The Greenfield mayor’s 2023 capital budget once again includes $1.9 million for police station upgrades. The plan is more detailed this time but still includes questionable, expensive items, at a time when existing commitments like the fire station are running well over their budget (projected $5 million overrun–expect to hear requests for donations to make up the shortfall). See below for more information on the police station upgrades.

Please let your councilors know what your priorities are. We suggest:

• Rein in excessive spending on the police station. Take care of needs, but no spending on luxury items. Reduce the allocation for these upgrades.
• Prioritize instead urgent needs like building affordable housing; repairing ailing town buildings such as the Sanderson Street complex and various schools; and environmental cleanup at the Lunt property, which affects our neighbors staying in the residential detox facility on-site as well as neighboring homes.

The Ways & Means Committee meets April 7 (6pm) to discuss the entire capital budget, but there’s no time for public comment–email or call councilors on W&M before the meeting. The full council will vote to approve, amend, or deny capital budget line items at their April 20 meeting (normally 6:30pm, check closer to the date in case they start early). Join the meeting to share your public comment.

---

Details & back story

After public outcry last year, the City Council voted down a vague proposal to spend $5 million over 3 years to upgrade the Greenfield police station. The mayor’s budget this year includes $1.9 million for the same upgrades.

The mayor and GPD have a preliminary plan for the upgrades written by Pacheco-Ross, the architects hired to build the fire station. Interested residents can view the plan here online. We appreciate the detail provided in this plan and discussion of the known problems with moisture incursion. However, the basic repairs and reconfigurations of the structure make up only a small part of the proposal costs.

The basic repairs proposed are 1) providing dispatch operators enough space to work comfortably by moving a wall and expanding the dispatch room; 2) fixing moisture incursion from the up-hill side of the building. Together these make up only $290k of the proposal.

Most of the $1.9 million estimated cost comes from two questionable items:

1) Replacing the sally port, estimated cost $980k. A large part of the plan (almost $1m) involves replacing the sally port, which is the garage and entrance to the station where arrested individuals are taken into custody. The current sally port is a metal shed, and the police are storing some evidence there. The Chief has primarily complained that it has a leaky roof and cannot protect evidence from the weather.

As councilors pointed out, this is a very large proposed expense. According to Councilor Desorgher’s research, the New Bedford police department–a much larger department than Greenfield’s–just built a new sally port for $500k last year, almost half the cost of the proposed GPD sally port. Even last spring, the Chief’s estimate for a new sally port was only $290k. But the proposed new sally port is not just a sally port: it is three bays instead of just one, and two of those are “wash bays” for washing police cruisers. Additionally, this carwash + sally port will be built out of brick.

Our questions:

• Why does the GPD need its own car wash, when it is mere steps away from a public car wash on High St.?
• Why does the sally port need to be built out of brick when other materials are much less expensive, and the police station is probably going to be replaced in the not too distant future?
• Why does evidence need to be stored inside the sally port, necessitating a larger and more substantial structure? A much more economical storage option which many businesses use is a shipping container–easy to secure, easy to protect from the weather.

2) Repaving and reconfiguring the parking lot, estimated cost $700k. There are two operational/safety concerns mentioned as justification for reconfiguring the parking lot: first, that the current exit onto High St. has poor visibility and should be made safer; and second, that currently there is no separation between police cruiser traffic and the general public traffic in the parking lot. The spending proposal includes milling, repaving, and repainting lines for a new configuration, with some regrading of the exit onto High St. But the plan also includes significant curb creation and landscaping (trees and bushes). How much of a budgetary priority is it to tear up existing asphalt to plant trees in this lot, when our town has other urgent needs?

The school district has requested a mere $250k total to repave the lot at Federal Street School, which is about half the size of the GPD lot. Paving work is quoted on a per-square-foot basis. As a town, do we want to spend an extra $200k of our borrowing on making a parking lot fancy, rather than just functional?

What’s missing in this proposal?

Future costs. The membrane roof on the police station was installed in 2009 and is approaching end of life. Chief Haigh has commented repeatedly on water incursion from the roof, but there is no line in this proposal for roof repair or replacement in this plan. We can expect that additional expense to be coming soon, and we should be budgeting for it now.

