IBJNews

Democratic city-county councilors want police to live inside county

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A police officer in Boulder, Colo., last month mistakenly shot Big Boy, a neighborhood’s beloved trophy elk.

Some of the residents argued that if the officer had been required to live in the community he served, he would’ve known it wasn’t just some nuisance wild animal.

Proponents cite plenty of advantages to encouraging law enforcement officers to live in the communities they police—most with higher stakes than avoiding the mistaken killing of small-town mascots.

But in Indianapolis, officers are not required to live in the city, and about 240, or 16 percent of the force, choose to reside elsewhere. Many of the city’s highest-crime neighborhoods have the fewest police officers as residents.

As high-profile shootings fan concerns about violent crime in Indianapolis, City-County Council Democrats are rolling out a proposal aimed at getting more officers to live in crime-plagued neighborhoods.

Their plan starts with building or rehabbing five homes on empty or abandoned lots in the Mapleton-Fall Creek neighborhood using $1 million in leftover Rebuild Indy funds.

While details are yet to be worked out, the idea would be for officers to live in the homes rent free for two years, then have the opportunity to buy them under attractive terms. Proponents say their long-term goal would be to expand the program, ultimately attracting hundreds of officers to live in high-crime parts of Indianapolis.

“The proposal makes investments in struggling neighborhoods, which are needed, regardless,” Democratic Councilor John Barth said. “It then adds the element of long-term sustainability and crime reduction by giving IMPD officers an opportunity to live rent free.”

Added Bart Brown, the chief financial officer of the Democrat-controlled council: “This is not targeting or trying to ask an officer to uproot his family and move into these areas. We’re targeting maybe the younger or the single officers that are more mobile.”

Varied reactions

The housing proposal has the backing of the Indianapolis Fraternal Order of Police, but the Mayor’s Office and others question its feasibility.

Jim White, a retired state police officer and IUPUI public safety lecturer, sees merit in encouraging officers to live in Indianapolis, but he questioned whether the housing incentives would have a noticeable impact on struggling neighborhoods.

“It makes a lot of sense for an officer to live in a community where they serve,” White said. “But then again, you have to look at the totality of the picture. To think that one officer living in the neighborhood will drive down the crime rate and drive up the property value is a little far-fetched.”

The staff of Republican Mayor Greg Ballard is taking a similar stance.

“Doesn’t seem like there’s much of a plan at all,” said Marc Lotter, the mayor’s communications director, comparing it to the Democrats’ alternative to Rebuild Indy 2, the mayor’s latest infrastructure-improvement program. “We’ve seen news releases, but that’s about it.”

Lotter said the mayor believes that, if officers are going to be paid with Indianapolis tax dollars, they should live in the city. He said that, rather than focusing on housing incentives, Democrats should try to change the state law that prohibits residency requirements.

Under current law, officers are required only to live in the county they serve or in a contiguous county.

The Indianapolis Fraternal Order of Police, along with the National FOP, opposes tighter restrictions. They argue that officers can become part of a community without living in it, for instance, and that attaching residency requirements hurts recruiting and retention.

The Hammond FOP rolled out similar objections in 2004, when Hammond passed a requirement that new recruits live in the city for their first-year probationary period, which is allowed under an exception to state law.

Rick Snyder, the Indianapolis FOP president, likes the Democrats’ alternative approach to increasing residency.

“This is something we should consider trying,” he said, because it “really highlights” three key issues: community rehabilitation, abandoned housing and community policing.

But Republican Councilor Christine Scales questions whether a patrol car parked in a driveway really deters crime.

She noted that, in Franklin Township, patrol cars have been broken into, stolen or set on fire, even though hundreds of officers live in the area.

Barth countered that the issue is not visibility of police cars.

“It’s police officers being a part of the community,” he said. “The intent is to strengthen long-term ties between IMPD and the neighborhoods.”

Other efforts

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ran a similar initiative in 1997 called the “Officer Next Door and Teacher Next Door” program. The program provided funding allowing police officers and teachers to buy properties in high-crime areas at a 50-percent discount as long as they lived in the house three years and didn’t own other property.

