IBJNews

Ballard veto hints at plan to increase police on streets

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Mayor Greg Ballard on Thursday vetoed a measure to free up $6 million to pay for new police recruits, saying he has a plan that will move about 100 existing officers to the streets.

Ballard claimed that Proposal No. 141, which called for $6 million in Rebuild Indy funds to hire a new class of police recruits, was “an unsustainable, one-time funding model that would leave us unable to pay for the officers and their equipment in future years.”

Instead, Ballard said that he and public safety officials planned to release a plan within a few weeks that would move 100 officers from desk jobs to the street and “help reduce crime and does not add to our budget deficit.”

In sketchy details provided to the city clerk in his veto, Ballard hinted that civilians could be used in roles that would allow officers to return to patrol.

Development of the recommendation is being led by Public Safety Director Troy Riggs and Police Chief Rick Hite, Ballard said.

Republican City-County Councilor Christine Scales introduced Proposal No. 141, which was passed by the council earlier this month in a bipartisan vote. The measure was co-sponsored by Democratic Majority Leader Vernon Brown.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Grow up
    Buy a weapons permit and PROTECT YOURSELF, like nature intended. 90% of the calls to police are a waste. Real Men dont need the worthless government defending them. Grow a pair or move to France
  • MSam I Am
    You're forgetting that every year there is attrition among police officers. Their salaries are already on the books, already part of the budget. The new officers would simply be replacing the older, higher paid officers. Oh, and you're also overlooking that our Mayor has already pledged $6 million from that fund for cricket. It's the Mayor who has been irresponsible with our tax dollars.
  • police
    When is the mayor & council going to get on the same page - mayor earlier this year supported the plan being presented by his fellow republican council memebers - again mayor is lost - have no respect for his decision making
  • Makes Sense
    Look at it like this, that 6M is a one time deal for one year. At the end of that year, how do you continue to pay for it? Do you lay off, or god forbid the taxpayers actually pony up a little extra to keep those 100 officers on? We already know the taxpayers won't pony up even if it's in their best interest. Basically the short sighted plan by the CCC gets officers for one year and then forced to reduce the count next year. If we can get 100 officers currently assigned to desk jobs on the streets, you still gain the 100 officers and they are already accounted for in the budget so they stay.
    • Police
      Hmmmmm$6M...isn't that the same number Ballard is spending on the cricket boondogle? I would rather have more police and public safety.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. Why not take some time to do some research before traveling to that Indiana town or city, and find the ones that are no smoking either inside, or have a patio? People like yourself are just being selfish, and unnecessarily trying to take away all indoor venues that smokers can enjoy themselves at. Last time I checked, it is still a free country, and businesses do respond to market pressure and will ban smoking, if there's enough demand by customers for it(i.e. Linebacker Lounge in South Bend, and Rack and Helen's in New Haven, IN, outside of Fort Wayne). Indiana law already unnecessarily forced restaurants with a bar area to be no smoking, so why not support those restaurants that were forced to ban smoking against their will? Also, I'm always surprised at the number of bars that chose to ban smoking on their own, in non-ban parts of Indiana I'll sometimes travel into. Whiting, IN(just southeast of Chicago) has at least a few bars that went no smoking on their own accord, and despite no selfish government ban forcing those bars to make that move against their will! I'd much rather have a balance of both smoking and non-smoking bars, rather than a complete bar smoking ban that'll only force more bars to close their doors. And besides IMO, there are much worser things to worry about, than cigarette smoke inside a bar. If you feel a bar is too smoky, then simply walk out and take your business to a different bar!

    2. As other states are realizing the harm in jailing offenders of marijuana...Indiana steps backwards into the script of Reefer Madness. Well...you guys voted for your Gov...up to you to vote him out. Signed, Citizen of Florida...the next state to have medical marijuana.

    3. It's empowering for this niche community to know that they have an advocate on their side in case things go awry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrst9VXVKfE

    4. Apparently the settlement over Angie's List "bundling" charges hasn't stopped the practice! My membership is up for renewal, and I'm on my third email trying to get a "basic" membership rather than the "bundled" version they're trying to charge me for. Frustrating!!

    5. Well....as a vendor to both of these builders I guess I have the right to comment. Davis closed his doors with integrity.He paid me every penny he owed me. Estridge,STILL owes me thousands and thousands of dollars. The last few years of my life have been spent working 2 jobs, paying off the suppliers I used to work on Estridge jobs and just struggling to survive. Shame on you Paul...and shame on you IBJ! Maybe you should have contacted the hundreds of vendors that Paul stiffed. I'm sure your "rises from the ashes" spin on reporting would have contained true stories of real people who have struggled to find work and pay of their debts (something that Paul didn't even attempt to do).

    ADVERTISEMENT