The police station is an old building, and we should not throw good money after bad. The consensus has been that the police station building is old and far from ideal for its purpose. Because plans for the new public safety complex fell through, GPD has proposed a number of renovations and repairs in order to get more use out of the building, as well as to make it safer and more usable for the public and for the people who work in it. As we said last year, we agree that we should maintain town property, and we should definitely make sure town employees have safe and healthy work environments.

We disagree that we should spend our town’s limited funds on expensive upgrades, especially to a building which will have to be replaced in the not-too-distant future. The fire station is running well over its projected budget, and the town is likely going to ask residents for donations to fund that construction. We have to clean up the Lunt complex, also, which is a health hazard for people in the residential detox facility as well as residents in the surrounding neighborhood. Other town buildings are in dire need of repair, have been left languishing for years, and are creating unhealthy conditions for town employees and our children. 

Everyone deserves a healthy building. Let’s share the money around so that everyone can benefit. This is not a time for checking items off a wishlist when simple, affordable options will do just fine. Please let your councilors know what your priorities are. See the beginning of this post for talking points.

UPDATE: Former GPD officer Patrick Buchanan’s discrimination lawsuit against Greenfield and the GPD has officially started court proceedings. How much are Greenfield taxpayers going to have to pay because of the department’s repeated discrimination and retaliation against their only Black officer? Yet another reason not to throw more money at the GPD.

It’s budget season at the statehouse, and Charlie Baker’s administration has “zeroed out” funding for non-police mental health and community safety programs. Please sign our petition and share widely. We want to get these signatures to our state legislators ASAP!

We’re hosting our 2nd meetup for care providers this Saturday, Jan. 15, 3-4:30pm. See the invitation below, and RSVP to attend!

Our crisis response working group is hosting a meetup for care providers this Saturday, Nov. 20. See their invitation below, and RSVP if you’d like to attend!

---

Hello friends,

We are an abolitionist group in Franklin County working to build community safety. We invite you to a virtual meetup for care providers who are interested in stopping systemic cycles of harm and providing care in a just and liberatory way.

WHO: Care providers who are interested in the intersection of care provision, state violence, and social justice. We welcome community members and professionals, including social workers, therapists and counselors, nurses, doctors, birth workers, holistic practitioners, EMTs, patient care advocates, domestic violence advocates, mental health advocates, direct Service/direct care workers, CNAs, home health aides, medical assistants and secretaries, healthcare technicians, and phlebotomists. Open to anyone in the greater western Massachusetts region.

WHY: We have become deeply concerned with how policing and social control reach deep into care provision practices in Franklin County. We follow the leadership of abolitionist organizers in groups like Interrupting Criminalization and Critical Resistance, who highlight ways to build community well-being and self-determination by steering care practices away from policing and police-like interventions. We want community-led care rooted in the knowledge and wisdom of those who have been harassed, abused, jailed, and killed by the white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchal state and its affiliated institutions.

For this reason, we are working to establish a non-police, civilian emergency response unit in Franklin County. Greenfield officials and many community members have already shown interest in such a program. We are looking for abolitionist providers as partners to help develop a program that is truly an alternative to policing and coercive/punitive interventions. To see a more detailed proposal, see our page on crisis response models.

WHAT: Meet each other and discuss ways we can support abolitionist, community-led models of care across our region in an on-going way. Some ideas we’ve considered already include:

• Sharing abolitionist knowledge and practices among providers, such as alternatives to calling the police
• Organizing public discussions and teach-ins on police abolition for care providers
• Supporting providers to reach out individually to fellow providers

We also welcome your thoughts about how to build a local movement of abolitionist providers and care workers. Please reach out if you’d like to propose agenda items or goals/dreams for our meetup, or just bring them with you to the event!

WHEN: Sat., Nov 20, 3-4:30pm. RSVP for Zoom link. If you can’t make a meeting but want to stay in the loop, please reach out and we’ll keep you updated on the campaign and future events.

Thanks for your time, and we look forward to connecting with you.

In solidarity,

Members of the Crisis Response Working Group

Two upcoming events on reshaping public safety and responding to community needs:

This event has been postponed! New date TBD.

We’ve had some complications with scheduling in the space for an in-person event. Keep an eye out for a new date!

• Join us for a community teach-in on CAHOOTS on Tuesday, July 6, at 7-8:30pm, at the Wildflower Alliance, 20 Chapman St., Greenfield and online via Zoom. RSVP here for Zoom link!
• NOTE: Wildflower Alliance can host max. 10 people in their Greenfield space, so if you have the ability to join by Zoom, that will help keep the event accessible for others.

