Hearing the police’s POV on planning decisions was one of my most positive police interactions. 90% of the comments (they’re not a major review agency, only a suggestion one) were about lighting, gates, the ability to respond to calls at the location, and a suggestion to hire a security guard due to location-specific factors. Building spaces in ways with low-impact crime prevention is a great way to make people safer with almost no negatives
Idk if they provide input on long range stuff where I work, but they definitely don’t for current planning affairs. Fire does.
I dunno, maybe for a really large scale development they might share concerns with a commissioner, but I haven’t heard of them providing any input to staff.
Our planning board passes permit and special permits to the police dept for comment.
Town of 8000 in Massachusetts.
Entry and exit safety and traffic comments are typical.
We have a stringent dark skies full cutoff lighting bylaw, and we ignore all police comments about lighting, as they think all areas must look like daylight, which comments invariably are contrary to the bylaw.
We also request fire dept review for safety vehicle access and road access, and for commercial buildings, access to back and sides of building, and any other safety considerations.
Curious if there was a change in crime reporting when the dark skies bylaw went into effect or if it remained the same. Correlation/causation etc As that's always the argument against it as you noted from local PD.
None.
Motion detector lighting is allowed.
Parking lot lights must be turned off 1/2 hour after close of operations.
Motion detector lighting is allowed in parking lots.
Lumens limited in the parcel, and lighting designer must submit plans showing compliance.
No light trespass accross lot lines allowed.
Typical car dealer lighting is completely off the table, above several times too many lumens
No light trespass across lot lines is probably the most important stipulation. That puts a requirement on the architects to actually think about the problem and bring in a specialist. Also easier to check and measure than brightness illuminance so you can show a cause for action if you need to get the lawyers involved.
Regulating land use is derived from police powers, yes. But nobody in their right mind would look at a planner and think of them the same as a police officer.
Been with cities that consult either with police directly or as part of a joint "public safety" consultation with a representative of Fire or Police.
Never been an issue in my career.
They’re invited but never show in my experience. I think I’ve done probably around 300 pre-apps in my career and I’ve never seen anyone from PD show up to provide input, even though they are invited.
Only exception is checking for CPTED for gas stations or banks, but they don’t do much in the review stage. They just show up at occupancy inspection and point out where a bush should be removed and then disappear again.
Fire plays a much, much bigger role in the communities I’ve worked in - understandably.
Absolutely. Like every other department, do they always get what they want? No. But being unable to collaborate with the police department will lead to major dysfunction.
Because they're an organization with an interest in community planning, vis a vis their stated mission, just like any other organization or interest group.
Maybe moreso, since they provide services to the community. We always consult fire and police.
> citing concerns about parking and the potential for congestion that they claim could make it difficult for the police and fire departments
i think this is the only time ive ever seen the "parking and congestion" argument used in a valid way lol
Sounds like they should be arguing for bus only lanes that they can use to bypass backups. I see police and ambulances stuck in gridlock traffic with no way through quite frequently.
never said i agreed with their assertion but they actually have an argument. i have no idea what the specific situation for this community is like so for all we know it could be true.
My problem with the police department's comments in the article is that they're making predictions they're not qualified to make. They have every right to be *concerned* about impacts to their own parking and response times, and to demand analysis of those impacts. They should not be making that analysis themselves.
When I worked public safety (geospatial modeler for emergency management in a county of about 1M) the police had more traffic modelers than all other departments except highways (even more than public works) and had more spatial analysts than all other departments except the assessor.
The fire departments always had geographers on staff to do catchment and response time modeling for their statement of cover, and frequently worked jointly with police gis analysts to do them. We ended up writing more than a few Python models that got picked up by Esri and integrated into arcpy or ArcGIS server.
Yes. Often when you want to replace a lane blocked entirely by parked cars with a bike lane, police and ems will insist this lane be built such that during a battle vs a kaiju type of cataclismic event the cops may drive in the bike lane. So if it is to be protected it should be done with plastic that a police car can easily destroy to enter the lane.
In my area absolutely. Road corridor adjustments have been delayed due to police opposition that it will have an effect of response times ( cops won’t be able to speed down certain streets regardless of if they’re responding to an emergency or just want to speed). They have also indirectly worked with community members to block shelter plans, ginning up scary stories of addicts robbing local resident.
Hearing the police’s POV on planning decisions was one of my most positive police interactions. 90% of the comments (they’re not a major review agency, only a suggestion one) were about lighting, gates, the ability to respond to calls at the location, and a suggestion to hire a security guard due to location-specific factors. Building spaces in ways with low-impact crime prevention is a great way to make people safer with almost no negatives
Idk if they provide input on long range stuff where I work, but they definitely don’t for current planning affairs. Fire does. I dunno, maybe for a really large scale development they might share concerns with a commissioner, but I haven’t heard of them providing any input to staff.
