Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cmc t1_j9fy8rq wrote

Reply to comment by Informal_Bat_722 in 284 calls to 911 in 50 minutes? by expertinbirdlaw99

I can agree with a lot of what you're saying- obviously the city is failing and it needs to be fixed immediately, not have another round of reviews to have recommendations to be ignored. My point is- the actual system itself shouldn't be broken. Pretty much every other city of various sizes is able to run a publicly funded 911 dispatch system. NYC is doing it, Newark is doing it, Hoboken is doing it, etc etc. So...it can be done. It seems to me that this smells of corruption- refuse to fix the system (which is entirely fixable) so you can pay a private company to run it instead. And if I had to guess, all of our taxes will increase to cover this. And if I had to go out on a further limb, I suspect there will be shady connections between the private company that is awarded this contract and some higher-up government officials.

Privatizing public safety just seems gross to me. This is literally the bare minimum of what our tax dollars are supposed to be doing.

14

Informal_Bat_722 t1_j9g2jaf wrote

Yes, I agree that it shouldn't be broken but, unfortunately, this is not the issue that we're actively dealing with.

Something being fixable =/= the best approach forward. They would effectively have to recreate the wheel here, hire new people, allocate new resources, administer a robust training mechanism, provide routine audits to ensure everything is working correctly, engage on a software solution that speaks to the systems of the city, etc.

If you're talking about raising taxes, I would wager building an in-house solution is probably going to cost more and would raise our taxes, particularly because in-house solutions often have major pitfalls and may end up failing in the end.

For what it's worth- the company they were exploring, IXP, also handles it for other places in NJ and across the country.

Much of what you're saying is conjecture & assumptions, you may be right, but you may also be very wrong considering this isn't a company they're exploring that is brand new, built by Mayor Fulop's cousin. They have efficacy case studies that prove their effectiveness.

See here

>Privatizing public safety just seems gross to me.

Also, to this point, have you ever been on a college campus, a mall, or even a campus like corporate office? Privatized public safety isn't a new phenomenon. It's been around for decades.

If it works better (& it likely does) than what JC can provide, why shouldn't we explore this option?

−6

IC3POs t1_j9g5323 wrote

I mentioned it on my own comment earlier- but when Danbury CT went private - police officers had over 400 complaints against IXP within 18 months.. Look at other services the city has privatized that run less efficiently - JCMUA, Animal Control (Liberty Humane who are a pain to deal with) - and some garbage collection. Seems to me that the city would perfer to bust it’s near largest union. Public safety should remain that, public.

9

Informal_Bat_722 t1_j9g7t4y wrote

400 complaints over 18 months, 5 years ago vs 284 calls to 911 in 50 minutes, many of which went unresolved

idk, seems like some pretty easy math to me lol

Here's more on that company: https://www.ixpcorp.com/who-we-do-it-for/

1

IC3POs t1_j9g9kid wrote

I would think another issue to consider for JC 911, is the fact that our public safety employees aren’t being paid correctly even after the city spent over $1.3 million on a payroll system that isn’t working.

2

Informal_Bat_722 t1_j9gb60z wrote

Which corroborates my note that we should explore privatization because of how poorly JC handles both employee assets but also their own systems.

0

IC3POs t1_j9gbtm1 wrote

The new payroll system is a privatized company, that failed 4 pay periods since Jan. 6th to pay employees correctly. Cops, firefighters, dispatchers, etc.

4

Informal_Bat_722 t1_j9jvoko wrote

Do you work in the real world?

When there is an issue with ADP, Workday, Paychex, etc. that are all privatized SAAS payroll systems the control failure is on the company itself and how they instituted the software.

>He said the police had a number of special units that made use of a finger punch system, confusing the software since many officers were punching in from places other than those anticipated.

Source

This isn't an issue with the software, but how it was set up by Jersey City officials.

edit:

I further think you lack the wherewithal of reality to boast that something isn't working because of a handful of cases amongst tens of thousands of instances of it working properly, while all of these exceptions of it not working occurred at the onset of this software being implemented.

1

cmc t1_j9gge2y wrote

I disagree with almost everything you've said here, most especially using private security for small/private institutions as a comparison point for a 911 dispatch system which manages all public services for an entire city. This is, to me, apples and oranges.

2

Informal_Bat_722 t1_j9jv61h wrote

>small/private institutions as a comparison point for a 911 dispatch system

Virtually every university in America uses privatized security, including ones that have a larger footprint than most cities in America. Not sure if srs.

1

cmc t1_j9jvpwd wrote

There are 283k people in Jersey City. Please tell me of a university with that kind of enrollment.

1

Informal_Bat_722 t1_j9jw1ju wrote

Boston has 346k students, Philly has 342k students. Almost every college institution in America has privatized security. Ergo, all of these students are covered by privatized security.

edit-- mind you, this privatized security isn't EXCLUSIVELY for students but staff and others are covered as well

1

cmc t1_j9jx649 wrote

Ummm which Boston university has 346k students? Philly? Or are you counting every single student in the city, each in different institutions with different privatized security companies?

Anyway that's not my overall point- I don't personally (again- my opinion) believe that CITY SERVICES should be privatized. My opinion. Universities being used as a comparison point was as I said before- apples and oranges. We can keep going down this rabbit hole but as I said before, we're comparing a private institution with a city. And my actual overall point is there's a lot of corruption in JC government and money isn't being properly allocated, and it's (AGAIN MY OPINION) that this should be fixed rather than hired out. You're welcome to disagree. Cheers.

1

Informal_Bat_722 t1_j9k00w7 wrote

> Or are you counting every single student in the city, each in different institutions with different privatized security companies?

You objectively think that every single institution within one city limit all have different privatized security companies? Dude, come on..... at least try to be objective in this conversation.

>Universities being used as a comparison point was as I said before- apples and oranges

Okay, thanks for your opinion. IXP, the private company in discovery for this solution, also does work with college campuses

So weird how the same private security company provides the same, or similar solution, to different entities but because it doesn't fit your narrative you like to just gloss over it entirely.

>believe that CITY SERVICES should be privatized. My opinion.

Okay, and I agree in the case when city services are being handled effectively. But we can both agree that it is objectively not being handled effectively right now, and I would encourage you to do any semblance of research of what the lift would be (money, time, & personnel) to build and/or revitalize an in-house solution as compared to contracting it out.

The solution needs to happen NOW. Not in 3-4 years by the time they can get an in-house solution running effectively.

If JC had the wherewithal they could contract this out to IXP, spend those years gathering insights and then concurrently build their in-house solution.

>there's a lot of corruption in JC government and money isn't being properly allocated

This can be true AND it be true that JC doesn't have the wherewithal to handle this internally. This has been an ongoing problem for decades. This isn't going to be handled in-house overnight effectively, for the same reason you list.

But an accredited private organization that has independent case studies of its efficacy can and has worked in the past. Hard stop.

1

cmc t1_j9k0a5z wrote

A lot of the firm statements you're presenting as facts are your opinion. So I will just state that on my side, I am agreeing to disagree. You can continue to rant but we're going to keep our own perspectives at the end of the day so save yourself the time. Cheers.

1

Informal_Bat_722 t1_j9k0e7x wrote

Nice, another comment where you don't provide a substantive argument while also mischaracterizing my comments as "opinion" even though everything I've asserted is easily provable.

Enjoy your bubble.

1