Wow - insider info rather revealing.

I've got to give a shout out to you officer Erb!

I have the utmost respect for you having the nerve to say these things and present these facts when they could hurt the reputation of a man or men who control your career status.

Now I do have to ask, if those numbers of which the Mayor reported to the news and the public about insurance costs etc. were inflated so much, what was his reasoning behind it? Was it to cover up his wasting of funds elsewhere and blame it on the LCPD benefits and such?

Hey, some of you know I'm fired up about the costs of those benefits for the officers but if the true numbers would have been divulged by the Mayors office it may be a little different I'll admit.

Again, thank you officer ERB for bringing a little more light to the situation(or should I say lies) for us!

Ok, Officer Erb.

At any given time there are 16 patrol officers on the street. That accounts for approximately 10% of the force.

Could it simply be that your bargaining unit has pushed for more higher paid positions like detectives, pulling patrol officers off of the street?

And for you to criticize the separation of the 5 light duty officers - officers who at best sat around at the station pushing paper, not patrolling or conducting investigations - by claiming that their separation affected "public safety" is a slap in the face to all of us city taxpayers. The ONLY thing those officers protected anybody from was papercuts and you know it.

Maybe if your bargaining unit had negotiated in good faith with the city, and not wasted tens of thousands of dollars taking your contract to arbitration, the city could have some more cash to hire more police officers.

Maybe if your bargaining unit had agreed years ago to contribute the small percentages of your health care costs that the city had asked for there would be more money to hire more police officers.

Maybe if the police union started acting professionally, instead of developing incestuous relationships with politicians, you could develop some perspective on the situation.

Please tell us, Mr. Erb, as the director of the department of public safety, does the mayor not have a mandate to follow up on major investigations? Did it bother you that one of your light duty officers had to press start on the copier a few times, or was it just the bowtie that got under your skin?

And tell us, Mr. Erb, what came of that situation - your best example of "micromanagement" on the part of Rick Gray. Did he hand down some order on high demanding that you drop the investigation? Or did he just want to stay in the loop?

Like I said Mr. Erb, its time for you to adopt some perspective. You and yours got used to the glory days of ice cream and kisses with Uncle Charlie. Like everyone else in this country, its time for the Police Association to tighten the belt a little and actually work with the city.

Funny though if this guy was talking about a Republican mayor, i bet your tone would be a lot different?

You obviously don't know me at all..................

I'm having trouble following the math:

Currently they are budgeted to have 160 officers. They have 158. That is a shortage of 2. They are going to lose another 10. That only equals a shortage of 12, against budget. The figure of 27 only works if you compare it to the high of 177. But we all knew that some of those positions were being paid for by temporary grants. It is disingenuous to claim that is a "shortage". I could just as easily say that we used to have an "excess" (compared to budget). We have less than we had, but "shortage" implies less than we need. Need vs. want.

But wait, it gets better! The if the loss of those 10 officers is due to the loss of the Lancaster Township contract, don' t you have only 7.35 Sq. Mi. to patrol instead of 13.42? You have 45% less ground to cover with a loss of only 6% of your officers? Doesn't sound so much like a shortage any more...

Aren't figures fun?

Everybody always wants to turn things into a racial thing. Well, here you go making sexist comments. (Joking)

Wonder where we could find the percentage of worthless garbage that lives in LT compared to that which resides in the city limits?

It takes far fewer officers to patrol an area such as the twp as it does the city for obvious reasons. There isn't near the crime and dreads of society out in LT which lives their lives by robbing and stealing as there is here in this grand old city.

Ever taken a drive down Judie Lane?

How about 90% of the East End of Lancaster Township?

For a know-it-all, you sure don't know much.

Well, we're arguing lossses and shortages, not effectiveness. If 10 officers patroled those 45% extra miles, and we've lost both the land and the officers, you could say the City has lost nothing.

But didn't I just read, Could that have been the Acid Vandal? Didn't that happen partially in the Township?

Look, I don't like being in the position of arguing against the Police. I'd like to have more officers. I think the ones we have do a good job of solving crimes. But this is about the Mayoral race. They are trying to use the realities of the current budget compared against better times to say that the current Mayor is worse than the previous one. I don't see it that way. The Smithgall campaign is trying to say there is a direct correlation between number of officers and crime prevention. What is the ratio of officers added to crimes prevented? Is that correlation proven?

I like a Mayor that tries to balance the budget. One that values both Police AND Fire protection.

So you're telling me you believe that 45%(using greidel's numbers) of the garbage comes from Judie Lane and the east end? Granted they are a crime ridden area but it sure isn't a drop in the bucket compared to inside the city limits and getting rid of 45% of the land mass of which the police cover doesn't mean much except for a savings in fuel maybe? There were rarely 10 officers in those areas, most were still in the city limits and they did a drive through in those areas at best once in a while. Now we want to cut more officers when the city is an ever growing danger to be in every day? Makes sense to me! If everyone started to carry sidearms that is.

How many homicides in Lancaster Township East this year?

You're the stat wizard lately, you tell me. I don't know, nor do I care actually.

Maybe had the city provided adequate coverage for the funds they were receiving those numbers(what ever they might be) would be lower?

Never claimed to know it all(your assumption), just know a little about a lot of things.

How would you like to insult me next? Keep em coming big guy! You amuse me.

I just have to say that everything that was printed in the letter is the truth.

not my business anymore but.....

One Word: Incorporation.