CITY IGNORING OTHER FORMS OF CRIME PREVENTION

Crime rates in Vancouver may be way down from 10 years ago and may be
continuing to decline, but that hasn't stopped the Vancouver police
budget cutting deep yet again into the city's budget for 50 extra
officers last year and now 31 more this year, plus 46 additional
administration positions.

That's 127 new positions in two years. And it isn't the NPA's fault.
Last term's COPE council hired 50 extra officers, while this year's
budget battle saw Vision Vancouver councillors-the COPE-lite faction
of last term-fighting for 50 more over the majority NPA's dissent. An
NPA councillor, Kim Capri, broke ranks with her more restrained NPA
colleagues to broker a deal giving the police most (but not all) of
what they wanted.

But there was no one on council debating the merits of reducing the
number of police-or even just keeping their burgeoning numbers in
check-despite the long-term trend in falling crime rates.

To make room for the extra police in the budget, council cut the
youth advocate position and reduced by 30 per cent the city's already
appallingly low arts budget. It's those kind of cuts that will
restore upward trends in crime rates, since arts funding strengthens
the social fabric of the city, and youth advocacy helps people
lacking economic means or political power. These programs are two
forms of effective crime prevention.

Watching city council come out of this critical budget debate-the
first of the new council dominated by the new NPA-I was reminded of
the most recent U.S. election, where one party campaigned on winning
the war in Iraq (with current troop strength), while the opposition
campaigned on winning the war in Iraq (with increased troop
strength). No one on council-party hacks all-used a minute of the
unprecedented 17-hour debate to speak up about increasing arts
funding, building on the success of the youth advocacy office,
building more programs to weave the social fabric, and cutting the
police budget to do it.

So if crime is down but the number of police keeps going up, what are
they doing with all the extra enforcement power? It is instructive to
look at Statistics Canada numbers from across the country between
1994 and 2004-the latest numbers available.

In that decade, the rate of attempted murder came down 29 per cent,
sexual assault came down 33 per cent, abduction came down 49 per
cent, break and enter came down by 36 per cent, and theft over $5,000
came down by 41 per cent.

But increased police activity raised the rate of cannabis possession
cases by a whopping 53 per cent, cultivation of pot by 120 per cent,
and disturbing the peace by 107 per cent. The rate of prostitution
cases was up six per cent, and while the rate of heroin-related
charges was down 53 per cent, the rate of charges related to other
drugs was up 86 per cent. The biggest increase was in the rate of
counterfeiting, up 334 per cent.

The total number of crimes in those activities not regarded as
particularly serious, and those over which the police exercise the
greatest discretion in choosing to enforce-that is, drug-related
crimes, prostitution, disturbing the peace, bail-related crimes and
counterfeiting-went up from 200,000 in 1994 to nearly 500,000 in
2004. The number of crimes in those activities we take very
seriously, and those the police have little choice but to enforce and
fully investigate-such as murder and attempted murder, sexual assault
and other sexual offences, abduction, theft, and robbery-went down
from 34,000 in 1994 to just under 31,000 in 2004, despite the
increased population.

That is to say, in 1994, the ratio of non-serious crime to serious
crime, as enforced by police, was about six to one. By 2004, with
falling rates of serious crime but rising numbers of police, that
ratio ballooned to 16 to 1.

The extra 81 police officers and 46 administration staff both COPE
and NPA-dominated councils voted for the last two years is likely to
result only in more police enforcement in areas like prostitution,
counterfeiting and cannabis possession, to make up for the
inescapable fact that there is less for them to do in the serious
criminal areas like murder, sexual assault and abductions. Is this
necessary? Do Vancouverites want this vastly increased enforcement of
non-serious crimes, and should it necessitate a four per cent
property tax increase, massive cuts to arts funding, and other
draconian measures? I don't think so.