|
What are We Signing Up for with Additional 9D Patrols?
Dear Editor:
On page 13 of the last issue of the PCNR appeared a single sentence describing potential additional police patrols of Route 9D, ostensibly to counter "traffic and safety problems caused by trucks using Route 9D." At the Public Hearing on the preliminary 2008 budget for Philipstown held on November 7, Supervisor Mazzuca indicated that the cost of this additional patrol would be $40,000 per year, and that these costs would be borne exclusively by those property owners of lands lying outside the two incorporated villages in town.
Area residents and taxpayers might rightfully ask a number of questions regarding the need for this appropriation, such as why taxpayers should suffer an additional tax levy (beyond that already collected) in order to obtain proper police protection for our town, or why such additional patrols are being considered for Route 9D when Route 9 is obviously the far more dangerous thoroughfare. But I asked myself a slightly different question, namely; under what statutory authority can a town request and obtain police protection, and how are such towns directed to levy and collect fees for such services? The answers to this question should concern every resident and taxpayer in Philipstown.
Sections 150 and 158 of Article 10 of NYS Town Law contain various provisions for the establishment of a town "police department" or of "special policemen" and designate how monies are to be raised for such services. However, for a variety of reasons (too numerous to mention), it does not appear that the Town Board intends to exercise its authority to provide for additional police protection under these statues.
Instead, it appears that the Town Board may be considering additional police protection under Section 209-f of Article 10 of the NYS General Municipal Law. This statute holds that "(w)henever the public interest requires it, the governor may..authorize and direct..the sheriff of a county..to detail, assign and make available for duty and use in any..town..requesting their aid." If operating under this statute, there are a number of implications that residents and taxpayers should be made aware of. One is that the sheriff may order any village, town, state park, or even MTA police force that operates in the county to perform the requested duties. A second is that any officer providing the requested aid shall not be "liable or accountable in any way" and instead, the town "shall assume the liability for all damages arising out of any act performed in rendering such aid." Additionally, it appears that costs, including damages, for such aid are to be assumed by the entire town, as there are no special provisions in this statute that sate otherwise. Lastly, "(m)anpower so furnished…may be deactivated by the chief executive officer thereof (our town supervisor) with the consent of the sheriff of the county in which it is located."
Is this really what we're signing up for?
R. Dushin
Garrison
| Click ads below
for larger version
|
