Facebook offers to pay Menlo Park $600k to hire a cop
mercurynews.com
mercurynews.com
This really means harassing and arresting problem students and undesirables who are loitering near businesses. I say that because if you want to address the underlying issues and really "solve" the problem, you wouldn't do it with police. It sounds like they want their own private security but one that has police powers.
What comes to mind is cities that try and fix issues related to the homeless with police because it's a complex human problem that some people & businesses try to solve with punishment/enforcement. At the least, I'll venture to say there's more effective ways to combat truancy than unleashing police on them.
It's also probably unconstitutional, on the ground that it produces at least the appearance of selective enforcement. This kind of goal is usually achieved by hiring a private security guard, rather than paying a (normally) taxpayer-funded police department to focus its attention on a specific zone.
That's correct. Police officers can only exercise police powers while on duty, and when they go off shift, they become civilians.
Don't you understand that an off-duty police officer may not be in uniform, that that's illegal? In some jurisdictions an off-duty police officer is expected to carry his gun, but he may not exercise police powers.
In short, when a police officer goes off shift, he loses his police powers. Being a policeman is a job, not an identity.
That's different. An off-duty police officer isn't acting in his official capacity as an agent of the police force, under oath. While off duty, he's just another trained civilian, suitable for private security duty.
> I'm more surprised that facebook is basically offering a grant/donation than outright hiring their own off-duty officers.
So am I -- what they're suggesting appears to be a violation of the law.
I believe there are a few states/jurisdictions that restrict off duty officers from working in uniform w/police power, but that's probably a minority. With budgets being cut everywhere, officers being able to earn an extra 50% or more of their normal salary working off duty gigs is a "free benefit" the department can offer, or like in NYC where the NYPD charges a 10% admin fee ($1.18m earned in 2011) it's extra income for the dept.
For example, if Facebook was located in San Jose, they could just pay $46.50/hr for as many officers as they wanted, in unform, per http://www.sjpd.org/PDF_Forms/SEU_Secondary_Employment_Emplo... .
Your claim is false, and you need to learn constitutional law. A police office working as a private security guard is not acting as an agent of the police, he is acting as an agent of whomever hired him, and he does not have police powers. He can make the same arrests that a citizen can make, but has no official police powers.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_police
Quote: "Private police lack the same arrest powers of government law enforcement, but do have the right to make a citizens arrest if they actually witness a crime happening."
The above means that off-duty police officers are citizens, not police officers. It's considered desirable to learn a topic before posting about it, not after.
Link: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_a_security_officer_have_the_p...
Quote: "Q: Does a security officer have the police power to make an arrest in new jersey? A: No, NJ does not give Private Security officers/guards any special police powers to execute an arrest. You only have the power to make a citizens arrest."
Shall I go through all 50 states for you?
NJ Statute Quote: "40A:14-152.1. Municipal police officer; power of arrest for crime committed in his presence anywhere within state. Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S. 40A:14-152 or any other law to the contrary, any full-time, permanently appointed municipal police officer shall have full power of arrest for any crime committed in said officer's presence and committed anywhere within the territorial limits of the State of New Jersey."
There is no mention of requiring the officer to be on duty, and plenty of cities in NJ off in-uniform off duty officers. For example, Jersey City municipal code, § 3-85.1 Off-duty employment, includes:
"Purpose. For the convenience of those persons which utilize the services of off-duty law enforcement officers of the Jersey City Police Department, and to authorize the outside employment of Police while off-duty, the City of Jersey City hereby establishes a policy regarding the use of off-duty officers in compliance with Attorney General Formal Opinion 1997-No. 23."
