Expansion of Protection from Discharge of Weapons On Council Agenda Monday Night

Up for a vote at tomorrow night's City-County Council meeting will be Prop 6.  This proposal, introduced by Councillor Angela Mansfield yet again, would expand to all of Marion County, the prohibition on shooting off guns.  Mansfield added exceptions to the expansion for agriculture-zoned parcel of 10 acres or more, and for shooting ranges of various types.  It is already illegal to shoot off guns within the old City limits and within the excluded cities of Lawrence, Beech Grove and Speedway.

Curiously enough, it is also illegal outside the old City limits and this ordinance would actually carve out the exceptions noted above.  When the IMPD taxing district was expanded so the City could pull in more tax revenue from the outlying Townships, the ban on shooting off guns was also expanded.  Public Safety Director Troy Riggs unilaterally gave everyone outside the old City limits a pass on obeying the law.  I wonder how he gets such authority to decide which ordinances he will enforce and where.

It is well past time that this Ordinance applies to all of us equally.

It is no less startling and threatening to hear gunfire in the perimeter outside old Indy than it is to hear it inside.  Just because the probability of criminal intent is less, does not make it safer or of less concern for nearby residents.

Shooting in one's own backyard, with or with a target, with or without safety training, with or without the intent to intimidate ones neighbors, still can alarm, frighten, and cause concern to those neighbors.  I know from personal experience that when you hear gunfire you cannot assume it is of benign intent.  You cannot assume that errant aim will not harm you or your loved ones.

Hunters pursuing their hobby, sometimes illegally on others' property, don't always know the many directions that prey may take that also leads in a straight line to a house or playground. 

Bullets can travel 1 to 5 miles, depending upon the gun and other variables.  This substantial radius increases the need for Prop 6 to pass.

It is not enough that few people have been seriously injured by hunters and backyard shooters to keep Prop 6 from passing.  Everyone should have the right to enjoy their own property.  When the threat of guns going off keep you and your children from enjoying your own backyard, then the things have gone too far and need to be righted.  

At the Rule Committee meeting where Prop 6 was sent to the full Council by a vote of 4-2, Councillor Bob Lutz said that he generally supported Mansfield's efforts, but would vote against it lest someone take the issue to court based on his interpretation of the wording of a 2011 Indiana law keeping local government from passing any local laws impeding the right to own guns.  Council Attorney, Fred Biesecker, noted that the word 'discharge' of a weapon was deliberately removed from the Indiana law before its passage.  Noone has taken the ban on shooting off guns within the old City limits to Court, and the City has not removed that ban for fear of losing a potential lawsuit in that geography.  It seems like a straw dog to worry about possible legal challenge to a simple expansion of an existing law.

Councillor Christine Scales notes that some Councillors who advocate a 50 foot safety free zone to protect downtown-goers from panhandlers, apparently do not find protecting citizens from stray bullets of any concern.  Scales makes an excellent point.

Loud music from a neighbor can get the police to show up and restore the peace.  Firing off a gun, with its attendant alarm as well as its loud retort, should also elicit action by the police, not just a 'call us when someone is hurt' attitude.  Given Riggs' curious position regarding the enforcement of an existing ordinance, Prop 6 needs to pass so all of us can get the same protections.

IMPD Budget Recap - It's Probably Not What You Expected

Last night's budget hearing for IMPD was quite well attended.  For those who missed it, let me recap.

Public Safety Director Troy Riggs, Police Chief Richard Hite, and Public Safety Deputy Director Valerie Washington present limited IMPD budget numbers; noting only that the money flowing to IMPD from one fund (the IMPD General Fund) would remain the same, at $187m.  

In 2014, the want to hire 35 civilians to take over duties now conducted by sworn Officers, allowing those Officers to return to patrol duties.  They also want to set up a recruit class of 50 new hires.  That, combined with 10 civilian hires this year, make the 90 new sworn Officers that is being bandied about in the media today.

But, in order to accomplish all of this, they need to have their budget cut by $5.65 m.

Now, I know you want to go back and re-read that last sentence.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.

Yes the IMPD budget is being reduced by $5.65 million.  This includes a $7.09 million decrease in salaries from the current year budget.  No wonder they glossed over all the numbers except that one fund's expenditure total.

So you say, but Pat, what about the $1.4 million in fees to be charged the Officers for use of their take-home cars?  Well, I assume that's in the budget somewhere, but there is  no line that says 'fuel surcharge fee' in the numbers available to the public.  And, all I can say is, what one hand giveth, the other taketh away.

And you say, but Pat, what about the two tax hikes the Council gave the CIB - the increased ticket tax and car rental taxes?  Wasn't the first year's $6m supposed to go to IMPD and IFD?  And, after that isn't 25% of those increases to continue to flow to IMPD and IFD?  Why, yes, that's true.  But the year began on March 1, so the is only two months of 100% CIB 'public safety' revenue in 2014 and the rest is at 25% - so maybe $1m to IMPD. 

But, Pat, you say, what about the proposed increase in the old IPD Tax District?  Isn't that assumed in the 2014 that is on the table?  Why, yes - yes it is.  I know they say it will net about $3 million in additional funds, but the additional revenue IMPD collects is only $1.6 m.  And it actually should show up as a decrease in the property tax circuit breaker.  But that number is just about the same as it was for the 2013 budget.  So, you got me.  I'm sure its in there.  Yet again, what one hand giveth, the other taketh away.

What about the $9 million that is supposed to come from elimination of the Local Homestead Credit?  Surely that's in the IMPD budget.  Ryan Vaughn and Troy Riggs are all over the media saying that if that credit isn't eliminated then the IMPD budget will lose $9 million and there could be no new hires next year if that happens.  Well, this one gets a 'not really'.  Should the Local Homestead Credit be eliminated, the IMPD budget would actually go down about $300,000.  IMPD is better off if its not eliminated.  The elimination frees up County Option Income Tax revenue, but IMPD doesn't see a penny of that money.

Lets add up all the new money that the Mayor Ballard, Vaughn and Riggs imply is in the IMPD budget, shall we?  $1.4 million in fuel surcharge fee, $1 million from the CIB, $1.6 million or $3 million from expanding the old IPD Taxing District, and the $9 million from eliminating the Local Homestead Credit - sounds like $13 million to $14.4 million more money to IMPD, doesn't it?

But - nope.  No $14 million more for IMPD.  The 2014 budget really is $5.65 million less than 2013.

Its all a game to use public safety to secure public support for this round of tax changes.