LETTER: Regional policing is costly
On Nov. 10, I had the pleasure of attending the York Township Commissioners meeting. During that meeting, several commissioners encouraged the attendees to write a letter to our representatives about regional policing. The commissioners were concerned several boroughs are withdrawing from regional policing agreements and going to state police for coverage.
As a taxpayer residing in York Township, I pay for state police protection, the county sheriff to provide his duties and regional policing provided by York Township. I also pay for a republican state senator, a republican representative, republican township commissioners and a school board who I think the majority is republican. All of these representatives are the government who help provide laws and regulate the environment in which the residents live.
I find it distressing we now have a police officer/resource officer in our high school and a police officer at all township commissioner meetings. It's distressing because I have to pay extra taxes to pay for these additional police officers. Has our quality of life in York Township deteriorated that much we need extra policing in these places? What benefit do I receive from this practice? If we take officers from the street and use them at the direction of dominate local authorities why should a small borough or municipality participate?
It is obvious those boroughs thinking about withdrawing from regional policing understand the battles we all have with budgets and income; however, several local large townships do not. Regional policing has benefits, but those benefits cost money in the form of taxes and it seems the police are being used at the direction of local officials for their benefit instead of in general community service.