You can read about the 11k officers that participate in the NYPD paid detail unit here, http://www.nycpba.org/archive/nydn/03/nydn-030810-ot.html . In Atlanta, Midtown Blue is "Comprised of more than 40 off-duty Atlanta Police Department (APD) officers with full powers of arrest". ( http://midtownatl.com/about/programs-and-projects/public-saf... ) In Miami, you can hire a police Lt for $50.50/hr. ( https://was8exp.miamidade.gov/MDPDOffDutyWeb/home.do ) In Denver, off duty police may not work at pot shops, but "Officers may act to prevent a breach of the peace or to enforce the law, but officers shall not enforce rules made in the interest of the secondary employer." ( http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/720/documents/OperationsMan... ) In Durham, NC when you hire an off duty officer you get a " Law Enforcement (LE) Officer who is authorized to Enforce NC State Laws and Durham City Ordinances" ( http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/DPD/Pages/Secondary-Info.aspx ). Shall I go on?
If you want to make some type of claim that any of the extensive off duty police employment (or even arrest powers) that happens is somehow theoretically unconstitutional at a federal or state level, I'd love to hear that argument and reasoning, but it's important to separate legal theory with the practiced and enforced laws. In most states, officers have their police authority on and off duty.
It's also safer if they let the cops do the skull-cracking. This way Zuck doesn't have to give an awkward press conference about why his security guards were filmed beating up some teenagers in the parking lot.
> Get the gang activity under control, and it actually would be > quite nice. The irony is, if it became safe, it probably would > gentrify rapidly, housing prices would go up, and the poor people > who rent would have to find somewhere else to live.
Is it just me who thinks it's terribly sad there are people apologizing for decreasing crime and therefore increasing property value?
The real answer is that housing should NOT be so scarce that the only thing hat makes the price affordable is weekly gang shootings. Supply should be fostered until housing can be both 'safe & affordable' using the myriad tools cities have to foster new construction.
An increase to property value is a great service to every property owner (53% owner occupied) in the city, but it's an attack on renters (41%). Another way to put it, cities should be doing great things like this to increase property value, while simultaneously fostering new construction, as a balanced approach to serve their constituency.
There are worse things, but it doesn't really address the problem.
(1) If we allow more building we end up with as many luxury apartments as there's demand for and developers switch to building more affordable ones.
(2) When a rich person moves from wherever they're living now into a luxury apartment that opens up their previous apartment somewhere else.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/08/facebook-uk-...
Local government are prohibited from taking as much money as they want from local companies by statute, e.g. they can only use property taxes by fair market value.
Think of how bad greater discretion would be. Local governments are quirky and idiosyncratic, and are elected by a tiny number of citizens. They are strongly constarined in their powers by the state for a reason.
I feel like we're going to see more private funding for public positions in the (perhaps distant) future, but I suppose the obvious question is: at what point does private funding of public officials become theoretically troublesome? Some would call this the start to an unsettling change.
* Killer drones. Ubiquitous surveillance by both government & business.
* Bad data that destroys one's ability to travel, get credit, find work, or avoid being thrown into jail out of nowhere.
* More and more armed citizens shooting each other over minor things.
* Flash mobs for every purpose under the sun.
* Samizdata.
* Manipulating the cops into raiding innocent targets while using software to conceal your identity. Absolute and complete lack of airships.
* Corporate domination of the political process with unlimited donations.
* Massive and growing wealth inequality.
* Political campaigns severally wounded by software failures.
* "You're not the customer, you're the product."
* DDOS for commercial advantage.
* Arresting people as "terrorists" to seize embarrassing stolen information.
* International treaties negotiated at the behest of corporations as backdoors to subverting the legislative process.
* No-recruit agreements for the rank & file combined with vicious competition for the top talent. People carrying half their life in portable computer devices.
* Ransomware in a myriad of forms.
* Vast government computer intrusion programs.
* Criminalization of access and dissemination of public information. Criminalization of downloading too much from something you've got access rights to. Criminalization of downloading from open directories with no warnings on them.
* New diseases, rising seas, freakish weather.
* A resurgent, militaristic Russia invading various countries.
* A resurgent, militaristic USA invading various countries.
Obviously.
