Petitions.com
Browse Petitions Contact the petition author Contact Us Languages Manage your signatures Log in
Start a Petition

Preserve the Fair Haven Police Current Staffing Levels

Contact the author of the petition

Guest#1 Mar 24, 2014, 16:03
We need to keep our level of safety in our town for our children and elderly. We are not immune to the known heroin problem in Vermont.
Guest#2 Mar 24, 2014, 16:25
Some people don't seem to realize in order to have the help you need if you dial 911 that the service needs to be funded all the time. FHPD does an outstanding job obtaining grants that help off set costs. With the growing problems in our region we need to AT LEAST maintain what we have.
#3#3 Mar 24, 2014, 17:02
A nicely written piece with very valid points. The last thing area law enforcement should be doing is reducing their staffing. Gaps in service and coverage create opportunity for crime to grow. Fhpd needs to keep up the good work and current staffing allows that to happen.
Guest#4 Mar 24, 2014, 17:06
Let's keep our few good men and continue to be safely protected
Guest#5 Mar 24, 2014, 17:51
2007 funding of fourth full time officer voted down by the voters and taxpayers of fair haven 245for 367 no silent majority the board should have listened to them.
Guest#6 Mar 24, 2014, 18:12
Review salaries of other town employees... Preserve the police dept.
Guest#7 Mar 24, 2014, 18:38

Re:

#5: -

2007 was a different time.  We no longer just need to worry about the drunk drivers in town, as it appears that there is a personal issue between one select board member and the police force.  You broke the law, get over it.  Also, the watering holes in town need to think about others besides themselves.

Guest#8 Mar 24, 2014, 19:02
I have friends and family who work in fair haven, and have experienced many incidents of thief and damage to there vehicles and homes. Rutland is loaded with drugs and with less policing in this family friendly town could see much more drug activity with a smaller force.
Guest#9 Mar 24, 2014, 19:02
you dont ignore the march vote 2007 or any year thats the law.
Unreasonable.... I know#10 Mar 24, 2014, 19:52

I am ignorant but

I have to ask, would a reduction to the police budget automatically mean a reduction in police positions and or coverage? There are a number of part time officers who are paid by the town while attending trainings and certifications. Why? I don't see this topic being mutually exclusive to the amount of their budget vs the amount of coverage or staff that we are paying for. There are other ways the budget could be reduced without reducing coverage. Why is that not a topic being discussed?
sunnie1956#11 Mar 25, 2014, 15:11

Fair Haven Police Department

I am shocked at the thought of NOT having a Police Department in Fair Haven. I own a business in Fair Haven right on Main St. I am relieved to see the local Fair Police Department policing the area. We have the Fair Haven police driving through the area, checking the parks, talking to the people, driving back alleys and speaking with kids hanging out in town and we NEED them! What would happen to the "DRUG PROBLEM" ?? I feel great as a business because of the policing of the Fair Haven Department. Think again ... where would we be! Put all political bull aside and think of the people!!!!
a voter#12 Mar 25, 2014, 16:25

Re: Re:

#7: - Re:

There is no different from 2007 - 2014 it just people see it more. Its not a personal issue when someone stand up for what he thinks is right. The Town voted down a four police office because we're a small town with a Big Police Budget. We have 4 full time officer, 10 part time. and two constable. Its not the watering holes that vote it the people and how many time do we have to said No-No- No

Guest#13 Mar 25, 2014, 16:52

Re: Re: Re:

#12: a voter - Re: Re:

This is absolutely a personal issue.  We didn't have the drugs and crime issues in 2007 that we have now.  Wake up.  We are the corridor for drug trafficking.  The only reason the police force is being targeted is because a certain select board member was pulled over for a DUI by our current chief of police and therefore has a vendetta.  Everybody knows it, including his cronies.  The intelligent people in Fair Haven need to stand up and not let the town be run by personal agendas.

Guest#14 Mar 25, 2014, 17:47

Re: Re: Re: Re:

#13: - Re: Re: Re:

in 2007 that dui had not happened yet but 367 people of fair haven voted no to the fourth full time officer what is so hard to understand?

 

a voter#15 Mar 25, 2014, 18:28

#13: - Re: Re: Re:

Its easy to  put someone down my saying it a personal issue, But he is not the only one that is saying it. Do you real thing Fair Haven Police will stop the Drug war ??? Do you thing by pay more taxes. That will happen. What your personal issue?A intelligent person will not be so vendetta.

Guest#16 Mar 25, 2014, 20:23

Re: Re: Re: Re:

#13: - Re: Re: Re:

get your facts right it was not the chief

guest#17 Mar 25, 2014, 21:28
Time has changed. I believe the Select board needs to be changed. This is 2014 and things change everyday. 10 years ago things where cheaper and the drug problem was no where close to where it is now. I mean we didn't hear about it. We didn't hear about a lot of things. Now we hear about everything. Nothing is a secret with our social media network. So why would you cut our police force? How about it some people take pay cuts? Oh wait that means you will make less money. If our select board cared about the people in this town this would not be where you should cut back.
Tiny One#18 Mar 26, 2014, 13:29

Re: 2007 Vote

Yes a few people who did not have a clue voted against police protection. What is not being said is the 4th officer ballot item was defeated by 122 votes. It is also not being said that only 612 Fair Haven residents out of more than 1,600 registered voters actually cast a ballot. That is less than half of the voters in Fair Haven 

 

Guest#19 Mar 26, 2014, 13:36

#1: -

the fair haven voters voted down the 4th officer by over 122 votes we don t need 4 full time officers and 14 part time  to take care of our town we only have about 2600 people in town we only have 28 miles of roads i don t think we need 6 or 7 cars to take care of the town there is alot of places where this budget could be cut also if our police stayed in town it would save alot by the way we don t get any payback from these towns the tax payers of fair haven pay the bill   guest

Guest#20 Mar 26, 2014, 16:22

Re: Re: 2007 Vote

#18: Tiny One - Re: 2007 Vote

is there any difference from other votes i dont think so the majority

Guest#21 Mar 26, 2014, 16:38

Re: Re: 2007 Vote

#18: Tiny One - Re: 2007 Vote

of the 612 that voted over 60per cent voted no and you say they didnt have a clue i think they most certainly did

Guest#22 Mar 27, 2014, 17:16
The police department/law enforcement is NOT an area where budgets should be getting cut! Hopefully town officials will become more creative and not consider to jeopardize our community and our youth in reducing the amount of law enforcement support Fair Haven currently gets. Without it, Fair Haven can go the wrong way in a hurry. When that happens, good families & HOME OWNERS usually look to move elsewhere for a better valued community.
Guest#23 Mar 27, 2014, 18:25

Re:

#22: -

the taxpayers voted down the budget every part of it needs to be looked at .the police budget has grown over 10 years more than any the board would not be responsable if they did not consider redusing it.it is very doable to reduce that budget withoutreducing coverage.stay in town limit use and number of vehicles use more part time officers.towns of similar size and road milage seem to do it? management?

#24#24 Mar 28, 2014, 16:16

WHERE WERE THEY!!! I am a registered voter. I voted NO to the budget (including another officer). When I put in my first ever 911 call for assistance it took FOUR hours for an officer to show.  Now you are probally thinking, that shows we need another officer.  NO! We don't need to pay for one more officer who can't get where they are needed in a timely manner.

Tiny One#25 Mar 28, 2014, 17:33

Re:

#9: -  

 Better read you law again.