3 ms·
I agree that a single data point like this doesn't provide useful intuition about whether the police are overfunded; I believe they generally are but that's bas
by kalkin 4y ago
I agree that a single data point like this doesn't provide useful intuition about whether the police are overfunded; I believe they generally are but that's based on what they do (and don't do) with the funding they have.
If you want to boil the current funding in a city down to one number, though, I don't think there's an obviously better one. You can add the school district and utility district to the denominator, the school district police to the numerator, the county sheriffs to both, etc, but you'll have to draw a line somewhere and there's likely to be some arbitrariness. Where do you put the DA's office? How do you think about tax funds which are funneled up to the state and feds but then back down in more or less localized ways (including e.g. grants to police or other city programs)? How do you think about payments on one-off referendum-authorized bonds, or the Port of Los Angeles budget? Maybe you could show me that all of these questions have either clearly right answers or don't affect the numbers enough to matter, but extrapolating from what I remember from spending some time digging into the Oakland budget a few years ago, I'm skeptical.
- tptacek 4y agoI don't think it's arbitrary at all. Just look at the tax breakdown for a Los Angeles resident --- there's a bunch of places to get it (every metro area publishes them! they're like the receipt for your property taxes!). Once you have the relative numbers, you can back out what it means for X% of the city general fund to go to the police. Of course, schools are so expensive, whatever X% is, the real number will be <(X/2)%.