Bob Helie
The Edmond Sun
EDMOND
June 16, 2009 11:31 pm
—
I have been glad to read in this newspaper, The Edmond Sun, recently expressed feelings and expectations regarding the yet-to-be approved Public Safety Center. Perceptions and intentions of those on the City Council have been offset to a degree by comments and assertions of several local residents and businessmen. Please allow me to voice my feelings as a member of the neighborhood in which the Public Safety Center is proposed to be placed.
Almost a year ago now, in a heated movement to rush through the election process a proposal that was far less than desirable, failure occurred. Not only did the proposition fail, but a lot of confidence and trust in the spokespersons for the city was lost. Glib responses, feeble pretense at urgency and general slanting and distortion of the facts doomed the proposal. That simply cannot happen again. New and believable proponents must come forth.
Now that we have had time to look back on and focus on the real issues, we can be glad that poor planning and presentation did not prevail. I believe that we now have a mayor and council who better understand the issues, and are willing to back off the obstinate course and examine every alternative and listen to all possibilities offered so that a viable and well-received proposition might come forth.
A large majority of our residents know and accept the premise that our current police facility is woefully inadequate. That is a non-issue. So let’s now consider the issues at hand.
In regard to the issue of funding choice, a poor decision was made to require only property owners to carry the entire monetary load. Not only was it grossly unfair to the seated population of Edmond (senior citizens included), it smacked of greed by playing both ends against the middle, shifting one burden to the landholders only to hit ’em again with a future sales tax increase for some as yet unnamed pet project. We hope that, as glaring a mistake as that was, the council does not think of that as being the only issue that doomed the proposal. Read on.
A high level of negative interest in the proposal was in the chosen proposed location at Kelly Avenue and Main Street. Contrary to misinformation delivered publicly by a police department spokesperson, the ball fields at Barnett Field are not ratty and unkempt, and most certainly are not “rarely used.” Thousands of kid-hours are spent there every month practicing/playing soccer, softball and baseball. I am quite sure many of the huge volume of nays were from those who stood to lose “their portion” of precious green space.
Consider also the neighborhood itself. Even though the neighborhood surrounding Chitwood Park has the vested ownership in the park area, we have always been glad to share it with those who need a place to play. It would be counted as a tragedy to the children of our city to have it taken away.
Secondary to the idea of turning green space into concrete and steel is that of the building’s makeup. If it needs to be “hardened” at great cost against terrorist activity, that would mean that there is reasonable expectation of attack. If that is the expectation, why would a decision be made to place it in a family oriented neighborhood, near an elementary school? If it is not a reasonable expectation (Edmond, Oklahoma?), then why incur such a huge additional expense?
Another issue that caused raised eyebrows was all the clamor that came forward regarding the deplorable conditions of the emergency management/911 systems location. Why was there not a previous voiced concern? And now, going on a year later, has anything been done?
Considering an upcoming construction phase of two or more years, why hasn’t the gravity of the situation demanded even temporary movement to a safer and more amenable environment? Has an extra lockable spare room been found yet for storage of bagged evidence? This city owns many structures that certainly can spare a room or two. Has the situation yet been alleviated? Or are we to believe that those issues were mere creations of need that falsely gave the impression of serious impairment to our police department’s ability to do its job well?
Regarding interview rooms where victims/witnesses may be seen by the thugs involved, is it not possible that non-violent interviews can be conducted at another location? And if this is still a high priority, have arrangements been made to find a more private arena, even temporarily? My understanding is that there is a fairly large fund in the police department budget that is just waiting for an opportunity like this.
My friends on the council, consider well the information that comes before you as you wrestle with the complexity of the issue. All facets of the issue will carry ayes and nays. Even, as an example, the expectation by a large number that police facilities should be downtown and anything else just simply is not acceptable. Many options already have been offered. More will be expressed. Consider them. Study them. And recognize that there were other reasons why the first proposal was voted down. We simply can’t afford a second defeat.
BOB HELIE is an Edmond resident and a spokesman for the Chitwood neighborhood.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.