Whoa looks as though the Commish has grown a pair! Way to go, Dan! Keep it up...

Why police should live in Portland:

1) Emergency Response: In case of disaster, they are in the city, not trapped in Washington state or through a tunnel or down in Woodburn.

2) Force Multiplier: If there is a situation in a local neighborhood or commercial area or school event, off-duty police officers are better observers, can help other citizens because of their special training and can generally be around to help keep the peace.

3) Economic: How many millions in salary goes out of the city, county and state? This would be the largest economic stimulus project of Adams' term. Let's spend that money here and prop up housing prices, pay local property taxes, support local businesses and generally keep our city budget inside the city. We are talking millions of dollars in cash.

4) Environmental and Traffic: That'd be 1000+ less commuters over the bridges and highways every day. Less gasoline burned. (And less tragic situations like Officer Zylawy's or criminlist Cushman getting killed on the commute in Washingon state.)

5)Trust: If you knew a neighbor, or your kid's friend's mother or your real estate client or customer at your store was a police officer then you'd have more trust in the police.

6) Quality of life. The officers can go to their kids school event and be there for their families. When there is an icestorm and they are stuck on shift they don't have to worry about a kid stuck at school in Estacada. They will spend many days less a year commuting.


Now, the police are going to say that they don't want to live in the same town they arrest people in. They are scared of running into an arrestee at the grocery store or wherever. I would argue that that simply means they should be nicer when they arrest people, but it is a fair concern. Perhaps we can settle this by not requiring officers to patrol the same prescinct in which they live. But maybe that concern is valuable for the community. Maybe you are going to be less rude or less likely to use unneccesary force if you might run into the arrestee's grandmother down at church on Sunday.

Another issue is overall fairness. Should this be required? What about freedom and the people that have already made a life in another county or state? Grandfather it in. Don't require people to move. Require it for new hires. Require it for promotions. Or phase it in over time - 'Heads up. In five years you need to be living inside the city limits.'

Another alternative is to make it incentive based. The city could pay $5000 extra a year (or fill in the number) to officers that choose to grace the citizens of Portland with their presence. Or subsidize the mortgages of these folks. Or give them more vacation time. Or give them a shiny patch on their uniform that says "Really, I love this city so much I live here!"

@number six, @Jason: I hope you've both emailed Commissioner Saltzman to encourage him to adopt these ideas in the contract negotiations. You make good points!

@Number Six Jesus! Those are some shitty points! They're all about YOU, you self-centered jerk.

Your #1, 2, 5, and 6 all boil down to "So they can keep working even when their shift is over!" That's some serious bullshit. You want to force them to live near you so that you can have all the benefits of living near a police officer. Why not push for a law forcing a plumber, doctor, and veterinarian live near you, too? Don't you want them handy, too, in case you need them? Who else should we have standing by for you?

Your #4 is just social engineering. You think people really ought to commute less, so you want to force them to conform to your vision. That's not the right way to implement change.

And your final discussion is just disingenuous. Living in the community they have to police would make it really hard to do ANY policing, not just the kind you think is icky. How could you even write a speeding ticket, if you have to sit next to that guy and his grandma at church tomorrow? Your points about just "being extra polite" are just stupid - how could they enforce ANY law on their insurance agent, mechanic, waiter, or cashier? Where are you going to find 1,000 guys who will sign up for that life, and do it well?

Look, you wrote up your points very well, and have a coherent argument. That's MUCH more than I'd get at most internet forums, so thank you - I shouldn't have called you jerkface like that. But your position struck me as a really disgusting example of self-entitlement doing a very successful job of masquerading as reasonable.

Police are public employees - we pay their salary. But only for their work hours. After their shift, just like any other employee, they are free to GO. It's not right to control them 24x7 just because you wish they lived near you.

Reymont - your criticisms are valid. I don't think we are that far off on what I want. Of course I want my servants to serve me and serve my interests. I don't think that's crazy. They are free to seek generous employmnet elsewhere. I assume the lord of the manner wants the butler to live in the downstairs and not in the next county over in case a local ne'er-do-well decides to steal the silver in the middle of the night.

So let's not be naive about who is working for who.

Do I want the government to choose who live where? No. Do I want people who seek out a government protected, unionized, socialist type job with amazing bennies and early retirement and no oversight to dedicate some effort and sacrifice for their job? Do I want my protectors of public order to understand and agree that their shift doesn't end at 5:00? Yes.

I also expect Army officers and enlisted men to live on or near base. 'Cause it is a volunteer army. I'd like the army officer to protect and serve the Constitution and the people of the United States while fourth-mealing at the local Taco Bell even when, gasp - off duty. I don't think that is too much to ask for our noble volunteers. (and of course Portland pays much more to a cop than the US government pays to a poor infantry man policing Kandahar or holding the line at Fort Lewis).

Yours, 24-7,

Number 6

[ PS: Of course I would want city plumbers on salary to the city to be available (and to pay them accordingly to be on call) to fix the burst pipes at city hall in an ice storm. But no one is forcing them to take the gig and hey, if they don't want to fix the burst pipes when Randy calls them up in the middle of the night or be available to do so they can look for work in sunny San Diego. ]

Does anyone know how many cities require their police forces to undergo drug testing? Both pre-employment and random after being hired. And do the Portland police undergo pre-employment drug testing? In my opinion, if you have nothing to hide you should not be averse to being drug tested.

Drug tested? Jebus...they should put our cops on a marijuana regimen. It might make them chill the eff out. If they're so stressed out as they claim it couldn't hurt.

BlackedOut -

I get where you're coming from, and it's certainly funny to think about, but I don't doped-up cops handling Tazers and firearms, thankyouverymuch! LOL!

ujfoyt -

Juneau, Alaska does: http://www.juneau.org/personnel/documents/…

Providence, Rhode Island is about to: http://www.projo.com/news/content/providen…

There's more if you Google "drug screening police officers" or the like.