Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Savage Love Letter of the Day | Young Voters Are Energized »

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Rent-A-Cop

posted by on January 10 at 14:03 PM

After a supposedly dramatic increase in attempted home break-ins, car thefts and vandalism, neighbors in Laurelhurst have banded together to hire their own private police force.

In November, the Laurelhurst Community Council (LCC) sent letters to neighbors, asking them to pay a $200 subscription fee to hire an off-duty officer—at $40 and hour—to patrol the neighborhood five days a week. LCC President Jeannie Hale says she was hoping to get at least 40 neighbors to sign up. However, nearly twice as many Laurelhurst residents subscribed to the service, and Hale says she’s looking at expanding the pilot program, which was originally planned to go from Thanksgiving through Martin Luther King Jr. Day. “If we did this neighborhood wide, the cost would go down substantially,” Hale says.

According to the Seattle Police Department’s 2007 crime statistics, Laurelhurst had 2 robberies, 10 assaults, 23 burglaries, 32 auto thefts, 113 thefts and no arsons, rapes or murders.

By comparison, North Ballard—a considerably smaller census tract—had a higher number of burglaries, assaults and auto thefts with 3 robberies, 23 assaults, 52 burglaries, 53 auto thefts, 114 thefts and no arsons, rapes or murders.

“Maybe we don’t have the prostitutes like on aurora or the [stabbings] and crime like in the University District,” Hale says,” but this is grave concern to our neighbors.”

Hale says SPD regularly only has one officer patrolling Laurelhurst—where the median home price is $600,000, well over the city average of just under $380,000—and its surrounding neighborhoods, and that officer often gets called to deal with hijinks on Frat Row.

Now, several off duty officers—one of them an SPD detective—do house checks when paying neighbors are out of town, and put delivered packages out of view. However, moochers who refuse to pay for the service will still be covered. “If the officers see any suspicious activity, they won’t just let crime happen,” Hale says.

Indeed, Laurelhurst’s police team is already investigating one big case. “We had one evening where we had 5 car break-ins within a half a block,” Hale says. “Someone was having a big party and had valet service and we thought the kids parking the cars might have had something to do with [the break-ins].”

Felons beware. Laurelhurst won’t be easy pickings like it used to.

RSS icon Comments

1

“If the officers see any suspicious activity, they won’t just let crime happen,” Hale says.

Right, 'cause a little "something extra" in that off-duty cop's pocket apparently insures better service than the rest of us are likely to get while (s)he's on-duty.

Posted by COMTE | January 10, 2008 2:15 PM
2

I was all set to get all outraged about them having to pay extra for someone to do the job the cops are already supposed to be doing. And then I realized that SPD has a few more important things to do than worrying about somebody's Beemer being vandalized.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 10, 2008 2:17 PM
3


This is typical of the elitist behavior from that neighborhood - these are the same folks constantly bitching about Children's Hospital and the University being an imposition - as if the Hospital and University hadn't been there before any of them bought houses. They're too good to have to deal with the same growth happening throughout Seattle and constantly use the average cost of their homes to justify the special treatment their connections and wealth allow them.


Posted by Upper Middle Class | January 10, 2008 2:17 PM
4

OH NOES CRIME IN LAURELHURST!?!?

please. I lived there for 11 years and NEVER locked the doors and no one looted our house. In fact, at one point we left the front door open for a week while we were gone and nothing was stolen. Besides, the kind of assholes who'd steal from the Laurelhurst neighborhood are the kinds of assholes that live there.

Posted by Slartibartfast | January 10, 2008 2:23 PM
5

Can anyone describe to me the difference between a robbery and burglary? I kinda thought the were the same thing ... ?

Posted by for reals | January 10, 2008 2:26 PM
6

According to SPD, robbery is when someone takes something off of your person. Like a mugging or pickpocketing, I guess.

Posted by Jonah S | January 10, 2008 2:33 PM
7

What if I don't take it? What if I STEAL it? Is that still robbery?!?!?!?

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 10, 2008 2:35 PM
8

Actually, you can break into a building and not do a damn thing and it's still burglary. Learned that the hard way. Ooops.

Posted by heywhatsit | January 10, 2008 2:39 PM
9

Theft is just plain stealing something.
Robbery is taking through force or the threat of force. Think getting robbed on the street.
Burglary is unlawfully entering a premisise (read: building/structure) with the intent to commit a crime against a person or property (doesn't have to be with the intent to steal).

Posted by Gidge | January 10, 2008 2:41 PM
10

Psh. "Breaking and entering" should have anything to do with burglary. That isn't fair. What if that's all I want to do? Just bust into your house and chill. I shouldn't be charged with burglary. That's insane!

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 10, 2008 2:41 PM
11

*shouldn't. Fuck!

