (the moment that we have a chief or a commission that do not know more about public safety than we do, is the moment that we should replace the chief and/or commission!) That said, just because they know more, does not mean that they know everything, and the suggestions that have been posted here and that other neighborhood advocates have suggested are ones that need to be reviewed for possible incorporation into the final policy some 60-90 days from now.

6% of our city has burglar alarms and almost 97% of all alarms were false last year. We had a single arrest based on these, yet close to 20% of ALL police time is spent responding to false alarms. In Salt Lake City (admittedly a different city, but one with higher crime rates than one might think), a similar policy was implemented and home and business burglaries have actually declined. I am confident that we can push the unscrupulous alarm companies (and not all are unscrupulous) to get them to stop depending on your police and your tax dollars to subsidize their responsibility to implement verification systems that work.

I will be sure that you are informed as to the task force's public hearings so that Echo/Elysian's voice is heard in these deliberations.

And thanks to Mike for getting the word out about the anti-war resolution that I will be introducing tomorrow (we will probably vote on it next week and we will keep folks abreast about this as well).

All the best,

Councilmember Eric Garcetti

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 23:14:14 -0800
From: JH <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: Re: Police Commission Agenda]

Thanks so much for supporting an anti-war vote.

Regarding alarms, we have had about 4 false alarms immediately around us and 2 gained police response. On this one I'll go with Bratten. I much rather see the money put into neighborhood policing, which is totally lacking in our neighborhood. I have NEVER seen a policeperson walking anywhere here: police ride in cars...often right past things they should know about. I would give Ramparts a D minus in our neighborhood. I'm just hoping Bratten has some positive affect.

Cheers.

JH

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:57:12 -0800
From: Andrew Garsten [andrew.garsten@sbcglobal.net]
Subject: [Fwd: Police Commission News Briefing]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Police Commission News Briefing
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:41:44 EST
From: Lapdtkc@aol.com

POLICE COMMISSION NEWS BRIEFING

Wednesday, January 29, 2003 At the regularly scheduled Police Commission meeting on January 28, 2003:

· Chief Bratton reported that for the week ending on January 25, 2003, Homicides have dropped by 28% compared to the same time last year. There was also a decrease in Violent Crime. He also mentioned that organizational changes, and names associated with those changes, will be announced soon.

· Detective Aaron Bankhead was named Employee of the Month for December, 2002. Aaron is an exemplary employee who is fully dedicated to his work. His tenacious work style has established him as an expert on Organized Crime. This knowledge has helped Commission Investigation Division to build strong disciplinary cases against those businesses that have historically presented a negative influence on surrounding communities such as adult cabarets and rave clubs. Aaron has also played a key role in organizing Commission staff events such as the annual Training Day and the Holiday Party. He has an outstanding work ethic and always does more than his share. Congratulations, Aaron! · Certificates of Appreciation were presented to Rabbi Chaim Kolodny, Abraham Matyas, and Marvin Lazar who went out of their way to apprehend a sexual predator last summer. In addition, Police Service Representative Christiann Adtkins was acknowledged for her role in capturing an individual who had attempted to flee in a vehicle with two small children inside.

· Bill Moran discussed the possibility of relocating Parker Center. Many factors are involved in the relocation of Police personnel including space, security, and facility requirements. At this time, only a few buildings come near the needs of a police headquarters. Commission members expressed their concerns for the safety of staff housed in Parker Center and asked that the Department be diligent in finding a new headquarters.

· In an emergency session, the Commission affirmed its decision of January 14th regarding verified alarm response. In addition, the new policy will not go into effect for 60 days to allow time for public education, internal training, and public input. At the City Council meeting, which was occurring simultaneously, it was agreed that Council would create a Task Force of representatives from LAPD, the alarm industry, Neighborhood Councils, Community Police Advisory Boards and city officials to further investigate this issue. However, the decision as to whether or not to veto the Commission's decision was continued to Tuesday, February 4, 2003.

For additional information on any of these items, contact Tamryn Catania, (213) 485-3531, fax (213) 485-8861, TYY (213) 485-9818, lapdtkc@aol.com.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: BURGLAR ALARM UPDATE
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:25:28 -0800
From: "Matt Klink" <matt@cerrell.com>

On Tuesday, February 4, the LA City Council will cast its final vote on the burglar alarm issue. Neighborhood Councils have voiced serious concern about the Police Commission's current policy. Please read the attached document and contact your Council Member immediately.

