Dear Editor:
The Ledingham Park controversy (City says no to park curfew, Burnaby NOW, Jan. 11) trades off neighbourhood safety and peace for police job security.
Thomas Hasek and Debra Morgan saw (and still see) dangerous, noisy young people in the park in the night. They rightly sought (and still seek) a nighttime park ban.
Contrarily, the "mobile park patrol team" saw possible pink slips. The ban would lower crime and hence the team's workload, potentially killing their jobs.
They wailed to the RCMP brass, who then browbeat and frowned heavily upon Dave Ellenwood, the director of the Burnaby parks department.
Mr. Ellenwood tossed and turned at night, so to speak. Who, he wondered, should be axed? The Ledingham residents or police? In the end, he chose to save the cop jobs. To heck with residential safety and Mr. Hasek.
The arguments that the patrol can deal with nighttime misconduct or that the park ban would block legitimate park users, are PR lies to hide the real reason, namely to save patrol jobs.
New Westminster has fewer parks than Burnaby, hence less misconduct. Additionally, Coquitlam and New West already have job structures allowing park closure without subsequent unemployed cops.
The Ledingham chaos is ultimately one of hundreds of effects of poor research in economics. In a nutshell, economists are struggling in almost total theoretical darkness.
The Law of Demand and Supply is not a complete theoretical explanation of economics, and most economists are overrelying on it. Better theorization is desperately needed.
So, Ledingham can be seen two ways: (1) a frustrating, even life-threatening trade-off between police job stability and neighbourhood safety and quiet, or (2) a higher, theoretical problem in economics.
Thang Vu, Burnaby