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 10, 2008 2:41 PM
12

@3: Remember when Children's first announced their recent expansion plans? Not only did the Laurelhurst neighbors whine, but they also tried to tell us that they WERE NOT the rich spoiled brats everyone accused them of being.

This just goes to show: ARE TOO!

Posted by Tlazolteotl | January 10, 2008 2:57 PM
13

My favorite part of the private police service is: "While families are away, notified officers would do a search of your premises each shift. They would put any delivered packages out of sight"

http://www.laurelhurstcc.com/issues/Crime/PolicePilot112007.htm

Will they also remind Children's to close their blinds at night so no unnecessary light reaches the precious single family homes?

Posted by Jeannie Hale Fan Club | January 10, 2008 3:05 PM
14

Doesn't this mean some SPD detectives will be tired and do a lower quality job as a result of this?

Seriously.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 10, 2008 3:16 PM
15

Some animals are more equal than others.

Posted by Zander | January 10, 2008 3:29 PM
16

someone breaks into my car outside my house in view ridge regularly & takes everything they can. it sucks. i assume they're larking middle schoolers, but i'd like to break their necks just the same.

why do you give 2 shits about laurelhurst's private patrol if you don't live there? this doesn't harm you in any way.

Posted by max solomon | January 10, 2008 3:30 PM
17

“Maybe we don’t have the prostitutes like on aurora or the [stabbings] and crime like in the University District,” Hale says,” but this is grave concern to our neighbors.”

I'm kind of wondering what he had said instead of "stabbings"

Posted by w7ngman | January 10, 2008 3:43 PM
18

she said knifings, which isn't really a word, so I fixed it.

Posted by Jonah S | January 10, 2008 4:15 PM
19

Simple @16, as I stated in my initial comment, this gives the appearance that, if you want the POLICE to actually DO SOMETHING about CRIME in YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, you have to HIRE them for extra off-duty hours, which basically translates as: "rich people in exclusive neighborhoods, where residents can afford to pay for extra-duty policing, get a better level of police protection than do people elsewhere, who just have to rely on police doing their jobs while they're on-duty".

Posted by COMTE | January 10, 2008 5:01 PM
20

They hired patrols FIVE nights a week, eh? Hmmm....

Posted by Dougsf | January 10, 2008 5:15 PM
21

@ #5

That's a common misperception.

Burglary is entering a private location illegally in the commission of a felony. You do not have to take anything of value to commit burglary. Just being there you are in deep shit.

Posted by Reality Check | January 10, 2008 5:20 PM
22

Folks who've studied such thingies say that an unexpected, sustained spike in petty crime is what economists call a leading economic indicator. When I was a Cap Hill child in the 70s we had burglaries galore just before the Boeing recession hit. I've read Magnolia's up in arms right now about its own petty-crime wave.

Posted by tomasyalba | January 10, 2008 5:41 PM
23

Why be pissed off? Because everyone in this fucking city is supposed to be served equally well by SPD, and as it is, race and class already warp law enforcement, and hearing about some rich fuckers ponying up for special patrols when I have to call 911 at least once a month because there are fucking crack dealers shooting each other in my formerly quiet, middle class neighborhood pisses me off.

If off duty officers are going to earn more money while in uniform, they shouldn't be pimping themselves out to the highest fucking bidder. The city should be giving them overtime to go where they're most needed, and quite frankly, having cops keep people from getting shot in my neighborhood is a hell of a lot more important than making sure some asshole's package doesn't get stolen.

Posted by Gitai | January 10, 2008 9:42 PM
24

Where did you get this stat? 'well over the city average of just under $380,000'
I'm looking for a house right now and this is not the city average. Not at all. it's much higher.
In fact, the average price of a home in King County is over $400,000.
Eh! Why sweat the details? it's just reporting.

Posted by whatevs | January 10, 2008 11:14 PM
25

Ah, once again, by having a nice house, one become's an evil asshole. I'm curious. At what value does one's home put him into the evil category? Is it 500k? Or is there a graded scale? If someone's house is worth 750k, are they more evil than someone whose house is worth 700k?

Posted by curious | January 11, 2008 9:36 AM
26

"she said knifings, which isn't really a word..."

It's not?

Posted by duh | January 11, 2008 10:31 AM
27

@23: would you feel better if they hired security guards who were not off-duty cops?

i think it is sad when any neighborhood is not safe. i do have more a problem with "rich" people insulating themselves from crime (renters, people of different races, and those who earn significantly less money), creating neighborhoods that are less safe and perpetuate problems.

but if they want to pay to stop petty crimes because the resources are actually being spent on areas with actual crimes, they are not taking away resources from other neighborhoods.

or am i missing something?

Posted by infrequent | January 11, 2008 12:24 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).