Thank you,

Matt Klink Cerrell Associates, Inc.
PH: 323-466-3445
matt@cerrell.com

January 31, 2003

Dear Neighborhood Council Member:

Next Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2003, the L.A. City Council will hold its final vote on a verified response policy for residential and commercial burglar alarms. Contact your Council Member and urge him/her (1) to veto the Police Commission's special order and (2) have the Council instruct the Police Commission to agree to vote on the Burglar Alarm Task Force's recommendations.

Your First Calls and E-Mails Made An Impact! In response to a Police Commission burglar alarm policy developed without any public participation and unknown to virtually all L.A. residents, thousands of concerned citizens contacted the City Council and urged an open, participatory process in the creation of any "new" burglar alarm policy.

The L.A. City Council heard your concerns and voted unanimously to create a task force to find a solution to reduce the number of false burglar alarms. This task force will report its findings back to the Police Commission in 60 days. The community's active participation represents an essential component of this task force's effectiveness.

Police Commission Continues To Ignore The Public. Unfortunately, after the task force's creation, a leading Police Commissioner and its executive director stated that the Commission is not interested in any meaningful public input. When asked if the Police Commission would vote on the task force's recommendations, the Police Commission president and key staff indicated they would refuse to permit such a vote.challenging the City Council to veto the Commission's alarm policy.

Contacting Your Council Member Will Make A Difference. Urge your Council Member to give Neighborhood Councils, residents and business owners a real voice in this important public issue. Tell your Council Member to (1) veto the Police Commission's verified response special order and (2) instruct them to have the Police Commission agree to vote on the Burglar Alarm Task Force's recommendations.

Sincerely,

Mark Sepulveda
Greater Los Angeles Security Alarm Association

P.S. Neighborhood Councils have made an important impact on this policy decision. Your telephone call to your Council Member today can make a difference! Your Council Member's Telephone and E-mail address is attached!

Alarm Policy Update:

Urgent Action Required

COUNCIL CONTACT INFORMATION:

Councilmember Phone E- mail

Mayor James K. Hahn (213) 978-0600 MayorHahn@mayor.lacity.org
CD1: Ed Reyes (213) 485-3451 Reyes@council.lacity.org
CD2: Wendy Greuel (213) 485-3391 Greuel@council.lacity.org
CD3: Dennis Zine (213) 485-3486 Zine@council.lacity.org
CD4: Tom LaBonge (213) 485-3337 LaBonge@council.lacity.org
CD5: Jack Weiss (213) 485-5013 Weiss@council.lacity.org
CD6: Ruth Galanter (213) 485-3357 Galanter@council.lacity.org
CD7: Alex Padilla (213) 847-7777 Padilla@council.lacity.org
CD8: Vacant (213) 485-3331 Thomas@council.lacity.org
CD9: Jan Perry (213) 485-3351 Perry@council. lacity.org
CD10: Nate Holden (213) 485-3323 Holden@council.lacity.org
CD11: Cindy Miscikowski (213) 485-3811 Miscikow@council.lacity.org
CD12: Hal Bernson (213) 485-3343 Bernson@council.lacity.org
CD13: Eric Garcetti (213) 485-3353 Garcetti@council.lacity.org
CD14: Nick Pacheco (213) 485-3335 Pacheco@council.lacity.org
CD15: Janice Hahn (213) 485-3347 Hahn@council.lacity.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 17:52:08 -0800 (PST)
From: YP <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: RE: [Fwd: BURGLAR ALARM UPDATE]

While I have been requested to oppose the city council's action, I want to let you know I support your vote to support the LAPD and it's move to suspend answering all burglar alarms. All people in the city should expect and deserve reliable police response to emergencies not just people with burglar alarms.

(I am a bit disappointed but not surprised that the members of the City Council and the Mayor are exempt from the new rule.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 2 Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 23:55:16 -0800
From: Andrew Garsten [andrew.garsten@sbcglobal.net]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: BURGLAR ALARM UPDATE]

Yes, it seems like a conflict of interest for city council members to even vote on this (exemption), but I guess that all paid politicians vote their salaries as well. Maybe in cases of conflict of interest, they should let the Neighborhood Councils vote.

:)

Andrew

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 11:57:49 -0800
From: TC <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: Police Commission / burglar alarms

Dear Councilman Garcetti:

Thank you for your considered vote on this issue. While I was initially opposed to the new policy, the facts and arguments that have been brought out as a result of this issue being more publicly debated have convinced me that the new policy is the right move. I appreciate your doing the right thing, despite a volume of voices to the contrary. And I appreciate your taking the time to send this letter, and to work through the neighborhood council to keep us apprised of your reasons and actions.

