We already saw some of the very questionable (and self-serving) statements by ACM Ryan Ward and Finley deGraffenreid when it comes to some of our “underpaid” City Nerf job holders at the top of the City employee food chain – like (supposedly) Assistant City Managers and IT Directors.
I’d like to look at some remarks made by our Chief of Police and council member Herb Pearce.
Cummings seems to be saying that those nice retirement benefits are lost on the younger crowd – who want instant gratification, like so many of those under age 30. He seems to be implying we need to dangle a higher salary in front of them because they are too shortsighted to appreciate the massive 2-1 matching of retirement funds the City offers.
Well, ok then. I can almost see that point of view since that $10,000 they put away today will only buy the equivalent of maybe $3,000 worth of “stuff” when they retire – thanks to Bidenflation destroying the currency.
But if we go THAT route of higher salaries, then let’s just do away with the overly-generous benefits. After all – you just told us they don’t really appreciate or care about them. There is no rule anywhere that says you have to offer BOTH higher salary AND keep the ludicrous benefits. Out here in the real world, we make trade-offs because resources are limited. Maybe we give a new cop a choice: higher salary and lower benefits or vice-versa. But we make sure the TOTAL of both of them stays the same.
It also seems odd to me that it is so hard to attract new police officers. After all, every big city around (Austin, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, New York) has made headlines the last two years by DEFUNDING the police and shedding hundreds of officers. Seems to me that only INCREASES the supply of cops out there – not the opposite.
Herb Pearce then jumps in and points out the “continually rising cost of living” as some kind of justification for raises…
As far as City council members go, I think Morris and Pearce are the only two with a functioning brain in their heads. I certainly don’t agree with Pearce on a few things (biz park), but at least he asks a lot of questions and seems open to persuasion by logic, reason and irrefutable facts. The other five goldfish are pretty much brain-dead in that regard.
However, his data on housing costs is way off. In Lampasas, it is more like $240,000 for an average, house – not the $330,000 he stated in the article. Here is the latest data from Zillow:
I am a stickler for accurate data, you may have noticed over the last 4 years.
But either way, I have to ask why it is the “right” of a police officer or a teacher to own a house? Hell, I rented until I was 42 years old. I liked renting. You think BUYING a house is expensive? Try maintaining one. Owning a home isn’t for everyone and it CERTAINLY isn’t an unalienable right for anyone – cop or no cop. We should have learned that back in 2008, but apparently we didn’t. I sure as hell don’t agree with using that criteria to decide teacher or cop pay. I don’t care if “a third year officer” can afford to buy a house. There is no shame in renting until you can.
When I was in my 20s (as many “new cops” or “new teachers” are), I was single and had three roommates to save money until I saved up enough to afford my own place. Of course, that was in the 1990s before the entire world turned into a bunch of entitled pussies who demanded instant gratification on everything from “free” college to “free” healthcare to a “livable wage” (whatever THAT means) and who just push a button to order food from 100 different restaurants.
But I digress.
Maybe we should be asking some other questions too. Like “what is the ‘correct’ number of police officers for a town our size? What is the ratio of cops to citizens for the rest of Texas? For the U.S.? For towns under 10,000 with a lot of old people who tend to not commit many crimes?
If we add three cops and the crime rate stays exactly the same, did we actually come out ahead? Isn’t it easier to pay EXISTING cops more overtime than to take on more bodies – bodies who come with the added expenses of MORE benefits?
I’m a BIG believer in the 80/20 rule. It’s fascinating how often it shows up in unexpected places. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that 20% of the town’s “known troublemakers” cause 80% of the problems. Maybe blindly adding more officers isn’t the answer. Maybe targeting those known shitbags is a more efficient way to do things.
Oh, and when these shitbags are caught, maybe the judges should PUT THEM IN JAIL instead of handing out the endless probations I see around here. THAT would be a good start too!
Food for thought, City council.