If we want to call attention to something very troubling in the here and now, we should look at the for-profit prison industry. That's a whole different ball of wax.
I'm sure we'll soon be naming mayorships, as occupants of governments from the smallest city to the federal government continue to be elected by cutting budgets and then cry because there's no money to provide basic services.
They'll be called smart public-private partnerships.
Of the two, I might like the open proposal for direct funding of the position more than an envelop of cash passed under the table at Alexander's.
While Facebook is free to donate funds for this to the city, or not, I doubt that accepting the contribution creates any kind of enforceable contract, rather a mutual expectation which if the city renegs they simply won't be seeing any more deals like this in the future. I think from the city's perspective it's free money for a cop who is going to be at the new substation anyway.
It just feels wrong to be able to pay government for this kind of thing - kinda like paying the military to do something for you under the color of law.
According to this http://jeffwongdesign.com/2010/03/nypd-officers-can-make-6-f..., NYPD can make 91K after 6 years in the service.
Is Facebook paying less? I don't know the cost of benefit and insurance. I really doubt a single police officer will receive more than $100K benefit in three years. I would be very surprise if they do!
I am not against Facebook pays the city to hire additional security personnel. I am all for companies and community putting a fund together to hire additional police officers or firefighters or EMT, but this worries me:
"Let's say Facebook has a need of assistance, or some other large company, and says, 'We want to have drills for an active shooter or a bomb threat. We need you to help us put that together.' They'd have an actual person (to assist)," Bertini said.
I am not saying we don't want to have more police officers, but right now, rich companies can directly fund government outside of taxation.
They are directly paying to hire government employee. Why can't Facebook have their own outreach team to work with local police public relation to carry out such plan (to reduce student truancy). Also, consider security guards are paid at a lower rate, why can't we help boost their salary (see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541541/Google-hirin...)?
In the case of bomb threat or shooting, I am damn sure a 911 call is enough to get 100 county officers from MP and nearby county. A single officer will not help much.
It seems like they are just concerned with unauthorized access rather than defeating crime rate.
A single officer in the right place is far more usefull than 100 in a nearby county. Breivik was just one man. He could have been easily stopped by a single officer.
Rule of thumb in government: double the wage to achieve full-cost of a salaried employee.
For example: http://blog.intuit.com/employees/how-much-does-an-employee-r...
sworn officer vs. security guard is like a queen vs. pawn.
>It seems like they are just concerned with unauthorized access rather than defeating crime rate.
something like 10 years ago (when i was commuting to that Sun's (back then) campus) there were police presence at that station. Not that it was affecting much, at least at the outsider look it is the same now as it has been through all these years. Given the generational shift - FB employees are supposedly like to walk and ride bikes and live nearby with the campus - the police presence seems like another perk FB is trying to buy for their employees as this place - East Palo Alto - is supposedly looking scary to young people coming from good families in good neighborhoods :)
The problem is real and I don't blame Facebook for being concerned. Although, it's sadly typical of them to propose their own privately-paid-for police force.
I'm not disputing the claim, I've just never seen any discussion on state tax (except for Amazon trying(?) to dodge it).
Facebook is trying to set up their own Company Town. Usually, the response to this interpretation is to dismiss the possibility, with the company town being one of those "problems from last century we don't see anymore", and dismissing the problem like that is dangerous.
The coal companies (and similar) never really lost their towns, regardless of specifics of who's name is on the land deeds. It works out the same when there's only the one employer in the area. Facebook is not alone as a newcomer, either; Google has had some questionable press recently with their buses that seen to go wherever they want like they own the place, and they've been playing land games as well. There was even a story here recently about their price-fixing scam to slow wage growth and prevent competition ("bidding wars").
While current issues like the NSA has us distracted at the moment, I strongly believe this problem - where we forget about the labor issues of the past and allow the industrial-revolution-era problems and abuses slowly creep back in - is the longer-term fight, with stuff like the NSA's spying being more of a symptom of the problem.
