City and Township to discuss consolidation of law enforcement services has a story up on their site tonight about ongoing talks between the City of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township on the possibility of working together to provide law enforcement services. Here’s a clip:

…“This is very preliminary, we just wanted to discuss some basic issues and possible impediments that are there. Then we’ll know more and see if the City Council and township board want to pursue it,” Ypsilanti City Manager Ed Koryzno said.

The township contracts for deputies with the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Department and the city has its own police force. Officials said the talks will help shed light on what legal obstacles a shared service agreement may present and how it could work financially…

Both municipalities have been forced to reduce the number of officers patrolling their streets in the last year. Ypsilanti Township cut the number of deputies it contracts for from 38 to 31 after residents defeated a millage last November.

The Board of Trustees recently approved language for new 1.5-mill levy to go in front voters in November. Township officials say without its approval, they will likely trim the deputy force down to 29.

The township has faced a sharp drop in property value and high foreclosure rates in recent years. Concurrently, the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, which sets the per deputy cost, has nearly doubled the price of a police services unit, which is one deputy position.

The City of Ypsilanti recently eliminated 2.5 positions from its force, which will remain at the current levels for this and the following fiscal years…

The last time we discussed the possibility of the City and Township coming together to provide police service, as you might recall, things got heated. We were discussing the murder of a young man along a busy Township thoroughfare in broad daylight, when someone proposed that perhaps the Township should work with the City to maintain more of a consistent police presence. A reader by the name of cmadler came forward with the following numbers to support the claim that they were understaffed:

Ypsi City: 34.5 police officers for 22,000 people in 4.5 sq mi = 1 officer per 638 people; 0.13 sq mi per officer.

EMU: 29 police officers (plus 7 dispatchers/support staff) for 23,000 students in 1.25 sq mi = 1 officer per 793 students; .04 sq mi per officer

Ypsi Twp: 31 sheriff’s deputies for 49,000 people in 31.8 sq mi = 1 deputy per 1580 people; 1 sq mi per deputy.

The voters of Ypsilanti Township have made it pretty clear that they don’t want to pay for policing.

The response from Township residents as I recall was essentially, “We don’t like paying taxes – how dare you tell us how to handle our affairs – we will never join with the City in any way.” And that’s pretty much what’s playing out right now in the comments section. I particularly liked this comment by someone calling himself YpsiLivin:

…Ypsilanti township residents enjoy a MUCH LOWER tax rate than do the residents of the City of Ypsilanti. The City of Ypsilanti has the HIGHEST tax assessment in Washtenaw County. In no way would combining the City and Township lead to lower taxes for anyone. In fact, quite the opposite would happen for the residents of the township.

Ypsilanti Township has three times the number of residents that the City does for a good reason: lower taxes. And not just for the actual assessed taxes, but for taxing authority as well. Cities have the power to impose income taxes; townships do not. Township residents would NEVER stay in the township if it were annexed by the City and fell under the City tax structure.

Personally, as distasteful and backward as I find many of the Township folks who leave comments on this site, I think that it makes sense for the Township and City to consolidate. And, I think shared policing is a necessary step toward getting us there. My hope is that our elected officials will find a way to make it work… The bottom line is that we need each other in order to be successful. The Township needs a real, functional city center. And the City needs a broader tax base, and room to expand. Granted, any arrangement would likely see Township residents paying more in the way of taxes, at least percentage-wise, but, with the taxable values of their homes dropping every day, it may not be that bad for them… The days of sprawl, like it or not, are over. And it’s time for everyone to face reality.

This entry was posted in Politics, Ypsilanti and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. EOS
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 6:23 am | Permalink

    It is ludicrous for the Township to even consider it. We’ll recall the Trustees before we let them consolidate with the most poorly managed police force in the state. It’s not a choice of whether the residents stay in the Township or not. We would have to be insane to consolidate – there’s nothing the city has to offer us. The Township will NEVER annex with the city.