CAHOOTS is a publicly-funded, peer-based crisis response program, running since 1989 in Oregon. They dispatch a two-person team of a medic and a crisis worker and “deliver person-centered interventions and make referrals to behavioral health supports and services without the uniforms, sirens, and handcuffs that can exacerbate feelings of distress for people in crisis.”

Programs based on CAHOOTS are starting up in Northampton and Amherst and all over the country. At the teach-in, we’ll talk with folks from Franklin and Hampshire counties about this great program.

Come learn with us!
Hosted by the Greenfield People’s Budget

More about CAHOOTS and RSVP here for Zoom link.

---

• On July 26 Racial Justice Rising hosts Queen-Cheyenne Wade of The Black Response to talk about the HEART Program, a community effort to reshape public safety and policing in Cambridge, Mass. We’ll share more details as soon as they’re available.

Both the Recorder and Reporter featured debate on the policing review committees established by the Montague town meeting. Jon wrote an op-ed in reply, published last week.

---

In his op-ed “Ideology Masks Reality of Policing in Montague,” Jeff Singleton chides Deborah Frenkel and Maddox Sprengel for being dissatisfied with the final reports of the policing review committees, of which they were members. Sadly, we have every reason to be dissatisfied with the outcome of these committees, not because of confounding “ideology” but because they misinterpreted the basic critiques that motivated a policing review in the first place.

The central issue is not what most people think of the police, but what effect policing has on the people who actually have to deal with them. Given how much effort and public resources the police put into polishing their public image, and given the great personal risks that people take on if they speak out publicly against the police, the only people who are likely to know what harms the police actually cause are people who are subject to enforcement, or people who are close to them.

The people who get the most unwanted contact with police are people without housing, people living in poverty, people who are neurodivergent, and people of color. Some individuals from these groups have positive opinions of the police, but that reveals nothing about larger patterns of oppression caused by policing.

The most relevant perspectives on these issues come from people who have been harmed by policing, and their perspectives are the hardest to get. Gross power imbalances mean that folks who have suffered harms are often afraid to share their experiences publicly, and it is in fact dangerous for them to do so. A casual, amateur survey will never suffice and will likely do more harm than good. That does not mean that we can never know anything about policing.

Here’s what we know beyond a doubt, based on decades of study by the most impacted communities. Policing does not prevent crime or conflicts or personal crises–they show up after the fact and file a report. Police spend a tiny fraction of their time responding to reports of crime (read the police logs for yourself–on average it’s 1-4% of their time). Police spend huge amounts of time responding to emergency calls that have nothing to do with crime at all, unnecessarily exposing countless people to the criminal legal system and all the harms that can come as a consequence. In the rare case that the police stop an act of harm or violence, they simply shunt it into the world’s largest criminal legal system–a set of violent, punishing institutions that only compound harm.

All the talk about police de-escalation practices misses the fact that the mere presence of police is an escalation for people who have good reason to fear them. This is true even when a co-responder clinician is present, especially since people are rightly afraid of being involuntarily committed to a psych ward or getting referred to the Department of Children and Families.

Police killings of Black people mark the flashpoints that lead to large-scale protest, but Black Lives Matter as a movement is about much more than police use of force. The movement is fundamentally about valuing people as people, which goes beyond merely not killing them. It requires reducing harm in all its forms and building new institutions that really take care of people. (See the “Movement for Black Lives policy platform” if you haven’t yet.)

We need new institutions for community safety because reforms to the police do not work. None of the proposed oversight, training, or relationship-building reforms on offer are new or promising in any way. Minneapolis had already implemented most of these measures, even as far back as the 1920s, and yet that did nothing to save George Floyd.

The quickest, most effective way to reduce the harm policing causes is to reduce people’s contact with police. One way to do that is by building alternative programs to deal with emergencies.

How could we respond to emergencies in a way that’s actually caring, that respects people’s basic rights and freedoms, but also successfully resolves the emergency? One compelling example is CAHOOTS, a peer-led crisis response program running for 32 years in two cities in Oregon. Their civilian crisis workers get people the care they need in a manner they can trust, rejecting coercive and punitive approaches in favor of meeting basic needs and offering trauma-informed, person-centered care. They are highly successful and beloved in their communities.

