The yearly police report

Lynn Police Chief John Suslak has released the department’s annual report for 2007. The report is a reflection of the way Chief Suslak runs the department and how his men and women, the men and women of the Lynn Police Department, responded to the challenges facing them during the past year.
In summary, Chief Suslak reported that there was an overall decrease in crimes of all kinds – down 8.2 percent in 2007, compared with 2006. There was a 26 percent decrease in robberies, a 30.5 percent decrease in burglaries and a whopping 37.5 percent decrease in auto theft.
In addition, forcible rape went the other way, according to the report.  There were a total of 39 reported rapes in 2007, up from 34 the year before.
There were no fatal car accidents in 2007 while the department reported writing more than 2,000 additional citations than in 2006. They totaled 15,611 – up 16 percent from the year before.
There were five homicides in Lynn in 2007, compared to four in 2006, five in 2005, four in 2004 and one in 2003.
Drug seizures and drug related arrests held steady. Heroin overdoses were way down. Abuse of children remained the same in numbers reported – 27.
Overall, 2007 was a better year than 2006 in terms of numbers, and perhaps even of perception.
However, law enforcement problems having to do with running this city of more than 90,000 people requires a greater effort from year to year than ever before.
We hear, from time to time, that there are grumblings at the station among the troops about the chief.
If the chief is doing his job the way he ought to, then at least half the men and women on the force should be expected to complain about him.
It’s a little bit the same in the newspaper industry.
If an editor isn’t doing his job correctly, then no one is complaining about his editorials.
If he’s doing his job correctly, then there are always plenty of complaints.
Over the years, Chief Suslak has proven himself to be a by-the-book honest guy who makes no deals and who takes no prisoners.
We hope he will stay where he is for a long time, and that when he’s done, Deputy Chief Kevin Coppinger will take his place.

Down the beach

Spokesmen from  the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) weren’t joking when they said this year would be different from all years past.
First indications this season are that the DCR is over the top in keeping the beaches cleanm with more manpower and equipment and with strict overview by managers sworn to do a better job.
It has made a big difference early in the season.
We hope this continues.

Memo to Lozzi: It’s called renter's insurance

Bill Cooksey

Ward One Councilor Wayne Lozzi has taken it upon himself to dictate what kind of additional, if any, insurance policy a landlord should be required to have.  It’s just another shot in the ongoing war against the “vicious dog” problem we have in Lynn, which, by the way, seems to be the only problem we really have in the city, right?
Lozzi wants landlords to be required to take out $100,000 liability insurance to cover their tenant’s dogs.  This would be on top of the liability policy that they already have in their homeowner’s policy.
The city also wants to be on the insurance policy, you know, so that in case you cancel it, they will be notified.  Would you like to know my bedtime, too?  How about this: When you start paying my mortgage and property taxes, then you can tell me what I can and can’t do inside the four walls I call a home. Yes, a home, not a government internment camp. 
If I so choose to buy a three-family and occupy the first floor with a German shepherd, the second floor with a Doberman pinscher and the third with a pit bull, guess what?  I can.  It’s called freedom. 
Call me foolish, but I always believed that the government’s job ended at my doorstep.  Now, they are trying to pass ordinances that make it less desirable to rent to certain people.  And not only that, but if I do rent to someone who owns a dog, do I have to be held responsible for that animal?
Landlords should be free to rent to whomever they choose, without government interference.  Landlords should also be smart enough to understand the potential dangers of renting to someone with a dog, and thus require that tenant to take out renter’s insurance, which will clear the landlord of many liability issues, including dog bites.
How do I know this?  Before I bought my home I rented.  My former landlord made me take out a renter’s insurance policy to specifically cover my dog. I paid the price for having the dog - not the homeowner -  who, by the way, has to deal with the property tax hikes, increase in water bills, so on and so forth.
I talked to my insurance agent about this specific proposal.  He loved it, and he loved the increase in business it would provide.  He also told me that dog bites are already covered under the homeowner’s policy.
For example, my policy has a one bite clause.  If my dog bites someone, the insurance will cover it, but after that I am taking the risk if I decide to keep the dog.
What is a vicious dog anyway?  How do we define one?  Is it a dog that has already taken a chunk out of someone’s leg?  Or is it a dog that has the potential of biting, which would be every dog, wouldn’t it?
I eagerly await this committee and council debate, and I use the word debate loosely.  I wish some of our councilors were more animated and angered by some of the real issues, instead of camera and headline grabbing silliness that seems to be the norm.