Many people have observed that some of the NSA's statements and "interpretations" no longer seem to be tethered to any rational "legal basis" or "social contract", as they spin yet another justification for their behavior. Similarly, if Facebook and Google, etc, are allowed to continue buying up bits and pieces of our country, I hope you like that kind of "making up the law as we go" way of doing things. Once they gain that kind of de facto control over a piece of the country, they become effectively sovereign. Any power that might stop them is too far away and dealing with their own mess.
What do you call a form of government with a weak, basically non-existent amount of central control, thereby letting a handful of very powerful, very rich players to rule over their little corner of the world as they see fit?
You call it Feudalism, of course.
[1] http://mashable.com/2013/10/03/facebook-housing-complex/
[2] http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/feminisms-tip...
[3] http://thebaffler.com/past/facebook_feminism_like_it_or_not
First of all FB employees are paid very well. If they decide they don't want to work for FB anymore they could find a new job in less than a day. They can easily afford housing elsewhere. FB doesn't own all the businesses in the area and isn't paying its employees in vouchers.
They pay well... if you're and engineer. And male.
From the article I linked above:
"I was promoted to a more demanding managerial position. But there would be no raise. “You’ve already doubled your salary in a year and it wouldn’t be fair to the engineers who haven’t had that raise” (never mind that a year earlier engineers had been earning anywhere from $70,000 to $140,000, as opposed to $38,000 like I had)"
$38k doesn't go terribly far in Silicon Valley. After doubling it with a promotion.
And I direct you to my other replies, where I yet again point that I didn't say it was there NOW. Instead, we face a very bad risk of them becoming a Company Town in the future. They are exhibiting dangerous warning signs, and nobody in power even attempting to stop even their flagrantly illegal activities.
Ultimately, when the local municipalities are failing to provide the big companies with the housing and services that are needed by their employees (who are citizens and potential citizens of these municipalities) then those municipalities are failing to perform their function.
Part of this falls on FB/Apple/Google for using out-of-town campuses instead of core urban highrise office towers that would allow better access for employees in the surrounding area via the existing transit/housing infrastructure. But still - these cities have completely failed to properly work with the hand they've been dealt.
And if you want something done right, you've got to do it yourself.
Especially when you don't pay any taxes, and therefore can't expect the municipality to take the cost?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/12/27/facebook-m...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-sho...
On the flip side, there's a decent amount of wealth being funneled into the town via paychecks to the workers. So the total area living standard goes up, sometimes considerably. People have opportunities they didn't have before, both work-wise and otherwise, and new things can show up based upon the company's spark. Sort of like the famous Schockley Seven.
I would not qualify the towns I lived near as feudalistic. That's far too overt and encompassing. Rather, the executives/CEOs were people whose opinion might be asked on tricky policy questions, or whose opinion, when offered, was taken seriously.
The modern version that we've seen for a while still has some of the nasty effects, such as making the town (intentionally or not) a very difficult situation to leave. Forcing decisions that are bad for and rejected by a community such "lets go fracking really close to where the drinking water comes form!" seems to be popular in modern times (and a lot of local variation).
The problem, as I mentioned towards the end of the other post, is when business and government are no longer working against each other. We extract value, as citizens from the resulting equilibrium, because the nastier tendencies of either group are restrained. I'm suggesting that the NEW change, is a dramatic and sudden shift away from that regulation. You see this in Facebook and other big players such as the banks that were labeled "Too Big To Fail". Some of the traditional power-players like the coal industry simply have a bit of historical inertia to overcome.
We've been the reducing government's ability to regulate for some time now, making the modern, milder, modern Company Town as you describe increasingly rarer as this progress.
Yes, this is feudalism, plain and simple. They're simply abusing basic democratic institutions to obfuscate the fact.
Still not worth losing our Constitutional Republic over.
― Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash
They don't want the cop to do any kind of citations, so they just want the armed presence that is licensed to kill (which I believe statistics say is more likely to shoot a bystander).