Linda Hepner Absolves Herself of Mayoral Responsibility

[The_Animal]

http://www.news1130.com/2015/04/09/i...rey-shootings/

by Sonia Aslam

Posted Apr 9, 2015 12:06 pm PDT

Last Updated May 3, 2015 at 7:34 am PDT

Did we elect a joke into office as Surrey Mayor?

“I am not the sheriff. I can’t do more than that which we are doing, which is getting those police on the ground, responding to the events, and actually doing some significant preventative work,” says Hepner.

As a Surrey resident, I'm not impressed by the Surrey mayor's remarks. Not that I feel 100 more officers would do any more to curb the violence in the city. But saying that "I'm not the sheriff..." is stepping away from the responsibility that is required in a situation where the safety of the city's citizens are threatened by gang violence.

What significant preventative work has the Surrey RCMP done other than to send fifteen squad cars running up and down King George and down 96th Avenue every day for the past month and a half. It seems like every other day we hear news of yet another shooting.

It's getting crazy out here in Surrey...and we seem to have a no-load mayor that was elected into office on a sham-promise to put LRT into effect by 2018. How gullible were those who voted for Surrey First?

[queetz@home]

Technically she is right, but she should have not said anything like that. Its all bad optics but at the end of the day, crime is police jurisdiction. The only thing the mayor can do is find ways to ensure police presence is increased, but not actually fight crime herself. That said, a mayor could at least present herself as a crime fighting mayor, essentially making speeches and photo ops, ala Rudy Giuliani when crime was rampant in NYC.

As for the "sham LRT", let me remind people that all three mayoral candidates was for the LRT, so you can't really single out Hepner in that one. It also makes me question the motives of anyone posting about her non-issue comments, even if its just bad optics. After all, I did not see the name of Darryl De La Cruz in that ballot box if Skytrain was the sole determining factor on who should be mayor.

At the end of the day, its a lesser of evils when it comes to Surrey's mayoral candidates. I'd rather Hepner be the mayor than that ugly little troll that is Doug McCallum. If Dougie was the mayor, my goodness Surrey will really be far far far worse than what it already is. After alll, Doug McCallum is the reason why Surrey is "bad" at the first place!

[city-dweller]

I thought this post would be about her wanting to lower the tolls on the PMB while the Pat Bridge is getting major retrofit next year.

[Steveston]

Much ado about nothing.

A 'rookie mistake' by a new Mayor.

And, while she's right that she's not the sheriff, she could have made the statement with a bit more diplomacy. On the other hand, if she had made all sorts of pronouncements about what she was going to do about the situation, the Chief Superintendent of the RCMP would probably not be too pleased.

Given that the next election isn't for 3 1/2 years, I don't think this will have much of an impact on the next campaign.

[TourOdeon]

Linda Hepner is nowhere as good as Dianne Watt... Dianne had been the key factor in driving developments in Surrey Central. There hasnt been any major developments since Linda took over.

[WarrenC12]

Should make for an interesting campaign with Watts running for the CPC in the area.

This recent crime rash in Surrey could be partially traced back to chronic under-investment in policing and security during Watts' time in office, in order to keep taxes low.

[xd_1771]

When you think about it, crime is far from the top of Hepner's priority list which seems to be more oriented around hiding the city's negative image (with the promotion of vibrancy, etc), so that the big-money private developers that pay fees, and make up for the low property tax rates, don't stop coming.

Most people seem to have forgotten this, but Hepner denied Surrey's crime problem in public debate back during the elections. Honestly if the word got out more (a well-positioned TV ad, more clamours in the blogosphere) I think this could've killed off a significant portion of her vote. Obviously someone needs to call her out on it, but I find any opposition this city has had to offer is lacking in strength these days.

• Video Link

[WarrenC12]

Dianne Watts had a long history of low taxes and trying to promote business in the city. That can only last so long before something gives. Now there's open gang warfare in the streets and the RCMP are struggling to catch up.

I will be more interested to see how this reflects back on Watts as she tries to get a Conservative seat in the upcoming federal election.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Dianne Watts had a long history of low taxes and trying to promote business in the city. That can only last so long before something gives. Now there's open gang warfare in the streets and the RCMP are struggling to catch up.

I don't see what one has to do with the other.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Jebby

I don't see what one has to do with the other.

The police have been understaffed. They couldn't keep track of that sex offender that was released into the community and now they can't get a handle on this shooting spree.

I'm not trying to defend the RCMP, just a general statement on the policing budget in Surrey.