  2. John Gawlas
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    I was always curious as to Ypsilanti Township would have come out in the analysis of a regional police authority. This was the feasibility study that Superior Twp, Ann Arbor Twp, Salem Twp, Scio Twp, York Twp and Ypsilanti City commissioned from Virchow Krause & Co in 2008. While it did show higher costs (due to higher levels of service) for a majority of the units, the higher number of calls for service in Ypsilanti Twp might have yielded a comparable value while ensuring greater accountability and say in the price of policing. Unfortunately, they were still embroiled in the lawsuit with the county and did not participate in this study.

    I don’t know if the city and township are considering this type of detailed external analysis in the discussion re looking at options. The city still has the Regional Police Study available on their website (under Mayor & City Council).

    You can also get a copy here.

  3. Robert
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    I hate to say it but I tend to agree with everything EOS says on this subject.

  4. EOS
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 6:51 am | Permalink

    The analysis of the regional police authority proposed by Ypsi City saved the City millions each year by increasing the costs on nearly every other community. The Township shouldn’t waste a dime on another “study”. If the City wants to reduce the costs of their police, then join the regional County force.

  5. Burt Reynolds
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    As a Township resident (South of 94) I do NOt support consolidating the police services. I have no crime in my neighborhood, and would only pay more taxes to support a higher police presence in West Willow. No thanks. Sure my home value has decreased, but increasing taxes/police presence is not going to help the blight, crime, or infestation of thugs in other parts of the township in my life or the next.

  6. jeff davis
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    just thinking outside of the box, too bad we can’t put corparate sponsors on the police cars. let big business pay for some of the street patrols. hell, NASCAR does it. we need new ideas for paying for services. the tax base that we need just isn’t there anymore. we need to redefine government.

  7. Megan
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 7:53 am | Permalink

    Correct me if i’m wrong, but doesn’t some of the taxes city residents pay go towards subsidizing the county Sheriff, and therefore the police force for the Township? I say consolidate.

  8. Mike Shecket
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    You’re under arrest, brought to you by Carl’s Jr.

  9. Edward
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    “This tasering brought to you by Detroit Edison. Feel the power.”

    I love the divisions we’re seeing within the township itself, with Burt Reynolds saying that the crime isn’t on his street, so he doesn’t want to pay anything for it. I think that gets to the heart of this. A great many people in the township believe that they’re completely independent in and of themselves. They’re libertarians through and through. If crime happens on their property, they’ll take care of it, but they’ll be damned if they’ll pay for police to keep things safe across town. I know it’s painting with a broad brush, but city people are by an large community focused while township people see themselves as rugged individualists. I’m not sure how you bring those two groups to the same table.

  10. wetdolphinmissile
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    Interesting Township dweller Burt says he doesn’t want to own any of the crime in West Willow…isn’t that your township? It is Ypsi Township…
    You feel all safe and snug down south of I94, do yah? Lets hope the busy deputies (in West Willow) don’t have any call way on down yonder where you all are so safe.

  11. Kim
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    These are the same assholes who would shutter public schools and close public libraries. I for one do not want them to be a part of my community. I say keep the mouth breathing, dog stabbing, meth smoking, muscle flexing Tea Party Patriots where they are. Don’t bring them here, where they’ll outvote us two to one.

  12. Dan
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    I don’t see how it benefits the township to inherit all of the tax troubles the city has. The township has lost enough tax revenue, how would adding to that deficit help? If you have to raise taxes for township residents, doing so to cover our own needs would be a much lower increase than doing so to cover the cities needs, as well.

    I realize the popular thing to say here is that us township folk hate paying taxes, but that’s not really true. We hate paying other people’s taxes.

  13. lorie thom
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    Mark, I disagree with you on this one. Ypsilanti township is an irresponsible neighbor. It has time and time again proven that it will not hold up their end of any bargin and will, when the opportunity arises, it has taken advantage of our city.

    Partnering with them, when its clear they won’t pay their fair share or be responsible about the crime they have is wasting our high tax rate on the township’s cess pool.