In their service area, CAHOOTS handles 20% of 911 calls, although the Center for American Progress estimates they could easily handle 38% if they had proper funding and support. (Another large share of 911 calls are merely procedural or paperwork issues which could be handled by a non-sworn city employee–for example, filing reports for auto insurance claims.)

In personal correspondence with me, Ariel Elan of the policing review committee said she concluded CAHOOTS would be too expensive, that Montague’s finances could not afford both a police department and a program like CAHOOTS.

It is true that police departments are notoriously expensive. However, there is money available from the federal stimulus as well as the state of Massachusetts earmarked for starting up new CAHOOTS-like programs. We have organizations in Franklin County that are internationally recognized leaders in peer support work who could help build a new program, but they are too often overlooked in favor of big bureaucratic providers like CSO (who provide the clinician for the new police co-responder program). We also have a growing region-wide movement for building up life-affirming programs that offer real safety to everyone.

If it’s hard to imagine Montague implementing a new program alone, that’s no excuse to give up and keep cycling people through probation, jail, coercive treatment programs, houselessness, unemployment, personal crisis. Let’s talk across towns about how to build capacity together.

We’re sharing this recent letter from the Wildflower Alliance to Mayor Narkewicz of Northampton, not only because it highlights the wealth of experience and wisdom that local peer-led groups have for building safer, healthier communities, but also because the debates they’re addressing from Northampton are the same ones we’re having here in Greenfield. Originally posted on their own website.

---

May 19, 2021

To Mayor David Narkewicz:

We are writing this open letter to you from the Wildflower Alliance (formerly known as the Western Mass Recovery Learning Community or ‘RLC’) in regards to Northampton’s efforts to identify alternatives to policing, and reimagine the ways in which the city responds to its residents in distress. We are a peer-to-peer organization with our roots firmly planted in Western Massachusetts. By ‘peer-to-peer’ we mean that our entire team – including senior leadership – have all faced and navigated life-interrupting struggles, and are now using the wisdom gained from those experiences to support others. ‘Others’ include those who are struggling themselves, as well as providers, family members, and beyond.

Although our roots are local, our work has grown to include statewide, national, and international impact. In fact, our Northampton-based peer respite, Afiya (an alternative to psychiatric hospitalization), is set to be recognized in a June report from the World Health Organization (WHO) as one of about 30 exemplary, human-rights-based programs in the world. We also developed and piloted an approach called ‘Alternatives to Suicide’ over a decade ago starting with a group in Northampton, and have since trained people in that approach across this nation and in at least eight other countries. Additionally, our work includes providing the bulk of Hearing Voices Movement trainings in the United States, as well as efforts to support people in local psychiatric units (including Cooley Dickinson) to transition successfully back to community-based living. 

It is through these experiences that we have become so deeply invested in the value of supporting people in many different forms of distress, and have reached the point where we feel we can speak with confidence on the matter of how to respond to individuals experiencing “crisis” in our communities. We are especially invested in supporting people in ways that do not add to their trauma or escalate challenging moments, for, in the words of Pat Deegan (another Massachusetts resident and longtime advocate for effective support), “Help isn’t help if it doesn’t help.” Too often, we have seen or heard stories of disabled folks and people with psychiatric labels (particularly those who are Black, indigenous, or other people of color) being further harmed and even killed by those systems that are supposed to be responsible for helping. We are well past time for change, and appreciate your efforts toward that end. 

Members of our team have closely followed the creation and work of the Northampton Policing Review Commission this past year. We implore you to consider our input as you craft a budget for Fiscal Year 2022. Specifically, we ask that you:

1. Ensure (as the Reimagining Safety report states) that the Department of Community Care is accountable to and envisioned by communities most impacted by policing. Unfortunately, similar statewide committees have been overpopulated by individuals who are least invested in change and/or least familiar with what change could look like. Those who have spent years working in the systems we seek to move away from will inevitably have difficulty envisioning something new, even if they have the best of intentions. They also will – in most cases – have been protected from the most harmful impacts of how those systems were run, and are least likely to know what it is like to feel powerless over their own life. We ask that you make every effort to not repeat the mistake of centering voices that have already been centered for so long.
2. Recognize that a co-responder model that partners police and social workers (or other mental health counselors) fails to address the core issues at hand, and has been demonstrated to be ineffective at making substantive change in how communities respond to crisis over the long-term.  When social workers and police join in these ways, social workers are more likely to pick up police-like ways of responding than the reverse. Furthermore, social workers (particularly those tied to large clinical organizations) are well known for their over-reliance on calling 911, and their use of force and coercion on individuals in distress. As stated in the prior bullet, after being entrenched in one way of doing things for so long, even those with the best of intentions can fail to be able to fully envision a new way of doing things.
3. Draw upon the local wisdom and practices of peer-led responses to people in distress to fund new peer-led emergency responses.  We strongly advocate that money cut from the Northampton Police Department be invested in peer-led responses operated wholly separately from the police, as well as from social workers and other clinical providers. We have the opportunity to create something new that centers healing responses, minimizes harmful power imbalances that tend to deepen emotional distress, and incorporates critical learning from a host of projects across the nation.  You can even listen to or watch this event recording from April of this year for more inspiration: tiny.cc/peerled101.  Please don’t miss this opportunity.
4. Ensure adequate funding to the Department of Community Care. Many efforts of this nature are never given the opportunity to be fully realized for lack of funding. It is essential to the success of this effort that individuals working to implement and operate it are paid in a manner that encourages their longevity, and affords them the opportunity to live in the community they are serving. Anything less will inevitably mean we will never find out what truly could have been possible.
5. Reverse increased spending on the Northampton Police Department to more fully fund the Department of Community Care and other non-police responses.

This is a critical moment in time. Whatever you implement is likely to be what we have to live with for years to come. It is much harder to stop or change what has been set in motion than to take the time to ensure it is pointed in the right direction from the start. Again, we so appreciate the time devoted by yourself and so many others in the area, and we remain hopeful about the potential that is at hand.

On behalf of the Wildflower Alliance,

Sera Davidow
Director, Wildflower Alliance

Monday, May 17, two days before the council meeting, Chief Haigh sent a memo to councilors with more detailed description of the proposed construction along with a loose set of estimates for the work. Our position on the upgrades has not changed. We include Chief Haigh’s full memo below, but here is a brief summary of his request with our responses:

Chief Haigh proposes:

• $20k for expanding the dispatch room
• $120k for moving offices and adding skylights
• $40k for a new fence
• $300k for new individual, gender neutral showers
• $290k for a new sally port
• $250k for the parking lot
• $400k for moving the existing covered parking
• $160k for an architect
• Total estimate: $1.76 million

Our response:

• Chief Haigh has not been forthright in his claims about health and safety. He previously mentioned mold remediation and HVAC issues, as well as cell blocks that are in violation of state regulations. None of these issues appear here. Where are the health and safety issues in this list?
• At $20k, expanding dispatch is the cheapest item in this list. Even if the $120k for moving offices and adding skylights are related to reconfiguring dispatch, $140k is a very small portion of the $1.76m requested here.
• The million dollar sally port? Chief Haigh says that redoing the sally port means they will have to demolish and rebuild their existing 14-bay carport and redo the parking lot. Thus the sally port and booking room drive the bulk of this project, coming in at $940k. The current sally port is a metal carport with a leak in the roof. Does it cost $1 million to fix a roof leak? When the majority of this expense is for moving around other things that already exist and work fine, is this the smartest way to fix a small problem?
• The sally port estimate does refer to reconfiguring the booking room entrance, as well, which Chief Haigh has mentioned is a safety concern. If it costs only $20k to expand dispatch, why spend $1 million to expand the booking room?
• Too little information, too late. Chief Haigh has had a month since the last council meeting to provide this information, and he has only delivered this minimal description two days before the final vote. Furthermore, he originally presented this capital request last fall. Shouldn’t he have acquired more detailed estimates of the work before submitting the capital request?
• Lack of clarity and consistency. Why has the narrative changed so much over the months–from an additional women’s locker room, to a complete reconfiguration of the showers? Beyond the booking room, what happened to the health and safety concerns? Which of these proposals are driven by accreditation?

This memo does nothing to convince us that these changes are urgent needs rather than a wish list. After a year of a crushing recession and pandemic, we want to see our tax dollars go where they are needed. As we have said before:

We believe that any large, forward-looking allocations to upgrade the police station infrastructure should be postponed until we in Greenfield have held our own democratic process of deciding whether more policing is the best use of our limited resources, given the problems we face.

