Residents should oppose proposed ordinance changes
I am responding to the June 19 Sentinel news article with regard to the "False Alarm Ordinance" in South Brunswick.

I would urge the citizens of South Brunswick to request that their town council representatives deny the proposed ordinance changes introduced by the police chief and the police captain.

It appears that the salary statistics and logic that Capt. Harry Delgado uses to urge the passage of this ordinance is flawed and not accurate.

It was stated "each alarm takes 20 minutes of officer time and that two officers are sent on a house alarm call with costs ranging from $36 to $100 per alarm."

Doing the math, for one officer, that would range from $18-$50 for 20 minutes of work (on-the-clock time of one-third of an hour) or a range of $54-$150 per-hour for one patrol officer if that is converted to an "hourly pay rate." Given a 40-hour week and a 52- week year that would result in an annual salary range for a patrol officer of $112,320 to $312,000!

I think that Township Council should challenge Mr. Delgado to show the source of his "national figures" that he claims are "accurate," because I think that anyone would be hard-pressed to find a "patrol officer" earning a $312,000 salary unless maybe it were in LA or the South Bronx and included some form of "hazardous duty" bonus.

Mr. Delgado argues for the passage of the new "stiffer" alarm ordinance by arguing that the "injury risk" to his officers is "significantly" higher.

Since 94-98 percent of the alarms are false, according to Mr. Delgado, which falls in line with the national average, then the only "source" for this "increased risk of injury" would come from the "higher speed travel" in which the officer must engage to respond to the alarm call, since 98 percent of the time they find no bandit or thief that would pose a threat to the officers.

And therefore this "higher speed travel" is really no different than responding to a domestic dispute call or a traffic accident call since the sense of urgency is pretty much the same. So there really is no difference in the "injury risk" to a house alarm call as there is to any other call within the sphere of the officers responsibility, and they are trained professionals who are specifically trained to be able to handle a patrol car safely at a high speed and increased adrenaline flow during their response.

So I just don't see the logic or accuracy in the figures and argument that messengers Ray Hayducka and Delgado put forth to the Township Council to urge the passage of this stiffer alarm ordinance.

While Mr. Delgado "argues" about the "increased officer risk" in one breath and then states in the next breath "that if the alarms were real … we wouldn't be talking … it wouldn't be a problem" seems to suggest that Mr. Delgado is really less interested about any increased risk to his officers but disgruntled that they spend time, resources and adrenaline with nothing material to show for the time and effort expended. (No thief or bandit apprehended and no fines levied and collected.)

I believe that a property owner and/or resident appreciates the very valuable service that the police officers provide to act as their "eyes and ears" to check out the propertywhen an alarm ensues, whether there is forced entry or not, a very valuable "intangible" if not a "tangible" or "material" benefit.

Also, if the officers were not responding to a house alarm, they would still be "on the clock" for that shift and doing "routine patrols" and so there is really no increased cost to the township for an alleged false alarm with the exception that a portion of the townshipmay not get "routinely patrolled"!

Certainly routine patrols by police officers act to provide "safe communities" by showing an ever present "police presence" that acts to deter crime, and as residents we should do everything possible to make sure our alarms do not trigger falsely to deter that effort.

But fining a property owner for the first such false alarm is not the answer and will only act to trigger animosity between the police department and the citizens who employ them. Every alarm is made up of many components (door and window sensors and motion detectors and a central console) each with its own unique Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) specification. The failure of any component could potentially trigger a false alarm out of the homeowner's control.

Mr. Hayducka wanted "full discretion" over when to apply or not to apply fines, but this "power" would be ill-placed in the hands of a police officer, since his job is "law enforcement" and not one, which is either "legislative" or "judicial." And handing out summons for alarm first occurrence to 3,700 residents would only act to trigger 3,700 notguilty pleas and 3,700 more trial court cases for Judge Michael Dowgin to hear to add more burden to his already full daily court calendar.

Certainly the ordinance should be changed to add words like "with intent or effect to deter or impede the routine operation of the police department" and to make the false alarm ordinance an "intent crime," so that if a property owner lets his/her alarm go unchecked and/or unmaintained, over some period of time, then there will be more "bite" in the law to give the police the "probable cause" to make such a citation or summons and to give Judge Dowgin a basis for hearing such a claim by the police department function!

T. Frank Sever South Brunswick