A 2000 investigation by HUD found more than 21 percent of homebuyers nationwide were in violation of the living requirements. At least three of the homes built outside the designated high-crime areas were in Indianapolis, accounting for $168,500 in unmerited discounts, according to the HUD inspector general’s audit report.

The Indianapolis Land Bank recently offered dilapidated houses to officers for a discounted rate of $2,500 if they repaired them. One officer bought a home.

Lotter, Ballard’s spokesman, cited officers’ lack of interest in the Land Bank homes as further evidence the Democrats’ proposal is misguided.

officers-map.gifThe Indianapolis Land Bank has had its own problems. Two of its former employees are facing felony charges that they participated in a kickback scheme involving the sale of city-owned properties to not-for-profits at low prices.

Ryan Kramer, the City-County Council’s fiscal and policy analyst, noted that the Democrats’ program would require annual financial reporting to the Mapleton-Fall Creek Development Corp.

“We were very sensitive towards the investigations of HUD and the Land Bank and the cynicism or mistrust in government that came with such proceedings,” Kramer said.

Added Barth: “This is a pilot with five houses and five officers, administratively simple to monitor and ensure funds are spent as intended.”

Idea’s origins

Brown, the council’s chief financial officer, said the Democrats’ idea for the housing program came out of the IMPD Staffing Study Commission, a bipartisan panel established by the council to analyze the department’s staffing needs.

“One of the things they talked about was where all these officers live,” Brown said. “It was apparent that they all lived in townships like Franklin and Perry — the outer edges. And there was a very scarce number living here in downtown neighborhoods like Mapleton-Fall Creek.”

Democrats zeroed in on two neighborhoods, Mapleton-Fall Creek to the north and Martindale-Brightwood to the east, analyzing such issues as the number of abandoned lots and level of crime.

Although they decided to start with Mapleton-Fall Creek, they have not ruled out expanding into Martindale-Brightwood. They hope to fund that expansion using the $1 million the city expects to save as a result of scaling back its ambitions for the World Sports Park on the east side.

Some law enforcement observers—including White, the IUPUI public safety lecturer—argue money would be better spent hiring more officers. The Mayor’s Office has been pushing for three years to hire additional officers, but has not been able to reach an agreement with the council on how to pay for them.

“Just having an officer living in the neighborhood is not going to have a dramatic impact on the neighborhood or the crime rate,” White said. “What’s one officer going to do? If I was going to take the money, I’d have more police officers.”

An IMPD study suggests the city needs about 1,800 officers and recommends reaching that number by 2018.

Snyder said the department now has fewer than 1,500 and is losing about 50 per year. While he’s on board with additional hiring, he sees no downside to also pursuing the Democrats’ proposal.

“The long and short of it is, what is the harm in it?” Snyder said. “At a time when we’re at such a crisis with police staffing, I would think we would do everything possible to attract possible candidates to our police department.”

Barth said he’d love to hire more police officers but noted that the Rebuild Indy money the Democrats’ proposal taps is restricted to infrastructure purposes.

Tested elsewhere

The Democrats based their proposal, “Safe Neighborhoods Now,” on similar efforts in other cities, such as Atlanta and Washington D.C., Kramer said.

The Atlanta Police Foundation developed a plan in 2010 to motivate Atlanta police to live in the city, with discounted rentals and purchase opportunities. The program includes issuing $1,000 grants to officers willing to rent or buy within the city. About 200 officers have participated.

“Increasing police visibility not only deters crime, but also improves the community’s perception of safety,” the foundation says on its website. But a spokeswoman said no data was yet available on the effect officers’ presence has had on crime.

In Washington, D.C., the Metropolitan Police Housing Assistance Program helps officers who are first-time homebuyers, offering up to $1,500 in matched payments, deferred loans of up to $10,000, and income tax credits of $2,000 per year for five years.

But perhaps what most closely resembles Safe Neighborhoods Now is Atlanta’s newest initiative.

The APF is in the process of finding a police officer for a home that’s being rehabilitated in a high-crime area. The city and its land bank are arranging construction bids. Meanwhile, the foundation and police department are weighing candidates and hope to have the house occupied in November.

“We must remember that this is only a pilot program at this point in time. I would hate to put the cart before the horse,” said Kramer, the council’s fiscal and policy analyst. “We first must focus on refining the details of our pilot program.”