Sincerely,

TC

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 22:26:00 -0800
From: Andrew Garsten [andrew.garsten@sbcglobal.net]
Subject: Re: Police Commission / burglar alarms

Councilmember Garcetti:

Ditto Tom's comments! It was well said.

Thank you!

Andrew Garsten

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:14:07 EST
From: TD <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: Re: Police Commission / burglar alarms

Councilmenber Garcetti, thank you for your leadership role with this issue. We who serve as Board Members of the Greater Echo Park Elysian Neighborhood Council are committed to a process of considering interests of all the residents of our community when making recommendations to the City.

E-mail is an excellent tool to explore issues. However, not all residents have computers. We will continue to reach out to those residents and solicit their information on issues of our neighborhood.

We will continue to remind ourselves that it is not our individual interests that we forward from the Neighborhood Council. Neither is it the interests soley of our friends. We have a responsibility to our community to weigh all the interest of the community before we act.

TD

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 08:40:51 -0800
From: WN <email address withheld by LACP>
Subject: Re: Police Commission / burglar alarms

Congrats to all for making a wise decision re: Police Response to alarms.

I would also suggest to Councilman Garcetti that he keep in mind the depth of experience in Echo Park with regards Community Based Policing and LAPD issues in general.

I had always hoped that Joe Writer LAPD-retired, our SLO for 20 years, would be in somebody's "Kitchen Cabinet" (unofficial friends and advisors).

During the Rodney King mess, Rampart Scandal, the Darryl Gates Machismo Dynasty, William's Snooze and Parks martinet parade -- Joe & many if not most of his officers and many members of this community were implimenting a pragmatic system of policing and community safety.

You know something worked when a community is safe and even gang members remember Joe as a good guy who treated them with respect even when they got busted. "I'm so to hear glad Joe's doing well. Say hello for me. He used to bust me when I was a gangster. Tell him ** says hi."

The recent article in the LATimes about Chief Bratton's revival of Community Based Policing, being based on the Broken Windows Theory, read like an EPIA meeting of 1991.

Echo Park is interesting in another way someone raised here recently. Rampart versus Northeast. Same LAPD but sometimes diffferent styles. During Capt. Salikos' years at Rampart, which included the scandal, Rampart Division only succeeded when the officers made it work. We met nothing but bureaucratic resistence from Salikos every step of the way. Every month from Northeast we got the PACMIS -- Repressible Crime Stats -- and made a pin map.

We tried for years to get the same from Ramparts. Salikos once had Gil and me looking for a sergeant, who another sergeant finally admitted didn't even exist! That sergeant, disgusted with his boss's games, xeroxed off the stats for us.

Echo Park knows first hand why the LAPD is the best trained and most professional law enforcement agency in the country and how it can have periodic major screw-ups like the Rampart Scandal.

WN

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 20:14:25 -0000
From: Eric Garcetti [ericgarcetti@yahoo.com]
Subject: Festival Guide

Friends:

The Cultural Affairs Department has issued its annual guide to cultural festivals is up on the city website at http://www.culturela.org/download/fg2002/FGCvrweb.pdf

I have also posted it as a file for the archives!

All the best,

Councilmember Eric Garcetti

P.S. By a vote of 10 to 2, the council "received and filed" (took no action against) the Police Commission policy (in other words, upheld that policy). We did, however, again add our support (11-1, I think) to the Citizen Task Force that will make recommendations to the Police Commission before they adopt a policy. We also added a new amendment, introduced by Councilmember Weiss and myself, to ask the Commission to look at making our council field offices fall under the same policy as any neighborhood business, so as not to have a double standard. As for private alarms installed by the city that go straight to the police, I opted when I became councilmember not to get one of these special city-installed alarms. Thanks again to everyone for their input.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:24:23 -0800
From: Andrew Garsten [andrew.garsten@sbcglobal.net]
Subject: From Councilwoman Janice Hahn

For Immediate Release - February 4, 2003

CONTACT: Courtney Chesla
213/473-7015
310/795-2134 (cell)

EDUCATION & NEIGHBORHOODS COMMITTEE ESTABLISHES WORKING GROUP TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS IN NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL EARLY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

Councilwoman Hahn Urges Changes After Neighborhood Councils Not Consulted Regarding Significant Police Commission Decision

Today, the Education & Neighborhoods Committee of the Los Angeles City Council unanimously approved the formation of a Neighborhood Councils Early Notification Working Group. The group, to be made up of representatives of neighborhood councils, various city departments and chaired by the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, will focus specifically on improving the system by which neighborhood councils are notified of upcoming events and actions taken by the City Council, commissions and boards. This notification system is known citywide as the Early Notification System (ENS).