    We already have had trouble with non-local police entities in our city with LAWNET. I think compromises with Ypsilanti Township will eventually hurt the city more than just keeping their own police force, even if it shrinks.

  14. EOS
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    It’s just a political move to scare the Township residents into voting for increased taxes for the County Sheriff. The County is paying for a large number of sheriffs who are on medical or military leave. As usual, when the county has problems, they try to put all the burden on the townships. Vote NO on the police millage and make the Sheriff do his job. Everybody needs to reduce expenditures in this economy. The townships already have the largest number of home foreclosures.

  15. God
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    Do unto your neighbors as you would have them do unto you…

  16. Mary
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    re: Megan — “don’t some of the taxes city residents pay go towards subsidizing the county Sheriff, and therefore the police force for the Township?” — this is not true.

    When the county Sheriff contracts with the Township for police services, the amount is supposed to cover the administrative, overhead, and all direct costs of services. Whatever city residents pay in county taxes may go toward county policing in general, but it is not subsidizing Ypsi Township police coverage AT ALL. That’s why we pay so damn much for policing.

  17. John Gawlas
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    EOS – thanks for not reading the cost analysis in the study. The savings in many scenarios for the city were based on amortizing the command costs over a larger service area (and officers). Characterizing it as a cost shift to the other communities is a misrepresentation. Using calls for service, the study projected savings for the majority of local units. Since Ypsilanti Twp has a significant number of calls for service, it is only logical that the twp would realize cost savings under the police authority model. The existing costs plugged into the tables were the Sheriff’s deputies they were (are) contracting for.

  18. EOS
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    Uhhh John,

    Did you read the study? Ypsi Township wasn’t included. Maybe you are referring to an internal document not released to the public. It is definitely a cost shift, since the city would retain the infrastructure and command personnel and all outlying communities would pay to maintain the facilities within the city and subsidize city employee salaries and fund their retirements.

  19. Mary
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    I just checked the A2 News poll, and 68% are voting “yes” on this. How can anyone be decided on it with so little information?

    Comparing population numbers and tax rates only gets one so far. I want to see hard data on how much policing costs in Ypsi City vs. Township, as well as some comparable cities and townships. What is truly the most cost-effective way to ensure everyone’s safety? Who is paying the most, and why, and for what kind of police coverage? Personally, as a Township resident, I feel as though we are in a weak position and have costs imposed upon us by relying on the County force.

    Also, EMU has such a large “force” of its own. How strange to have so many officers in such a tiny area– what does it take to patrol the entire campus? Fifteen minutes? Why doesn’t the City negotiate with EMU to combine forces? Seems a bit more logical, geographically speaking.

    Lastly, if police forces are combined City-Township, that may or may not be a step toward government consolidation. Again, why such firm opinions with so little information? Numerous studies have been done on governmental consolidations of all sorts. Instead of making emotionally-charged but baseless statements, we should be willing to take some time and do a little research; let’s be informed citizens.

  20. Burt Reynolds
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    @ wetdolphin

    Believe it or not, I actually am aware West Willow is in the same Twp I am, however worlds apart. Yes, I do feel safe in my neighborhood south of 94. Its the reason I purchased a home there. When deciding where to buy my home, low crime outweighed the ability to live in other parts of the city where I may not have to drive as far to grab some Bombadills (RIP), check out a show at the Elbow, or even go to Haabs. It was a choice I made. So no, I do not want an increase in taxes to pay for more police. No noticeable change in my life will happen if it passes except an increased bill. All additional law enforcement resources will go toward areas like West Willow which need the increased presence. If it passes, I will pay the increase and go along my merry way. No complaints. But I certainly don’t support it in My Life. Not too hard to understand!

  21. John Gawlas
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    I apologize for apparently not being clear that my comments were speculation that Ypsilanti Twp (if they had participated in the regional police authority study) would see savings as had Superior, Ann Arbor and York townships especially using the calls for service model. As I understand it, Ypsilanti Twp is looking to reduce the cost of police service and must be the current rationale for their joint discussion with the city.

