The city of East Lansing's riot police expenditures figure of $190,389 for the April 2-3 disturbances is grossly out of line with the $5,775 in damage caused by crowds. For a reference point, consider that $250,000 in property damage was caused by the riots of 1999, and in 2003 the figure was $40,000.
This prompts the question: Why doesn't the city give police a night off after big games in the NCAA men's basketball tournament and simply ask students to keep the damage less than $200,000? After all, police probably like to watch basketball, too.
By no means is this an invitation to riot or a justification for irresponsible behavior but a suggestion that makes sense from a fiscal standpoint.
It's shameful that the city unnecessarily spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on riot police when it is simultaneously cutting money from the budget for libraries and other useful services. The $5,775 in damage pales in comparison to the sum spent in order to prevent these very damage.
According to the police debriefing reports given to the City Council, police actions on April 2-3 were justified because costly rioting surely would have occurred had they not intervened. There is no adequate way to prove this - there simply isn't enough information on hand.
To begin with, there isn't a precedent for good student-police interaction following a major NCAA men's basketball tournament loss since 1999. Either students have caused major damage or police have responded in an over-the-top manner, causing expenses of their own. Can't some middle ground be reached?
In April, students acted responsibly, and there is no way to prove that the outcome would have been different if police had not responded pre-emptively. The police are heralding the April 2-3 disturbances as a success for their current riot-control model, but in light of the declining damage caused by disturbances since 1999, a more likely explanation is students have learned that irresponsible behavior will be documented and punished. In each one of these disturbances, photographs and video footage have been used to identify lawbreakers. This fact has received wide publicity and is well-known by students. Nevertheless, the police report to the City Council ruled out the possibility that this was the deciding factor in the peaceful outcome this year.
Instead of considering this prior to the April 2-3 disturbances and taking a softer approach, the police prepared for a major engagement and used up a large amount of taxpayers' money in doing so. There was no need for the overwhelming number of police on duty - the ratio of police to students was roughly one to 10. Most schools can't afford a teacher-student ratio this low.
The helicopter employed by the police to collect surveillance also wasn't necessary, given the nature of the situation. Next time police are needed to control a disturbance, a more cost-effective plan should be used. For example, more camera teams might be employed on the ground to document the events.
Since a stolen bronze duck statue accounts for $2,500 of the damages during the April 2-3 disturbance, the City Council should consider drastically reducing the amount of money allotted to riot police in the future. Everyone would benefit from this.