---

Memo from Chief Haigh to the City Council:

Good Day All,

Below you will find an estimate and break down of beginning cost estimates for part of the revitalization of the Greenfield Police Department.  I worked with a local contractor and a separate local architect, and together they gave me estimates.  I wish to caution, these are estimates, and was done voluntarily, and will have to be more specific after gained support to move forward with this project.  Additionally, both advised that depending on the material such as steal or wood, the costs could be more or less at the time of construction.  I walked the property with both separately to speak of our needs, and my thoughts, and then they collaborated together resulting in the following:

    1. A 3600 square foot two car garage, in masonry stone, with one side for secure holding with a new entrance into the booking area for safety:  $290k

    2. An 8 foot security fence at 600 ft to enclose and secure the rear of the building: $40k

    3. New blacktop and restructuring regarding of the parking lot which will be needed for the new garage, and the moving and rebuilding of the covered parking: $250k

    4. A rebuilt 14 bay carport, which will have to be demoed and moved due to new garage and parking configuration, also containing storage: $400k

    5. To move the offices in the back into a room in the center of the building, with skylights for natural light as there are no windows, and need to be moved to accommodate the new bathrooms: $120k

    6. To create 5 separate gender neutral changing/shower/bathrooms to allow for shared general gender neutral locker rooms: $300k

    7. Cost for architect: $160k

    8. To knock the wall down and open up dispatch room: $20k

Total Cost: $1.76 M

While I realize this is over the asking for Capital, these are the projects I was proposing for phase 1.  I will need to speak with hired architects to determine priorities.

Sincerely,

Robert Haigh

Dear friends and neighbors:

Last month, the Greenfield City Council postponed the vote on whether to fund the first installment of $5 million in police station upgrades. They will issue a final vote on the upgrades at their upcoming meeting on May 19. We urge residents to speak up and let the council know they should reject the proposed upgrades.

**UPDATE: Chief Haigh submitted a more detailed memo to councilors on Monday, May 17. This memo does not change our position on the upgrades–it only raises additional issues. See our blog post for details and our response.

What you can do

Tell the city council to reject the upgrades. 

The most effective comments usually include 1) who you are, 2) why this issue matters, and 3) what the city council should do. See our talking points below for help in preparing your personal statement, but it’s also good to tell your own story about why this matters to you. You don’t need to share the level of detail given below in order to have an impact. (Please note that this debate is over a capital budget item (infrastructure, buildings), not operations (programs and departments), and money can’t be moved between those two categories.)

• Email or call city councilors and tell them to reject the upgrades.
• Speak during public comment at the next meeting, Wednesday, May 19, at 5:30pm (note the earlier time). Attend the meeting over Webex (in your browser) or call in. You can sign up to comment any time before the end of the public comment period. Everyone will get 3 minutes maximum to speak, so prepare your statement ahead of time. 
• If you can’t make the meeting or want to make anonymous comment, contact us and we will try to read your comment during the meeting.
• Write a letter to the editor and send it to the Recorder. Maximum length is 300 words. Let’s open up the debate in the wider community!
• Share this call to action with your friends and neighbors.

Why the City Council should reject the upgrades

Here’s a summary, followed by detailed explanations of each point:

1. The proposed upgrades are expensive and a bad investment of city funds.
2. There has been no transparency and no opportunity for real debate.
3. Most of the proposed upgrades are more of a wish list than urgent needs, and many of the upgrades seem unnecessary or poorly thought-out.
4. If Chief Haigh has identified actual health and safety hazards, he needs to provide information on these hazards so the town can make good decisions to take care of employees’ health. He has not provided this information. **Update: Chief Haigh’s more detailed list of upgrades from May 17 does not include many of the health hazards he has casually mentioned in various discussions. See our blog update for details.
5. The proposed police station upgrades will take up resources that could otherwise go to more urgent needs.
6. We want an opportunity for the community to shape new programs that actually meet our needs, not more of the same old status quo.
7. The city must pause these extensive upgrades.

The proposed upgrades are expensive and a bad investment of city funds.

• The cost of building materials has gone way up, including lumber, steel, and concrete. This price spike means that building costs are going to be much higher than expected, and not only for the police station. Current prices threaten major cost overruns on the new fire station and library, neither of which have broken ground yet. These cost overruns could put significant pressure on city finances and tax rates if we are already spending near our limits based on current revenue.
• Chief Haigh proposes $5 million in renovations on a police station building that is only valued at $820,000. It makes no sense to try to retrofit an old building at great cost only to get a few more years of use out of it. If the current station is inadequate, we should plan on addressing urgent concerns only and save our money for a proper building when we can afford to build new, and only after we have had a chance to discuss what we want community safety to look like in the near future.