  22. Pastor Theodore
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    I want to change the name of the township to Patriotville.

  23. kjc
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    “So no, I do not want an increase in taxes to pay for more police. No noticeable change in my life will happen if it passes except an increased bill. All additional law enforcement resources will go toward areas like West Willow which need the increased presence. If it passes, I will pay the increase and go along my merry way. No complaints. But I certainly don’t support it in My Life. Not too hard to understand!”

    to me it seems a little hard to understand. the only things worth paying for are those things that tangibly affect you in ways you can see?

  24. wetdolphinmissile
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    West Willow is Ypsi township either way, the crime costs are still your own (as are the school problems), even if you have a freeway insulating you from the harsh realities. No one expects you to move in next door to it though. But know this, all those young children growing up there will not respect your boundaries as they grow up in that environment. As citizens we have responsibilities beyond paying taxes. Putting your head in the sand won’t change things for the better.

  25. Burt Reynolds
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    Is it wrong to only want to pay for something that tangibly affects my family? I guess I’m confused. Like I stated, I certainly won’t comlain if the millage passes, but no, I would rather not pay for something that does not benefit me directly.

  26. kjc
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    “Is it wrong to only want to pay for something that tangibly affects my family?”

    Depends on your personal beliefs I guess. Do you feel any sense of community or responsibility to anyone besides your own family? And do you make absolutely sure that no one pays for anything that benefits you and not them?

  27. Burt Reynolds
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    @kjc. Its simply my belief on the millage. I assure you, if you knew my line of work, you would know selfless responsiblity is a daily activity. Not looking for kudos, by any means, but thats the reality. I do feel a sense of community, and try to be involved in Ypsi proper activites as much as possible. I buy local whenever possible, and always sell Ypsi to nay-sayers to the best of my ability. I bought here because I love the sense of community, something I did not feel in other surrounding cities. At the end of the day however, my responsibility is to my family, not the community.

  28. Ted
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    I love the theory that the township is exploring this partnership merely as a ruse so that their voters will pass the millage for increased police spending, as though partnering with the city would be the worst god damned thing in the world, like that’s the only thing that would persuade them to open their billfolds, the specter of having to deal with city people. The city, by the way, doesn’t need the township. Yeah, it would be nice if we weren’t landlocked and had some space to bring in new companies and the like, but we’ve got Water Street now. The township brings nothing to the table except falling property values, enormous foreclosure rates, and failing schools. We can do better without them.

  29. kjc
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    @Burt Reynolds, thanks. Just trying to understand where you’re coming from.

  30. EOS
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Well Ted,

    The City won’t be able to afford their police in a couple of years and they aren’t able to raise the millage anymore either. But you are right – you’ve got Water Street now.

    However, the Township has a future. Plenty of room for growth and a tax rate that attracts and encourages growth. If the county continues to charge us excessively for dedicated patrols, the choice for the township includes stopping the dedicated patrols. The county would still be obligated to provide sheriffs. Partnering with the City is a bad economic choice. Its not an emotional one.

  31. Peter Larson
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    “The townships already have the largest number of home foreclosures.”

    Doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of present or future in the townships.

  32. EOS
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    It’s unfortunate for the individuals who lose their homes, but not necessarily for the Township. Others are getting great deals on housing, moving in, and contributing to the community.

  33. Posted August 31, 2010 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    I live in the Township & I’ve been burglarized twice (once in June ’09 and again in June ’10) not to mention the million times I’ve called the cops about a million times for domestic violence occurring in the apartment complex across the street. The cops I’ve spoken to are all nice as hell but spread so incredibly thin that they look totally ragged. Every single one has expressed how much they would like to be able to patrol my block more thoroughly if only they had enough officers to do so.

    It’s a catch-22 – people don’t want to pay for services that they don’t see or feel they’re being provided based on the amount of crime that still goes on, but the reason things aren’t improving in my neighborhood are because people won’t pay for better coverage.

