Some comments on that editorial by Jim McDavid:
When Solicitor General John Les commented at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention that he wanted to see progress around the integration of police services in the Victoria region, many interpreted him to be saying that amalgamation was an option.
McDavid's first argument: that politicians who discussed amalgamation, on the basis on Les's comments, were wrong and had misinterpretated the smoke signals. Their bad! From this follow their subsequent sins.
The mayors of Victoria and Esquimalt (...) pointed to the success of the City of Victoria in providing all police services to Esquimalt and suggested that combining all departments could yield more benefits.
Pro-amalgamation proponents (the mayors of Victoria & Esquimalt) compounded the errors of their ways by pointing to services in Esquimalt.
At the same time, the failings of the CREST emergency communications system were highlighted.
McDavid now brings in CREST's failures as poster child for the pro-amalgamation/ integration-isn't-enough politicos. I.e., under McDavid's reasoning, pointing out CREST's failings is a political ploy on the part of the mayors, not just an objective technical reality. (Tell that to the cops whose radios fail.)
But in all this, the voice of the business community in Esquimalt stands out.
If CREST is just a political tussle, the Esquimalt business community is the real, to-be-believed counterpunch. By leaning on the business community's complaint, the author absolves himself of political ideological leanings, because we all know that business isn't ideological, but good, rational, neutral.
In amalgamations that have occurred elsewhere in Canada and the U.S., the local business community is strongly in favour of amalgamating local governments and is a leader in amalgamation campaigns.
However, he has to point out that other business communities benefited from amalgamation, even though he then suggests that our case might be different.
Next, we get a switch-and-bait, from amalgamation issues to "community policing" issues. These are two different issues, but the author now conflates them:
Let us look at the Esquimalt situation more closely. A recent article suggested that the Victoria Police Department should implement a community-oriented policing model which would see police officers based in Esquimalt responding to the community’s needs.
He then goes on to describe a specific -- and not successful -- model of
one type of "community policing," namely the little "stations" that were, quite frankly, utterly opaque to the average person who keeps cops at arms' length: in Fairfield, for eg., we had a "community policing" station at Cook and May (on the E. side of Cook, just S. of May):
The idea of community policing is not new. In fact the Victoria Police Department implemented a community policing program in 1987. Five community police stations were situated in Victoria’s neighbourhoods, with uniformed officers there during the daytime.
If "community policing" in Fairfield had meant a single cop on duty patrol via bike or on foot, that would have meant something to me. But that little "station" meant absolutely nothing: why would I enter it? To this day, I have no idea what they did in there all day long, nor who they were meant to serve. Just because one type of community policing is a dud doesn't mean you throw the whole concept out:
"...there during the daytime" -- meaning what? Drinking tea? Did we (in the community) ever SEE them at work? No, of course not. So is it a surprise that we (in the community) couldn't figure out what the heck they did all the live long day?
Although implemented with high expectations, the program did not survive. A key reason had to do with where it was situated within the Victoria Police Department.
I alight once again on a favourite pet peeve: the passive voice. "Although implemented with high expectations" -- whose? "A key reason had to do with..." The subject-less passive voice gets a key. Great.
Regardless of where any reader stands on amalgamation, said reader has to admit that McDavid is using shoddy argumentation to advance his case. In the next sentence he goes on to argue that:
police services, even where there is an initial commitment to maintaining levels of services to outlying areas, are eventually centralized.
Wait a second: he just argued that Esquimalt isn't getting service, but now he's talking about outlying areas. Am I to believe that Esquimalt is an outlying area, as Metchosin is? Come off it! Esquimalt is practically the core -- as is Vic West, and Quadra Village, and North Park, and Fernwood, Rockland, Fairfield, Jubilee, James Bay. So who is this "outlying area"? Saanich? Do they, however, have the kinds of problems that Esquimalt, JB, etc. etc. have? What do the "outlying" areas suddenly have to do with this?
...centralization does not result in the same levels of community-sensitive, patrolbased services, particularly to those areas outside of the downtown core.
I don't understand this at all. It presupposes that we already have "community-sensitive" (whatever that means), patrolbased services throughout Victoria. I thought part of the problem is that we don't.