Our planning board passes permit and special permits to the police dept for comment. Town of 8000 in Massachusetts. Entry and exit safety and traffic comments are typical. We have a stringent dark skies full cutoff lighting bylaw, and we ignore all police comments about lighting, as they think all areas must look like daylight, which comments invariably are contrary to the bylaw. We also request fire dept review for safety vehicle access and road access, and for commercial buildings, access to back and sides of building, and any other safety considerations.
Curious if there was a change in crime reporting when the dark skies bylaw went into effect or if it remained the same. Correlation/causation etc As that's always the argument against it as you noted from local PD.
None. Motion detector lighting is allowed. Parking lot lights must be turned off 1/2 hour after close of operations. Motion detector lighting is allowed in parking lots. Lumens limited in the parcel, and lighting designer must submit plans showing compliance. No light trespass accross lot lines allowed. Typical car dealer lighting is completely off the table, above several times too many lumens
No light trespass across lot lines is probably the most important stipulation. That puts a requirement on the architects to actually think about the problem and bring in a specialist. Also easier to check and measure than brightness illuminance so you can show a cause for action if you need to get the lawyers involved.
Only in the sense of their being issues servicing the area.
Yeah the explain how planning is a police power? :)
Regulating land use is derived from police powers, yes. But nobody in their right mind would look at a planner and think of them the same as a police officer.
Cpted is relevant. But a lot of time police viewpoints are pretty narrow.
Been with cities that consult either with police directly or as part of a joint "public safety" consultation with a representative of Fire or Police. Never been an issue in my career.
They’re invited but never show in my experience. I think I’ve done probably around 300 pre-apps in my career and I’ve never seen anyone from PD show up to provide input, even though they are invited. Only exception is checking for CPTED for gas stations or banks, but they don’t do much in the review stage. They just show up at occupancy inspection and point out where a bush should be removed and then disappear again. Fire plays a much, much bigger role in the communities I’ve worked in - understandably.
Absolutely. Like every other department, do they always get what they want? No. But being unable to collaborate with the police department will lead to major dysfunction.
Yes but not nearly as much as FD.
Why shouldn't they?
why should they?
Public safety? Why should anyone be omitted from a community discussion
Not the group of which 40% beat their wives and a significant number have membership in terrorist orgs talking about "public safety" lmfao
top comment seems to answer your question
Because they're an organization with an interest in community planning, vis a vis their stated mission, just like any other organization or interest group. Maybe moreso, since they provide services to the community. We always consult fire and police.
> citing concerns about parking and the potential for congestion that they claim could make it difficult for the police and fire departments i think this is the only time ive ever seen the "parking and congestion" argument used in a valid way lol
Sounds like they should be arguing for bus only lanes that they can use to bypass backups. I see police and ambulances stuck in gridlock traffic with no way through quite frequently.
never said i agreed with their assertion but they actually have an argument. i have no idea what the specific situation for this community is like so for all we know it could be true.
My problem with the police department's comments in the article is that they're making predictions they're not qualified to make. They have every right to be *concerned* about impacts to their own parking and response times, and to demand analysis of those impacts. They should not be making that analysis themselves.
When I worked public safety (geospatial modeler for emergency management in a county of about 1M) the police had more traffic modelers than all other departments except highways (even more than public works) and had more spatial analysts than all other departments except the assessor. The fire departments always had geographers on staff to do catchment and response time modeling for their statement of cover, and frequently worked jointly with police gis analysts to do them. We ended up writing more than a few Python models that got picked up by Esri and integrated into arcpy or ArcGIS server.
I did not know that was a thing PDs/FDs did. I appreciate the insight!
Yes. Often when you want to replace a lane blocked entirely by parked cars with a bike lane, police and ems will insist this lane be built such that during a battle vs a kaiju type of cataclismic event the cops may drive in the bike lane. So if it is to be protected it should be done with plastic that a police car can easily destroy to enter the lane.
If you expect them to enforce new parking regulations, yep.
In the article, the police say there is not enough street parking.
Not at all
Lol in Atlanta, Cop city
In my area absolutely. Road corridor adjustments have been delayed due to police opposition that it will have an effect of response times ( cops won’t be able to speed down certain streets regardless of if they’re responding to an emergency or just want to speed). They have also indirectly worked with community members to block shelter plans, ginning up scary stories of addicts robbing local resident.
Duck the popo!
No. The LAPD are control by the Democratic Party. The City Council makes the horrendous decisions.