Dear Editor,

[RE: LETTER: Pitt Meadows mayor argues in favour of local detachment, June 11, The News]

In response to Bill Dingwalls opinion that the best location for a new RCMP detachment in Pitt Meadows should be on the recreational grounds off Harris Road is totally missing the point.

Simply put, a new detachment is not needed.

It may well seem to be the cheaper of the numerous “new” options in building a new police detachment.

But the cheaper, most cost-effective, and best over all option for the residents if Pitt Meadows is to maintain the present service delivery from Ridge Meadows RCMP.

Despite Bill Dingwall’s claims of an increased visibility, public safety and service levels – which I don’t believe for one minute – there are no stats or any evidence that support his opinion.

Why does Pitt Meadows need a cell block and associated costs that will only increase?

Why does Pitt Meadows need to address additional staffing costs, including costs for civilians, computer systems, and costs forced on it by the ‘big Red machine’ – a.k.a. the RCMP – will be mandated from outside?

RECENT LETTER: Letter writer encourages public to oppose new Pitt Meadows RCMP building

Who will pick up the additional costs of staffing when the minimum staffing drops below that needed.

No more borrowing from Maple Ridge detachment. Overtime from other detachments will be required. Having to cover the cost of minimum mandated staff. Sounds good on paper having your own detachment.

It’s just not needed.

A pet project at best, which appears to have been accepted as gospel because of our mayor’s previous position. Similar to the fire department, which will invariably now grow year on year.

On a positive note, relatively nothing in terms of crime happens in Pitt Meadows, which is dealt with by frontline policing.

Any long-term investigations are dealt with by the larger Maple Ridge detachment or E Division.

This will not change. There will not be investigative sections.

Further down the road it will invariably be another argument to justify expanding into areas of identification sections, investigation sections, dog sections ,etc.,etc.

If this is Dingwall’s attempt to gain more political control on a police advisory board, then it’s not needed.

The present system works.

Once we open the cheque book there will be lots of bills to pay.

His idea of creating full-time spots just sets the tax burden to increase year on year with no real benefit in service.

C. Bridges, Pitt Meadows

.