There has been no transparency and no opportunity for real debate.

• Chief Haigh’s original proposal contained no detailed information and no line items. As we have previously pointed out, every other department that requested capital expenditures included detailed line items even for much smaller amounts.
• The Chief and the Mayor have ignored requests for more information, even from councilors. The Chief and the Mayor have not adequately responded to the many concerns we raised in our public comment at the council meeting, in our follow-up public statement, or in personal communication.
• The timeline for public comment means there is no opportunity for genuine debate. The public was not allowed to respond to various claims made during the April council meeting, and it’s unlikely that we will get to see any further information with any significant lead time before the meeting on May 19. Councilors have been busy with budget meetings, and even they have not been provided an update from the Chief. The upcoming meeting will allow public comment, but only before the debate on the station upgrades–in other words, we will not be allowed to respond to any issues or spurious claims that come up in that debate. Given the importance of this issue and the level of concern which residents have expressed about these expensive upgrades, it is absolutely not acceptable to foreclose genuine debate.
• The Chief has not been forthright in his characterization of the upgrades and has avoided the real issues we have raised. Chief Haigh has not made any effort to justify his claims of health and safety issues, but rather retreated to claims that opponents want to “punish the police.” He has also repeatedly referred to MPAC accreditation as requiring us to pay for particular upgrades, while never specifying which upgrades affect accreditation or why accreditation should guide our spending in the first place. (As we have said previously, accreditation does not equal actual accountability–as proven by Springfield and Northampton’s departments. Accreditation is also optional.)

The proposed upgrades are more of a wish list than urgent needs, and many of the upgrades seem unnecessary or poorly thought-out.

• Councilors have shared with us what they saw when they toured the police station and saw existing issues with the building.
• If particular issues are health and safety concerns, Chief Haigh needs to detail the issues and provide estimates for remediation. For example, the Chief could easily acquire a free estimate for mold remediation, if that’s an issue. He has not provided this information, despite having an entire month since the last council meeting. We want to know what hazards exist so we can make good decisions and attend to city employees’ health. **UPDATE: Chief Haigh’s May 17 memo does not include any mention of mold, HVAC issues, or cell blocks, some of the primary health and safety hazards he has described in public forums. See our blog post for details.
• If dispatch workers are housed in cramped quarters at the police station, they could be moved to the new fire station (a move suggested by the Lt. Fire Chief himself) and then their room would become available for communications hardware. This solution resolves two of the issues Chief Haigh says need urgent attention, but it has clearly not been considered.
• A variety of other proposed upgrades seem unnecessary or excessive. Examples:
  • Two female locker rooms. Chief Haigh has touted the need for an additional female locker room now that there is one female officer and one female supervisor. What he has not said is that the GPD already has one female locker room, and the additional room would be to separate the supervisor and the officer. Is there a reason that two women can’t share a locker room?
  • Sally port. The sally port is a metal garage that covers the entrance for taking people into custody. The Chief has suggested that a leak in the roof of this carport is a problem, so the garage must be replaced with a permanent structure. It is easy to repair leaks in metal roofs, and (per the Chief’s comments in the Recorder) maybe a carport is not the place to store evidence that’s not weather-proof.
  • Parking lot resurfacing. We would like to know how re-oiling the parking lot qualifies as urgent.

The proposed police station upgrades will take up resources that could otherwise go to more urgent needs.

• Other city buildings are in worse need of repair, including school buildings, the non-accessible Town Hall, and the neglected Sanderson Street complex which houses the Recreation Department and Building Inspector offices.
• Urgent social and economic needs demand our attention: houselessness and affordable housing, mental and behavioral health crises, addiction, and so on. A police station renovated at great expense will not meet these needs. We are in the midst of a recession and a pandemic. We should be shifting our capital expenditures towards the infrastructure for a housing first program, a peer-based crisis response program, and other community support programs.

The city must pause these extensive upgrades.

The city government in Greenfield has not yet engaged in any way with current debates about policing, and the upgrades to the police station have clearly been proposed under the assumption that policing in Greenfield will continue to be business-as-usual into the future.

We believe that any large, forward-looking allocations to upgrade the police station infrastructure should be postponed until we in Greenfield have held our own democratic process of deciding whether more policing is the best use of our limited resources, given the problems we face.

---

For additional background information, see our previous public statement in response to the debate at the April city council meeting.