Please note: all information below courtesy of https://data.census.gov and illustrated in spreadsheets and graphs/screenshots below.
What are the differences in the populations of Randolph town and village? How does Randolph compare to Braintree and Brookfield?
With village voters facing a 43% tax increase on police district services, I decided to research the demographics.
To be clear - I sympathize with the desire to avoid taxation, that is normal. However, when does avoiding taxation burden the community?
How much should a community rely on the state police before it becomes a local responsibility? The state police reported 600+ calls from town residents in 2023. I believe that represents a significant demand for local coverage.
How many calls are required before the voters approve town wide coverage?
With that in mind, let's see if the demographic data tells us why town voters are so opposed to town wide local police coverage. Are village voters better off after paying for local coverage for 40 years since the merger?
The town has higher rates of homeownership, employment and higher education.
The town has much higher property values, with over 10% of residential real estate valued at $500k or more, while the village has 0% over $500k.
The town and village each have roughly 21% of the residents ages 65 or older.
Town residents are younger overall, with a median age of 40.6 for town and village combined, compared to a median age of 49.4 for village residents.
The town residents overall have much higher median income ($80k+), about 38% higher compared to the village residents ($58k), and close to Braintree ($75k), while Brookfield is highest ($87k).
The town has 66% of the population, the village has 44%.
The town and village combined has 6.6% of the population in poverty, the village alone has 11.3%.
The town and village combined has 17.7% of children under age 18, the village has 12.6%.
What does this tell us?
Town residents - on average - are more educated, have much higher incomes, higher property values, less poverty and far more children under 18, all sent to school (and adding to traffic) in the village.
The town also has the majority of residents (3/2) and the vast majority of taxable real estate.
In addition, as I have previously reported, the town traffic passing through the village results in a significant demand on law enforcement resources. This a burden to the village, but a benefit to the town.
Finally, as detailed on the blog, the 2023 RPD incident data shows roughly 30% of incidents are located in town but outside the village district.
Meanwhile, village residents are struggling compared to their neighbors.
Now, the question is: Why does the town refuse to expand police coverage to the entire town?
My answer is: Because they can. It is really that simple.
I believe the town will refuse to expand local coverage as long as there are no repercussions OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT. There is no law, no minimum population, which requires local coverage.
As long as enough town voters Just Say No, I think they will. The town knows the village PD will respond in town under the current arrangement.
Why vote for more? They have the best of both worlds.
The town is convinced local coverage is a village problem, and for them, that is all there is to it.
In fact, as the 2007 Joe Voci petition noted, town residents would prefer village residents just shut up about it.
That was 17 years ago. Times have changed, but the attitude stays the same.
What can the village voters do about it?
The village voters can also Just Say No.
Refuse to approve any budget, and force disbanding the entire department. The town would then have to decide to either initiate (and vote on) town wide coverage, or do without.
Or village voters could insist on a reduced budget with coverage from 7 am to 7 pm, Monday - Friday. No weekends. See what happens next year.
In either case, there are potential risks to public safety if it leads to no local coverage.
Is it a risk worth taking?
That is the decision facing village voters: put our foot down and say enough is enough, after 40 years, times have changed?
Or go along for another year and "hope" the town expands the district?
We need strong leadership and a plan for action, not more kicking the can down the road. It seems 40 years is long enough for this experiment.
Village voters are tired, the results are clear: the outcome for the village has been dismal, while the town, and neighboring towns, have prospered in comparison.
Comments and feedback is encouraged. Make your voice heard.
Thank you for reading.
Disclaimer: the data shown below is published by the Census Bureau for the entire town of Randolph, and includes the data for the village of Randolph. However, the Census Bureau also reports separately the data for the village of Randolph. The data for the town then has to be calculated by subtracting the village data, and/or estimating the town data alone. Please ask in the comments if there are any questions.
Links to census bureau data for each area:
No comments:
Post a Comment