© 1999- News-Register Publishing | © The Associated Press
The News-Register and NewsRegister.com are owned and operated by News-Register Publishing Co., P.O. Box 727, McMinnville, OR 97128.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The News-Register and NewsRegister.com are owned and operated by News-Register Publishing Co., P.O. Box 727, McMinnville, OR 97128.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Comments
Coco
I'm ok with this. Apply fees or alarm taxes is fine with me. If 15,000 a year is going to false business alarms, this seems like the easiest fix in the county.
Joel
Maybe I'm reading the story wrong...are they really saying that they want to hit businesses with a $20 per year permit fee just because they have an alarm system and even if they never have a false alarm? That doesn't sound right or fair. Sounds like the government though, always trying to find a way to pry into peoples wallets and slurp up more of our money. Oh but it's only the businesses that have to pay not private residents. Well guess who owns the businesses? Residents.
Hopefully I'm just reading the article wrong.
Joel
And how are they going to enforce the fines? To see first hand how effective fine enforcement has been just take a drive down Marsh Lane.
Joel
I feel for our business owners in McMinnville. This mayor and city council have been pretty hostile to them. Just in the last year they have come after their plastic bags, they've come after their signs and now they are coming after more of their money. Good grief, make you wonder what's next.
Mudstump
Joel, in every city I've lived in I"ve been required to obtain a permit for my residential alarm. It's a very good idea imo because the permit asks who to contact, the alarm monitoring company and all other pertinent information, rental/tenant info, etc.... If you want the police to be contacted by the monitoring company then you must have a permit. Otherwise, the response to your alarm will be from neighbors who hear it going off and call the police. There was a brief grace period for new alarms to give the owner/tenant time to figure the system out.
Mudstump
“When you install an alarm system, you are purchasing the privilege of being directly tied to the police department,” she said. “And when you abuse that privilege, there are consequences.”
It used to be a privilege to serve and protect. Now it's a privilege for us to be connected to the people we pay?
Trafik
If you have an alarm system and you use it as intended, keeping its parts maintained and its sensors clean, you should have no problem.
But if you’re a church, say, with 14 exterior doors and you can’t be bothered to check each one of those doors when you arm your security system after services and one or two of those doors have been opened by children who do not properly close them and, thus, your alarm sounds with mind-numbing and predictable frequency on Sunday afternoons / evenings, summoning police, who respond faithfully only to find it was, yet again a totally avoidable false alarm, you might now have to pay the city for the luxury of all this personal attention just because you don’t feel like checking a few perimeter doors. (Based on a true story.)
While some might feel this is unwarranted government persecution, I’m more inclined to say the church is abusing its access to public services to provide its security.
But that’s just me. I recognize that pesky things like plastic bags, ugly signs and constant false alarms are very popular here.
actionjax
It seems like a simple problem to solve one could simply put a fee/charge for those who ARE abusing the system at the time they abuse it rather than tax everyone but the Peralta's of the world have to infringe it's their character.
actionjax
It seems like a simple problem to solve one could simply put a fee/charge for those who ARE abusing the system at the time they abuse it rather than tax everyone but the Peralta's of the world have to infringe it's their character.
Trafik
I know Sal Peralta pretty well. It’s not Sal’s character to infringe, as you say, actionjax — I’m pretty sure Sal is inclined to let you do as you like, provided you’re not causing problems for other people or costing the city money because of your choices.
While it may not be Sal’s character to infringe, it’s absolutely his character to solve problems. Hence, when certain organizations cost the city money because they’re unwilling or unable to properly use their alarm systems, Sal looks to solutions. Unfortunately, such solutions also cost money so fees must be levied to cover these costs.
None of this would be necessary if certain chronic offenders could manage to use their alarm systems in a responsible manner — it’s not rocket science. Your anger should be directed at them, not a city councilor who’s trying to fix the problem.