Taking down the gates

[Creative]

I see on rm.com the proposal to take down the gates. Yea good luck with that.

[NoWay]

The quote by John Sullivan is very deceiving

By dividing the population of the county by the number of deputies, Sullivan determined Rancho Murieta should have the services of three deputies around the clock.

The Sheriff determines where officers patrol based on where there are problems not based on population. Based on the number of problems out here we would not get a single officer around the clock.

If I get my say which who knows if I will. I don't want the gates to come down and turn RM into a public place. If that were to occur I would move as soon as the housing market returns.

[Wilbur]

Nobody is seriously "proposing" that the gates come down. We discussed, as briefly noted in Karen's coverage, that the gate is much beloved by residents. In broaching the "taboo" topic of living without a gate I referred to it as "the third rail" and said if we're going to dance on that rail at all (we were discussing the substantial savings which could be recouped by using mechanized gates) let's go all the way and address the fact that the one biggest obstacle to shifting RMA's very substantial road maintenance and parks maintenance costs to CSD, and getting a big tax savings thereby, is that we have gates.

I knew I was speaking the unspeakable. John Sullivan swiftly stated something to the effect of hey, as the developer rep I just want to say I'm not proposing doing away with having a gate, and I said neither am I. But as much as the residents feel good about the gates, I'm not sure they understand what a substantial portion of their monthly payments goes into them and if we're assigning dollar costs to things the total cost of maintaining staffed gates, or gates at all, should be explored.

Nobody in the room suggested that tearing the gates down was a realistic proposal. The committee's job is to identify the issues, line up the possibilities and try to pencil out the economic consequences of various alternative ways of providing services to this community.

It's a "what if" project. No need to light the torches just yet.

[Wilbur]

The subcommittee for which Sullivan was reporting had done an analysis of the County budget. The comment was that if you divide out the number of deputies, total county population, our zip's population, you come out with about a dozen deputies, which would staff a 24/7x3 presence. But it was recognized that we're not getting that attention because the real crimes are occurring elsewhere.

We're doing numbers. Numbers nobody's ever put in a pile before.

Many times it's been said that RM doesn't get its fair share of what it pays into the county coffers. Numbers get thrown around. We're trying to come up with real numbers.

Relax. This is Rancho Murieta. Nothing is going to happen in a hurry, and this being Rancho Murieta, there's a fair chance nothing's going to happen, period.

[scatter]

The entire story is about public funds and the only way to get public funds is to take down the gates. I believe what you are saying Wilbur, but reading the article I am left with the feeling that this option was more than "briefly noted". Looks like this is being discussed as a real option. If that is not the case then the article just hurt the perception of this committee.

[DBCooper]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

Relax. This is Rancho Murieta. Nothing is going to happen in a hurry, and this being Rancho Murieta, there's a fair chance nothing's going to happen, period.

Well put.

[Wilbur]

It was the most radical thing said in a very boring 2-3 hour meeting, so it gets the press. It consumed all of about 5 minutes of that long boring meeting. I just threw it out there because I believe that if we're going to say we're reviewing all of the numbers and all of the options no sacred cow should be exempt from the what ifs. But everybody is well aware that, whether or not they realize how little the gates actually add to security (our criminals all pretty much reside within or manage to clear our existing entry system), the members place a very high value on having those manned gates. But IMO if the inquiry we're engaged in is serious, rather than avoid taboo topics, we should identify and report out the true costs of doing all things the way we do them now and the economic consequences of identified alternatives.

About 2/3 of your Security tax goes to manning the gates; what other security measures could be funded -without additional costs - by using those dollars on expanded patrol and/or security systems?

[DBCooper]

And you know how we take care of our sacred cows out here.

[scatter]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

It was the most radical thing said in a very boring 2-3 hour meeting, so it gets the press.

A news organization sensationalizing the news? Say it isn't so! Thanks for clearing up what really occurred.

[Wilbur]

I don't think Karen covered it unfairly; it is the most provocative thing mentioned, which is fair game, and she does mention a couple of times its tentative "what if" nature. I knew when I said it that it would likely provoke a stir, but I think things are better said and explained than regarded off limits from discussion.