[TourOdeon]

On the other news, the City of Richmond doesnt even know what to do with the windfall from the River Rock casino

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by The_Animal

As a Surrey resident, I'm not impressed by the Surrey mayor's remarks. Not that I feel 100 more officers would do any more to curb the violence in the city.

Are the extra officers permanent? I was under the impression Surrey wasn't paying for them, and that it is presumably a strategic gift ahead of the federal election.

Surrey is in a tough spot. On the one hand keeping taxes low today has been the priority at the expense of every other livability concern. On the other hand it is the reception point for many poor and stressed migrants where crime by neglected male youths would be an expected consequence.

Ideally Vancouver should spur on building more units faster to do something about high land prices which are the primary economic impediment, Surrey should focus on increasing spending to improve livability so that there are people walking on sidewalks perhaps to a local bus which takes them to their local job, and other regional cities like Burnaby permit some social services and social housing to lighten the load. We can't win the race by competing against each other.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by Genauso

Are the extra officers permanent? I was under the impression Surrey wasn't paying for them, and that it is presumably a strategic gift ahead of the federal election.

Surrey is in a tough spot. On the one hand keeping taxes low today has been the priority at the expense of every other livability concern. On the other hand it is the reception point for many poor and stressed migrants where crime by neglected male youths would be an expected consequence.

Ideally Vancouver should spur on building more units faster to do something about high land prices which are the primary economic impediment, Surrey should focus on increasing spending to improve livability so that there are people walking on sidewalks perhaps to a local bus which takes them to their local job, and other regional cities like Burnaby permit some social services and social housing to lighten the load. We can't win the race by competing against each other.

Surrey is paying for them. The feds don't "gift" RCMP.

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Surrey is paying for them. The feds don't "gift" RCMP.

If this was a regular budgeted plan, it would be 30% Feds and 70% Surrey for special officers.

But this was a Harper Government only press conference, so it seems they are taking care of it inside their budget and it will be up to Surrey whether they want to extend the extra officers into the next budget by paying their 70% share.

[SFUVancouver]

Do municipalities that have their own police departments receive money from the Federal government to cover part of the annual budget?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Surrey is paying for them. The feds don't "gift" RCMP.

They were also a municipal election promise.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by Genauso

If this was a regular budgeted plan, it would be 30% Feds and 70% Surrey for special officers.

But this was a Harper Government only press conference, so it seems they are taking care of it inside their budget and it will be up to Surrey whether they want to extend the extra officers into the next budget by paying their 70% share.

My understanding is the press conference simply confirmed that Ottawa approved their portion of the funding for the cops, which is 30%. The only new money was the $3 million for youth outreach. It's all just politics anyways as the Tories want to be seen as doing something for the area to help with voting in the Fall.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Do municipalities that have their own police departments receive money from the Federal government to cover part of the annual budget?

No, which is why many munis stay with the RCMP despite all the structural challenges of paying for a police force with no ability to manage or oversee them.

[Windex]

Well, I suppose it's the logical result of low taxes over everything else. You get what you vote for, Surrey.

[GMasterAres]

Meh you guys miss the mark as always in these forums. The Police aren't the issue, the issue is the courts. These people are all well known to Police meaning they have a long sheet and have been arrested numerous times.

There are just too many ways for defense to fight or get thrown out any evidence even if for ridiculous "technical" reasons. We've hamstrung the Police and judicial system by making it that even with video evidence you pretty much need someone to plead guilty for a court case to take less than a year start to finish. Even then, 260 of 298 people charged in the Stanley Cup riots pleaded guilty and yet it still took most of them 3-4 years to go through the system and over $51,000 in taxpayer money per person. That's $13+ million dollars not going to a lot of other things in this Province.

Happens all the time. We could put 10,000 cops on the streets, if the courts don't put these people into jail, it won't make a difference.

Our problem is the courts not Police. That goes for every city. Heck that's why the VPD don't bother arresting anyone for pot anymore. The courts stopped doing anything about it so they just said "ok we won't waste our time arresting them or enforcing the laws in Canada."

From 2013 but it could be 2007 or 2015: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...se-in-evidence

So why increase our property tax drastically in Surrey just to hire a pile more cops if all they'll accomplish is adding more charges to gangsters that already have mile long criminal records and will still be out on the streets shooting at each other while they wait for their next court date in 2027 (or even not have one since it is impossible to make any evidence stick).

My only solution unfortunately is to pay for all these gangsters to go get shooting lessons so instead of "attempted murder" they actually hit each other and reduce the population count. Let them all shoot each other and the dozen left standing after they bump each other off can then be rounded up and sent to Siberia.