Letter To The Editor

Dear Editor,

I would like to clarify a few things for the anonymous poster who is a constant fountain of negativity.

Proposed New PD Building:
      Assessed value of the proposed new PD building:  $425,000.00 (from MD DAT website)

Everyone knows that assessed values are considerably lower than actual market values and that commercial property has not declined as much in value as has residential property.

      This building last sold for $560,000.00 in 2009 (from MD DAT website)

The proposed purchase price is $532,500.00, not $700,000.00 or $750,000.00 as posted by  “Anonymous the negative”.  We are proposing to borrow the additional money via a line of credit to facilitate remodeling that will be needed to make the building a functional police station.

The building is currently fully insulated and the insulation is in good condition.  The previous proprietor took very good care of the building and overall it is in excellent condition.  We know this because council members, the city manager, the police chief and the current and former mayor examined this building extensively, prior to starting our discussion regarding the acquisition of the property late last fall.  During remodeling, additional improvements will be made to enhance energy efficiency.  Has “anonymous the negative” ever inspected the building?

There is about one-half acre of additional parking in the compound behind the building.

Most of the above information was either available in the public records or was made public at the last council meeting.  As I mentioned in a previous post, there were no negative comments at that meeting.  Furthermore, every citizen that I have spoken with regarding this issue thinks it is a good idea and that it was about time we got the PD out of their substandard facility on Second St.

Cameras:
I know this is off the original thread of the conversation but I checked on this issue with Mr. Blake, when it was first raised last year.   Several cameras have been out of service at different times since installation, but only for a few days at a time.  One and only one camera was out of service for about a month due to issues with the contractor.  Mr. Blake finally advised the contractor that if they could not get any and all malfunctioning cameras back online within 48 hours, then we would find another contractor who could.  Since that time (which was last year) we have not had any further problems with extended outages.

Cameras are not turned off except when they are being serviced by the contractor.  It should also be pointed out that the cameras have been instrumental in solving several crimes and also saved the city from a lawsuit when a citizen erroneously reported that their car had been in a collision with a city vehicle.  A review of the camera data revealed that the accident was caused by a vehicle that was not owned by the city.

Just as a follow-up on this, I am going to check with the Chief to find out what the reliability percentage is for our cameras and how often they are serviced.

In the future, to save your readers time and to save space on your blog, I will not respond to posts that start out with opening lines such as “Have you heard…..” or “It has been reported that….”.  If readers wish to cite sources of information or offer proof, I will look into their concern, but I am not going to waste time on rumors, half-truths and innuendo.

Thank you for your consideration in these matters.
Sincerely,
Rob Clarke
Councilman, Dist. 5