  34. Billy LaLonde
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    i like John’s idea up towards the top. We should totally sell Nascar-esque adds on the patrol cars…hell, even on the uniforms. Corporations can already fund unlimited political campaigns, and some schools for that matter, with scoreboards, and vending machines and whatnot. It’s the next logical step. At this point, who cares. We all know who’s really in charge. I mean, how much would we save in fuel costs alone, if the patrol cars had a big logo on the trunk that said “Powered By BP”, or “CITGO”…maybe Dunkin Doughnuts could get in on it, if some departments felt real cheeky! This is a great idea…and I’m only half joking…

  35. Billy LaLonde
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    Mary, you had a great idea as well. I lived right next to campus for 4 years, and those officers are chomping at the bit to get in on some action. They pull people over all the time. Maybe we coould increase their patrol and response areas a little farther out from campus, to some of the student populated areas, and some of that section near downtown…maybe even past Huron River Dr., up to Geddes or something.

  36. Posted August 31, 2010 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    How about personal corporate sponsorships? I could get a big “Tide” logo on my arm for rent money… “LEGO” on my knuckles… hell, I’d get “Hostess Cupcake” tattooed on my neck for $30,000/year for the rest of my life, no bones about it.

  37. Posted August 31, 2010 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    A couple points of clarification regarding the county contract for police services:

    1) The contract for dedicated patrols that Washtenaw County has signed with Ypsilanti Twp and many other communities does not cover the full cost of deploying a deputy. It does cover the salary and a large portion of the supervision, training, insurance and fleet costs. The overhead costs are not covered and the definition of “overhead” is hotly contested. In general, the county defines overhead pretty broadly (perhaps since this is usually THE most important issue to the commissioners from townships without a department). As evidence, I would point out that the county planned to spend $21.5 million on policing in 2010 and the county planned to receive $12 million in revenue to the Sheriff’s department.

    Since the 70% of our population that lives in areas with local police forces receive none of this benefit, this relationship is is inequitable to most of Washtenaw County’s residents and is a big incentive for sprawling, financially unsustainable patterns of development. Also, it’s not a small matter considering that this financial support for the townships represents a large portion of the total county general fund (roughly $100M).

    2) If Ypsilanti Twp or any other Twp in Michigan were to cease paying for contract deputies, the county would not be required to provide patrols to that community without a contract. This point was a central contention of Ypsilanti Township as they spent millions of dollars and several years in their suit against the county. Of course, the Township lost in no uncertain terms at the Circuit, Appeals and Supreme Courts (the Supreme Court denied leave because this same issue was clearly decided long ago in Brownstown Twp vs. Lucas – then Wayne County Sheriff). This was such a long settled area of law and such a hopeless case advanced by the Twp that the Appeals Court didn’t even publish their decision.

    Basically, the townships are getting a good deal from the county. Other than occasionally having to converse with annoying Commissioners from Ann Arbor, this relationship is completely in their interests and that is why the townships have continued with it. It would seem that they have no reason to pick up the huge infrastructure, liability, pension, post-employment health care and other costs associated with running a police force.

  38. EOS
    Posted August 31, 2010 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    Jeff is full of half truths. The “overhead” that is not paid by the townships through the contract is paid by everyone in the county through their taxes, townships included. Were the townships to have their own police departments, the sheriff would still exist and the overhead would still have to be paid by all county taxpayers.

    The 70% of the population that lives in jurisdictions that have their own police forces still receive services from the sheriff department. If 100% of the county had local police forces, we would still not be able to eliminate the sheriff department and its overhead costs.

    If the township chose not to pay for “patrols” then the county would not have to provide “patrols”. The county would still have to respond to accidents and crime scenes and would have to provide reports for township residents. We might have to go to Hogback to make the reports, but the county would be required to provide them.

    The township currently gets a better deal from the county than it would from joining with the City and paying both the county and the city for police/sheriff services. However, should the costs charged by the county continue to rise as they have in recent years, then it would be in the best interests of the township to make other arrangements. Joining with the City of Ypsilanti is likely to be the least favorable of a number of other options.

