Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

restricteddata t1_j9g2w9e wrote

I sent an e-mail to Fulop last weekend and did get a personal response, which I appreciated:

> We actually had a closed session two weeks ago with the city council as it is an extremely high priority - without getting too into it we had a proposal on this issue 9 months ago that the city council didn’t approve bc the existing dispatchers protested…. The meeting two weeks ago was pleading with the council that they need to consider the larger problem and I do believe they were receptive

> Here is an article and we explained to them then and again it has nothing at all to do with under staffing - I think they acknowledge that now: https://www.nj.com/hudson/2022/11/jersey-city-council-rejects-213k-contract-to-evaluate-citys-911-service-citing-understaffing-as-problem.html?outputType=amp

Which I haven't had the time to unpack or respond to, but I appreciated that the overall approach was in admitting the problem existed. I emphasized in my e-mail that this is the kind of basic service that, aside from its inherent value, would definitely play a factor in whether people with money would want to move here or buy a house here, so if they don't care about the actual lives at stake, they can think of the property values... I know, I know, a little craven, but I never assume a politician cares about lives.

Anyway, if you're mad about this (you should be), you should write to the mayor, to your councilperson, etc. Obviously your individual e-mails aren't going to make the difference, but there is a lot of evidence that a tide of individual, hand-written, real messages does make these people think that this is something people care about. That's the first step towards change.

11

Rube777 t1_j9k4zv9 wrote

How is Fulop claiming the problem isn’t understaffing? I’d like to hear his argument… the core of the problem is understaffing (and probably under paying… people not paid well don’t work so well)

1