Bethel Police Chief Responds to Critic of Proposed New Police Station

The following letter to the editor was written by Bethel Police Chief Jeffrey Finch in response to Francis S. Infurchia’s Dec. 7, 2015 letter.

“The “crisp economists” and “brooding artist”, really?

I think they would both recognize the justified need and affordability of a new police department. The economist would recognize the changing times and societal needs and the balanced affordability in the present financial environment. The “brooding artist” would recognize that the open fields are not gone or damaged and that the building sits beautifully to the side of the fields and back over the crest of the hill, where there was little but brush, “no “contemplative scenery” or “forsythia laden hills.” The fields and building can co-exist nicely. The building is not the demon that one suggests.

One has said that the Police Deptartment should be 16,000 square feet. In 2004, a building committee of Bethel residents was formed and recognized a new police building was needed, (actually it started in 1998). In 2014, again a building committe of Bethel residents was again empaneled and again independently researched the issue of size and location, again they came back with a confirmation of the projected size and location. Both groups agreed with the Architectural Space Needs study that said 23,900 feet for the building was appropriate and was reasonable. It is not enormous and oversized or overpriced.

Did those Bethel residents not have sufficient intellect to properly evaluate the size and needs of Bethel’s Police Department? Should the Town leaders and planners build according to professional architectural standards supported by local building committees of town residents – is that not reasonable, is that not more fiscally and intellectually sound? Are you to believe another resident that simply states he knows better and “declares” all the Police Department needs is 16,000 square feet.

To compare to Brookfield: Brookfield is 13,000 square feey and was built years ago when THEY were a smaller department, and at the time smaller than the town of Bethel, yet they built bigger. That tells you what? It tells you that when Bethel built new in 1974, Bethels new was even smaller then what Brookfield was building. Brookfield will tell you that today their building is too small for them and they are looking to expand. To compare to Newtown who is about 15,000 square feet; it is already in the news that Newtown will build new to the equivalent of almost 29,000 square feet. To compare Bethels “new” to “others old” should be obvious to most readers that such comparisons are grossly and purposely misleading, an attempted smoke screen and distraction to convince you Bethels plan is too big.

The new building is not on school grounds. The land was never reserved for just school use. A Police building there, on Judd, its presence bordering the school complex will be a strong visual deterrence to those who look for weak targets who are unable to defend themselves. The new building it is said is further away from Rockwell? It is not about a few tenths of a mile, it is about visual “presence.” For those that feel it should not be there, so close to the schools, ask former Superintendent Chesley and Dr. Carver and the present Chairman of the Board of Education why they support it. Are they wrong also?

A resident is worried that the police will speed through Whittlesey? Police do not sit in the PD waiting for a call. They are out on the road. But, if an officer did wish to respond from the new PD to a call in Stony Hill he would not use Whittlesey. Anyone who knows the area would know it would be faster to go directly down Judd to Maple. So, those who would tell you the police will be speeding through Whittlesey with lights and sirens ought to be an indication to you that they are trying their best to create any falsehoods they can to convince you this is all very bad.

It has been said that not one serious alternative was considered. Several other sites were evaluated, in 2004 and 2014. Should the Building Committee have settled on another site that was not big enough or suitable? Would that be a responsible financial investment – to pick a site that planners and architects say is unsuitable? Clark Park – only one way in/out, on the outskirts of town, is that a smart move? Is it smart to stay on Plumtrees when it will likely cost more and still be too small with too little parking, still in a flood plain on the edge of a swamp?

It is said that crime is down, and what is that to mean? So we should not build closer to the school? Some data from public crime reports:

2013, Connecticut has 9,107 reported violent crimes.
2014, Connecticut had 8, 495, down 7%, down 612.

Do you really feel safer? Safe enough to ignore the needs of your police department? Are you confident it will stay down? Is that 7% any more meaningful than the 2% increase in murder? Crime may be down but it is not gone, like all things it will likely cycle up and down. We all see the violence that is all over this country. We live in a very mobile society, you know better than to think it cannot happen here, that it will only happen in cities like Hartford or Bridgeport.

2013 Nationwide – 1,168,298 violent crimes
2014, Nationwide – 1,165,383 violent crimes.
Crime is down nationwide - down 2/10ths of 1%

Do you feel and think all is well, that we are all safer in 2015/2016?

Anyone who would like to tour the present police department, call 203-744-7900, ask for the Chief or Captain, leave a message, phone number or just come on down. Learn the facts and vote accordingly.