The Democrats are scheduled to present their proposal at the July 14 council meeting.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • To Bewildered
    There was a state law that was changed in 1996 that police and fire in Class 2 cities or above could live in a contiguous county to the county where they work. It was initiated by a couple who worked for neighboring county sheriff's departments. Not every officer wants to live where they work. Let them have an opportunity to truly be "off duty" when they aren't at work.
  • Not bewildered
    Few cities and counties require that. Even because Indianapolis has so many neighborhoods the requirements was to live in the city, obviously, the officers don't chose to live in that zip code for the same reason you don't.
  • Spay and neuter the parents
    Maybe if we treated the parents of juvie offenders who have 5 babies from 4 different daddies like stray cats and dogs who go around creating a bigger animal control problem, we wouldn't have so much of a "parenting" problem flooding both the social services and (later) correctional systems. The breakdown of morals and parental responsibilities from horndogs who can't keep it in their pants and keep their families together has caused this. If a pit bull attacks someone, it's destroyed. Everyone encourages that pets are spayed and neutered to control the pet population and prevent further issues. Maybe it's time to control the welfare population...
  • Tough Enough Gig As Is
    This is a terrible idea. I have an enormous amount of respect and appreciation for all the men and women who wear a uniform and serve the Indy Metro area. They don't get paid enough for all the crap they have to take. Low Pay and Benefits. Every thug and crazy taking pot shots at them. The statistics, demographics, and data that we have accumulated for umpteen years DO NOT LIE. Let's focus on making sure that the politicians that are "mandating" this crap are living where THEY are supposed to be living. Let's make sure that the politicians are not corrupt and wasting resources before we start digging into the folks on the front lines trying to do a difficult job. Since we are "hip" to "great ideas" Let's round up all the thugs in the Indy Metro area who are on parole violation as well as those in Marion County Jail that are never going to be rehabilitated and ship them down to Central America or better yet...China. Let's see how they fare in that part of the world.
  • Not a Bad Idea
    As I understand it, the idea is to offer police to live in high risk areas in exchange for a housing benefit/subsidy of some kind. This fact means there is a choice for the officer(s) to take the offer and receive the benefit. In terms of mandating living in a community, it is entirely reasonable for employers to mandate public safety officials live in their community. Again, the public safety official has a choice, to live in the area or to take another job.
  • Fix your house
    Have to agree with Mal Burgess. The biggest problem is massive family breakdown in these neighborhoods. While there are a lot of similiarities, there is a MASSIVE difference between 46218 and 46219. 46219 is diluted by some stable areas, and that's probably where the officers live. Incentivizing is fine, but don't criticize officers for choosing not to live in these neighbor hoods. They have to have a break from what is arguably one of the highest stress job in the land. And you'll have to give me hard evidence that putting officers there is going to make a significant difference. Solid family units, responsible fathers, siblings with the same fathers, engaged parents, commitment to education, respect for the rule of law and the importance of work/a job. If the families and the schools (and society) will support these, THEN we can make a difference.
  • dems want police to live in high crime
    That is a great idea, were do the county & city employees live, elected officials ect? Hey lets give them additional money from the untapped pool of government money.
  • Other side
    Shouldn't the police officers have the option to live elsewhere so they don't have to live or think about crime 24x7?
  • Different Standards
    Why is it that Indianapolis Police Officers have the right to live outside Marion County when pretty much every other City/County employee has to live in the county or get fired?
    • 'Required....?"
      Since the liberals are big on 'requiring' those things not allowed to be mandated by that raggedy piece of paper called the Bill of Rights, how about they 'require' parents to make their kids attend school and graduate? Not stay our all night, unsupervised doing drugs? Not joining gangs? Not wearing 'thug uniforms'? I grew up in NYC in a poor but low crime neighborhood. How did it stay low crime? Parents parenting! Not dictating where cops lived.
    • How did this work in other communities?
      Having the benefit of learning from other communities' experience would help in the decision making process and the implementation of a successful initiative. Sound like an idea worth pursuing.
    • Excellent Idea
      Try it with five houses use the ones in NEAR east

    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:
     
    thisissue1-092914.jpg 092914

    Subscribe to IBJ
    ADVERTISEMENT