  39. Posted August 31, 2010 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

    EOS, I appreciate the characterization but the whole truth is that I am full of burritos and coffee.

    To address your points, you are correct in asserting that every county parcel is taxed at the same rate. Therefore, the support that the county provides to certain communities is partly supported by the tax base of those communities. In other words, if you live in Ypsilanti Twp you are paying a portion of the “support” or “subsidy” that the county provides to your community. My point is that even if you are in a community that funds 100% of your local police force (Ann Arbor, Pittsfield Twp, Ypsilanti, Chelsea, Saline, Northfield Twp, and Milan), a generous chunk of that roughly 4.5 mills in county tax is going to fund the police services of other municipalities. That’s the rub and the fact that our example Ypsi Twp taxpayer is covering some of that county “support” doesn’t change the inequity of the relationship; neighboring residents in the City of Ypsilanti are still paying for a portion of those Twp deputies even while they’re struggling to fund their own department.

    What are the services that the residents in Ann Arbor receive from the Sheriff’s Office? There’s some mutual aid. That’s good, but that door swings both ways. Interestingly, there is a pool of 13 officers (12 deputies and one sergeant) who are general patrol resources that are meant for the whole county to utilize. Unfortunately, because of severe underfunding in certain townships, those resources are routinely gobbled up by Augusta, Scio and Ypsilanti Twps. I wish I had gotten the general fund patrol utilization chart online so that I could link to it. It’s very instructive as to how these common resources are utilized in Washtenaw County.

    As far as what would happen if the township were to stop contracting for police services, I think it is fair to say that nobody knows. There would be incredible political pressure to cover 100% of the public safety costs of those communities because nobody wants a tragedy and we all want a safe county.

    Legally, the county would not be under obligation to answer all calls to 911 or to respond to every crime scene as you indicate. Currently, this is the situation we have in some of the western townships that have no contracted service and are desperate to get some service out of those 13 general fund patrol officers. Residents in these townships rely on the State Police and units from neighboring communities that do pay. If there is an emergency where lives are in danger, then the closest car goes whether it’s from AAPD, WCSO or otherwise. If, like in the case of a burglary, it is not a life or death situation, then the police might not show up for hours or even days.

    In other words, this situation is currently playing out now in our community and not as you claim it would. The past court case from Wayne Co, the Ypsi Twp case against the county and current practice all suggest that you should revisit your conclusions about what is legally required of the county.

  40. applejack
    Posted September 1, 2010 at 1:08 am | Permalink

    If Ypsilanti twp stops funding police through the county it would then be able to be annexed by the city of Ypsilanti without all the referendum crap. One of the requirements for charter townships to remain un-annexable is to provide police service.
    Annex the township!

  41. lorie thom
    Posted September 1, 2010 at 6:51 am | Permalink

    Better yet – make Belleville annex them. If we do, they dominate us because of their large voter base and in case you haven’t noticed, um, they don’t vote at all the way Ypsilanti voters vote and I like Ypsi City. They don’t vote to take care of their messes (sheriff’s deputies). As Burt demonstrates they tend to be more “I got mine not going to share” mentality. Don’t want to be in Ypsitucky and I certainly wouldn’t follow Brenda Stumbo anywhere.

  42. EOS
    Posted September 1, 2010 at 7:13 am | Permalink

    We are not required to fund police through the county, merely have some type of provision for public safety. Annexation would require the approval of voters in the Township. In 40 years time, Ypsilanti Township will be the dominant force in the county and we will dwarf whatever remains as Ypsi city – if anything remains at all.

  43. Edward
    Posted September 1, 2010 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    Can’t they just require that everyone over the age of 13 carry a gun? That would solve everything. No more crime. No more need for police.

  44. Peter larson
    Posted September 1, 2010 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    Ypsilanti township is hardly “the dominant force in the county.” that’s the funniest thing I think I’ve heard all day.