Councilwoman Hahn, chair of the committee, called for the formation of the group in response to poor communication between city departments, boards and commissions and the 60 neighborhood councils in Los Angeles. The recent decision by the Los Angeles Police Commission to adopt a non-response burglar alarm policy, without the proper notification of or input from neighborhood councils, brought the severity of the flawed ENS system to Councilwoman Hahn's attention.

In response to the Police Commission's disregard for neighborhood council input, the City Council voted to take jurisdiction of the commission's decision until commissioners agreed to delay implementation of the policy pending task force recommendations. Neighborhood councils, homeowners, business-owners, city officials, and alarm industry representatives will participate in the task force to study ways of reducing false alarms and improving the alarm policy and report back in 60 days.

After hearing from hundreds of people, including neighborhood councils throughout the city, regarding the alarm policy and the lack of information provided by the Police Commission, the Councilwoman decided that the current ENS was flawed and needed immediate re-working.

"This system is not working," said Councilwoman Hahn. "While the City Council sent a clear message to our commissions and boards by seizing the Police Commission's decision until it decided to hear public input, we must ensure that our neighborhood councils are not ignored in the future. We must communicate with our councils; and improving our ENS system, as well as ensuring that our councils know how to use it, is critical."

Councilwoman Hahn introduced a motion with recommended changes to the ENS system last week. The Councilwoman expects her motion (attached) to be reviewed and discussed by the working group, which is anticipated to report back to the Education & Neighborhood Committee in March.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 07:24:04 -0000
From: Eric Garcetti [ericgarcetti@yahoo.com]
Subject: Congratulations

Fellow Elysian/Echo Parkers:

In case you missed today's editorial in the Los Angeles Times, I reproduce it below. Singling out Echo Elysian did not surprise me, but it was rgeat to see Echo Park front and center in the city in being able to speak intelligently and passionately about an issue in a way that sets the standard citywide.

Congratulations!

Eric Garcetti

(from the LA Times) February 8, 2003

EDITORIAL
Neighborhood Muscle

Many of L.A.'s new councils made their voices heard on the burglar alarm issue.

No matter where you come down on the Police Commission's new burglar alarm policy (we support it), City Council hearings on the issue put to rest skeptics' claims that Los Angeles' fledgling neighborhood councils would never have any real clout. Now the question is: How will they use it?

Representatives of some of the city's 61-and-counting neighborhood councils flooded the City Council with phone calls and e-mails, complaining not just about the policy itself but that they didn't know about it in time to try to influence the Police Commission's decision.

A quick synopsis: The new policy is an attempt to keep cops from answering, on average, 340 false alarms a day. It calls for police to respond to a burglar alarm only after signs of a break-in are confirmed by a private patrol, a video camera inspection or other means, shifting the responsibility for verifying whether an alarm is real from taxpayer-supported police officers to the private companies that install the alarms.

Not surprisingly, private alarm companies, at least those that don't already send out their own patrols, objected. When the Police Commission approved the policy anyway, they made sure their customers objected too, urging them to ask the City Council to overturn the commission's decision.

The City Council didn't do that -- and by that measure, skeptics can go on saying that neighborhood councils, which are advisory only, have no influence. The neighborhood groups do have influence, but that influence should not guarantee a result.

The hearings, besides giving voice to the neighborhood councils' concerns, also led to the creation of a task force to consider alternatives to the new policy -- including, we hope, a renewed effort to get information on important issues out to neighborhoods.

Neighborhood councils, for their part, need to make sure they don't become clones of existing homeowner groups, with the same bad habit of rallying against everything rather than for anything.

There are hopeful signs. The Greater Echo Park/Elysian Park Neighborhood Council, for one, conducted a thoughtful e-mail discussion of the new burglar alarm policy that went beyond the scare tactics put out by alarm companies. Members suggested ways neighborhood councils could work with established neighborhood watch groups and police community advisory boards to watch out for each other and make their neighborhoods safer for everyone.

That's real neighborhood empowerment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDITOR'S NOTE: Many areas now have e-groups where individuals can quickly communicate information about local issues (we have one here at LACP - please see about LACP e-group).

We think it's wonderful that the various neighborhoods around Los Angeles are finding ways to reach out to community members by using the internet. As more and more residents are connected on the web this will become even more important - please see Featuring LA a neighborhood at a time, an LACP article which talks about the benefits of establishing local community websites.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Other works by Andrew Garsten, a frequent contributor to LA Community Policing who resides in Echo Park, can be found through the following LACP link:

Andrew Garsten
Echoing about community involvement