CUTTING POLICE FORCE WILL ONLY ENCOURAGE DRUG DEALERS

This is the third of three editorials that focus on crime, young offenders
and public safety in Huntington.

Sunday's dealt with the drug trade and teens. Monday's focused on
identifying at-risk youths early. The final editorial addresses cuts to the
police force.

The most important role of city government is to provide security and
services no one else can provide. High on that list would be police
protection. The present plan of the Huntington City Council -- to cut the
budgets of all city departments by 4 percent -- would cut too much out of
the city Police Department. This plan must be changed.

We understand where the Council is coming from. Employee benefit costs
continue to rise. Income is stagnant. The public will not accept any more
taxes and fees, considering the administrative part of city government has
had a 45-year history of inadequate records and poor enforcement.

To balance the budget, the Council has ordered that all departments submit
plans for how they would deal with a 4 percent across-the-board cut.

Drug dealers in Detroit and Columbus must be making plans for expanding
their operations in Huntington when the new fiscal year begins July 1.
These wholesalers come into town, hang out for a few days while they do
business and leave.

Huntington police want to eliminate this, but they are hampered by a lack
of manpower. Thirteen positions have been added to the Huntington Police
Department's budget since July 2002, bringing the force to 88 officers. But
there were 103 officers when Mayor David Felinton took office in January
2001. The net loss of 15 is a direct result of budget cuts in Felinton's
first term.

During the council's budget hearings earlier this year, a spokesman for the
Fraternal Order of Police said a 5 percent cut in the police budget would
mean the loss of about 10 officers.

That is just not acceptable. Losing one officer to a budget cut is not
acceptable.

Surely, there are other areas of the city budget that can be cut so the
public can continue to feel safe.

The Council's responsibility to the public is clear: Find something else to
cut.

While we're on the subject of law enforcement, the Council must also set
aside money for demolishing dilapidated buildings in drug-prone areas such
as Artisan Avenue. The drug trade flourishes in areas with old buildings
and subsidized housing.

Drug dealers also operate out of subsidized housing, much of it owned by
the Huntington Housing Authority. They find someone willing to put them up
for a few days. They do their business. They leave.

The city can't put the Huntington Housing Authority out of business because
some subsidized apartments are used by drug dealers, but it can demolish
buildings that are good candidates to become crack houses. Habitat for
Humanity is willing to take whatever properties the city will condemn and
build new housing.

Can this be done? Will this be done?