Protect and Serve

One of the lucky ones: Years ago, I had one of my college instructors tell my class that it is very unwise to get into a writing war with people who buy ink by the trainloads. He was referring to fighting with the media. However, I feel a response from an insider is needed.

I have just finished your article on “Those Starvin’ Dallas Cops” (October 10). I agree with your statement that your research is not very scientific. I work at one of the stations you visited and saw the expensive motorcycles and cars. However, many of these vehicles you mentioned are owned by single officers with only themselves to support.

Also, I always enjoy it when individuals and City Hall bring up how great our pension plan will be upon retirement. Yes, we are lucky to have had very competent people managing our pension plan over the years so we can retire comfortably. Unfortunately, for any officer trying to raise a family, buy a house or send their kids to college, what he or she will get 20 or 30 years from now means very little to their current financial needs.

I am one of those starving cops who drives a luxury car. Yes, after driving my suburban for 14 years, my Oldsmobile for 15 years and my van for 12 years, I finally was able to afford a 1998 Cadillac. My first almost-new car in almost 18 years. And shucks, I’m one of the lucky ones. I only have to work four extra jobs to make ends meet.

In closing, I have only one question for you. If you have such high regard for police officers, what was the purpose of this article? It appears you not only dislike us, but you are trying to embarrass us for even asking for a raise.

Anonymous

Dallas

Poor-me cops: Jim Schutze’s column was excellent. I agree with all of his points, but here are a few more:

In addition to being able to retire at 50 at 92 percent of their salary, this pension amount is guaranteed for the rest of their lives.

Did you know that only 24 percent of police officers live within the city of Dallas and hence pay city taxes and are concerned with maintaining the current level of city services at a minimum? Likewise, only 17.5 percent of firefighters live in Dallas.

Do you reckon that the reason that these firefighters and police officers are not working for the suburban cities and counties in which they live is because the pay and benefits are not nearly so good as in Dallas?

It is unbelievable that these same “poor me” police officers and firefighters had the gall to walk out of the city council meeting just as Laura Miller was starting to respond to four hours of their comments and complaints. The arrogance and disrespect shown to the mayor and the city council will come back to bite them in the future.

How many of the Dallas police and firefighters have a four-year college degree or a master’s degree? You would think that the IT workers with all of their advanced education would be doing much better than they are. A substantial portion of high-tech workers have been laid off in the last two years and are struggling. Most have not found new jobs.

As Jim said in his article, most high-tech workers are working without benefits, merit raises or retirement programs, if they are a contractor. However, it is not much better for an employee when the company contributes to your 401(k) with company stock.

Police officers and firefighters have guaranteed jobs unless they commit gross malfeasance. There are a lot of high-tech workers who wouldn’t mind trading places with the poor “underpaid” police officers and firefighters, myself included.

Linda Moore

Dallas

Choosing Street Life

Endless choices: Rose Farley’s article (“Someplace Like Home,” October 10) was well-written. Her biggest mistake is lumping the homeless unfortunates with those who want to be homeless. The cover picture of the homeless person was not the picture of the real homeless. You see, the person pictured wants to be homeless. You can tell by the grocery cart carrying his belongings.

Most of this type of homeless are the “drunks, drug addicts and mentally ill” that Farley wrote about in her article. These people want your money, food and clothes, but not your rules. They prefer the street, because they have no rules.

They hurt businesses. They burglarize buildings, homes and cars. They foul the sidewalks. They litter the area where they live. They do not care. They are homeless. The jails do not want to house them, either.

The idea of building a homeless oasis in the Cedars section of Dallas is laudable. But those who are unfortunately homeless will be the ones that will thrive there. They will follow the rules and try to get back on their feet. Bad things happen to good people. And homeless shelters try to take care of that population.

But the drug-addled, mentally insane and criminals will feed off the system. They’ll be given free meals, coats and money and then not have to follow the rules. They will not thrive in this structured environment.

I think we need to see a multifaceted approach to dealing with the homeless: the homeless oasis for those who want to be there, funded by private-sector and public housing money, and a homeless institution for the criminals, who simply burglarize and wreak havoc on our communities and businesses. (I had my building broken into six days in a row two weeks ago. The homeless did it.) They need to be put in a building in rural Dallas County and simply fenced in. The insurance companies should fund that; property claims would decrease dramatically.

As for the mentally ill, put them back in the institutions.

Those who want to abuse their freedoms ought to be segregated from society. It seems harsh and certainly not politically correct, but the feel-good theories about the homeless have blurred the realities of who is homeless and why. Dealing with homelessness is not the same as dealing with street people.

James Hairston

Dallas