  45. whatupwithMi
    Posted September 1, 2010 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

    I am in in favor of whichever solution increases the % likelihood of EOS being impacted by a thieving, drugged-crazed, non-Sidewalk-using criminal.

    I’m not sure which position provides this most-likely solution.

    EOS- keep in mind- one solution DOES INCREASE this chance, statistically. And statistically, your approach has increased Your Townships crime rate.

    Too bad your thugs wander into my city.

  46. EOS
    Posted September 2, 2010 at 7:45 am | Permalink


    I’m doing what I can to reduce crime by sharing the gospel with as many as possible. Changing a person’s heart is a crime deterrent. Paying for a larger police force just processes the criminals quicker after the fact. I don’t believe in collectivism. I’m not responsible for another person’s criminal acts. I did notice, though, that Mark isn’t indicting all progressives and environmentalists for the terrorist act yesterday. You can bet if the man had been conservative he’s be calling for Glen Beck to be held accountable and locked up. Where’s the fairness?

  47. Edward
    Posted September 2, 2010 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    I’d love to know how much time you spend sharing the gospel among Ypsilanti’s criminal element, EOS? I’m fascinated by this revelation, and respect you much more for it. I’d love to hear stories of the lives you’ve changed.

  48. EOS
    Posted September 2, 2010 at 9:57 am | Permalink


    I know for sure Robert has had a new awakening on this site – probably others as well.

  49. Robert
    Posted September 2, 2010 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    I think EOS is calling me a criminal.

  50. EOS
    Posted September 2, 2010 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    Just in jest. Thought I might get a smile out of you.

  51. Stephen
    Posted September 2, 2010 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    So EOS is claiming to fight crime in Ypsilanti by leaving comments here?

  52. EOS
    Posted September 2, 2010 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    Well, its working for me. All the time I spend typing means less time I spend planning bank robberies.

  53. Peter larson
    Posted September 2, 2010 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    And working.

  54. Ypsiosaurus Wrecks
    Posted September 2, 2010 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    EOS: I’m guessing you are a conservative white christian who talks the talk but hardly walks the walk.

    If you are such a great upstanding citizen – they why don’t you tell us who you are and where you share the good word…?

  55. Billy LaLonde
    Posted September 2, 2010 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    EOS, you are nothing but a troll with a bible. It’s easy to spout off your lobsided opinions when you post them as “EOS”. Does that stand for “Easy Out Shitheel”?

  56. Not so fast
    Posted September 3, 2010 at 6:32 am | Permalink

    I think EOS is a Ypsilanti Township Trustee who used to wrk in the city as a cop.

  57. EOS
    Posted September 3, 2010 at 6:56 am | Permalink

    No, I am not Stan. I am not a public figure. If I told you my name, nobody would ever have heard of me. I’ve never claimed to be a great upstanding citizen. And I lied when I said I shared the Gospel with as many as possible.

  58. Edward
    Posted September 3, 2010 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    EOS used to be a cop? This is getting interesting. Who’s this Stan guy?

  59. lorie thom
    Posted September 3, 2010 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

    Ypsilanti Township Trustee named Stan Eldridge. Stan used to be a cop here in the city. I wish we had some south-side commentators on this blog, they could fill you in on his rep.

  60. Kim
    Posted September 3, 2010 at 1:09 pm | Permalink




  61. Whomp
    Posted October 4, 2010 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    The City should allow Township homeowners to buy-in for fire protection with an annual fee like the do in this Libertarian paradise.

3 Trackbacks

  1. […] And things got more interesting a week or so later, when we brought up the possibility of the City and Township coming together to provide police and fire services. During that conversation, the following was said by another Township resident: Believe it or not, […]

  2. […] I’d encourage those interested in the subject to read through our recent conversations on the seemingly insufficient policing of Ypsi Township and the possibility of the City and Township joining together to provide police services. […]

  3. […] in hopes of reducing redundancy and saving money. Unfortunately, every time we bring it up, people go insane. I hate to make blanket statements, but, judging from the conversations we’ve had here in the […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Josh Tear Header