The state police quandary: Look locally
Published: Friday, Feb. 8, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
Perhaps it is too much to expect.
If we can't get creativity born of cooperation at just one level of government — the local level — we probably should not expect cooperation between state and municipal levels.
Recently, Gov. Tom Corbett announced the state would hire 290 police cadets and 90 civilian police dispatchers in anticipation of retirements from the force and growing demands from rural communities without police departments.
The governor noted that municipalities availing themselves of state police coverage are not contributing to the costs.
So the state leadership's conclusion is to toss more money at the problem. But that's not a solution: It doesn't limit the areas police must cover, nor does it address growing rural crime.
It's time for Pennsylvania lawmakers to explore how to strengthen police coverage in the state where many townships have no police and many boroughs rely on part-timers.
It is foolhardy to expect troopers who patrol Route 28 south to Pittsburgh to also respond to crimes in northern Armstrong County.
Might we not seriously explore the potential benefits of regional police forces so that everyone in the state can expect reasonable police coverage — patrols, investigations and enforcement of municipal as well as state and federal laws?
What's amazing is that not one rural area lawmaker has initiated a serious exploration of the issue.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- More ObamaCare fallout: Medicare disadvantage
- The Thursday wrap
- Anti-fracking scandal: More junk ‘science’
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Corrections reinvention
- Dear Steelers: Perhaps “postseason” is but a quaint notion after all. Yours, Old Man River.
- The coming holidays: Get out & enjoy
- Saturday essay: Taylor’s trains
- Sunday pops
- What’s that smell?: WAMs return to Harrisburg
- Selling GM stock: A $10 billion public hook