Am I subsidizing rural police protection?
Yes, yes you are. Because it is better for our society as a whole if public safety services are broadly available, even in rural areas that you don’t live in, and oh, by the way, might find yourself one day being served by if you wander off of a wilderness trail, or find yourself stranded on a backwoods road with no cell service, or be the victim of a crime while on a road trip through “Rural America”. We “subsidize” all manner of public services from education to environmental protection or access to electricity and communications on the same basis. It is not a novel concept.
Stranger
No argument from me. I pay for many things that have a vague benefit to me. And I am fine with that.
BUT…ISTM rural people tend to be MAGA and furious at subsidizing things in big cities (read trend liberal) that I wonder if they will be keen on us just paying for the shit we actually use.
More broadly, it does seem weird to have such a tiered policing system. Is that really the smartest way to do it? This is not to say rural areas should not get protection but, rather, is this really the best way to do it?
I’m as anti-MAGA as you are, but “unincorporated Kitsap County” is not MAGA-land. I have never seen a MAGA hat in the wild. There is only one “TRUMP 2024” banner within 5 miles of my house. Our school and fire bond levies usually pass.
Valid question. I’m sure there are alternatives that would be fine. There’s a lot of inertia to overcome though.
Aside from “painting with a broad brush” in multiple ways, the objection to having a “such a tiered policing system” is a peculiar one, as we have many critical public and government services that are ‘tiered’, have substantial redundancies, and are otherwise seemingly inefficient at first blush but such layers actually serve a purpose, and when managed well provide a robust capability, including disaster response, firefiring, the military (including the Active Duty services, Reserve components, National Guard, and state militias). In the case of sheriff’s departments, I have already explicated the many ways that they provide various services that are outside the jurisdiction or purview of municipalities and are localized enough that a state-level agency would likely not provide well distributed or supported coverage.
“Is it the smartest way to do it?” I don’t know if it is the smartest, but you really haven’t provided a plausible alternative, and any system that would provide an equivalent distribution of public safety services would almost certainly look similar to how sheriff departments is are currently organized. This is not to say that there aren’t problems with the current paradigm; sheriff departments can often become fiefdoms where a powerful local figure runs unopposed for decades and can use their authority in ways not serving the public. The general low pay and low prestige often means that deputies are not the most dedicated or ethical law enforcement agents, and there is a noted issue of local police and deputies who rack up disciplinary infractions in one jurisdiction just moving into another without that record following them, all of which argues for some greater degree of oversight. But most if not all states actually have the legal capability to investigate and regulate the conduct of sheriffs and their deputies, and that they often do not do so effectively argues against a centralized state policing agency (doubtless hiring from the same pool of officers) actually doing a substantially better job, notwithstanding there being less direct pressure to provide non-enforcement public safety services again listed above.
Stranger
Um, unincorporated Alameda County, California, is part of the Bay Area and thus is quite anti-MAGA. It still needs policing, which is done by the county sheriff’s department. And actually, some unincorporated areas here are not rural at all, but suburban.
Yeah, I live about 30 miles south of San Francisco, in about as blue an area as you can imagine, but I’m in an unincorporated area served by a sheriff’s department, not a city police dept. Just driving through the area without being aware of city limits, you might view it as somewhat rural, or somewhat suburban. Rural = backwoods MAGA hicks driving pickups with rifle racks is a stereotype that doesn’t apply everywhere.
Meet Tim Walz, Democratic candidate for Vice President and certified rural native.
Walz, 60, is from cattle country in northeast Nebraska. He was born in West Point, grew up in Valentine, graduated from high school in Butte and earned his bachelor’s degree at Chadron State College.
Much of his political bio was built on his time teaching and coaching football, track and basketball. His career has roots in Alliance, Nebraska, where he and his wife, Gwen, taught.
@Whack-a-Mole did say “tend to be MAGA” not “absolutely always are MAGA.”
I think there are probably good arguments for getting rid of county-level policing (however one names it or structures it), but they would also apply even more to municipal-level policing, because municipalities are more numerous and, on average, smaller and more insular than counties.
Here is an interesting Wikipedia article about law enforcement structures in different countries. It makes no comment on how well the different systems work, but it could be a fruitful source of ideas. A fair few countries have essentially a national police force, divided into major jurisdictions but under a central authority. Some have police authority under the major jurisdictions and do not have a central national authority. Some, like Italy, have different national forces that divide their jurisdictions by function, like local peacekeeping, major crime investigations, borders and transportation, and things like that. It’s not clear that any of these are more efficient in terms of cost than any other.
And of course, there’s the Constitutional Sherrifs. second only in overreach to the Sheriff of Nottingham
Cue the Mad Max analogies.
I found this website interesting: it’s a pressure group advocating for the incorporation of unincorporated areas in California. Apparently there are 5 million people living in such areas, the largest of which is East Los Angeles, pop 119,000 (!) Nor is that the only thoroughly urbanized unincorporated area: there are quite a few.
I assume people who live in unincorporated areas deliberately do so to have lower taxes and be more “free” in some sense. They could organize and incorporate. They choose not to. It’s on them. There are some upsides and downsides to it.
If you live near an unincorporated area, I’m pretty sure you don’t want it to be a lawless wasteland.
Ok ok, that’s a straw man. But clearly there should be some scope for sorting between people who want less public services and lower taxes and the opposite. (Technical term: Tiebout model - Wikipedia ) Just as it is clear to me that people locate to a particular area for a variety of reasons (eg you were born there) and such sorting will be less than perfect.
I’m not sure how to get the balance right and I’m not sure how far we are from best practice. Is it really necessary for a 5000 pop city to have a mayor and city council? And how do these 20,000+ pop unincorporated areas work in practice?
I can’t exactly incorporate myself.
Heck I’m not sure the Sheriffs deputy would get here timely enough to help me.
But, they do work for the whole county. Which every city and town is located.
They provide courthouse bailiffs and protection.
They set up roadblocks for DUI on roads city dwellers may travel after an event.
They do wellbeing checks on your Great Aunt Martha who’s not answering her phone, who happens to live on a county road.
They back up game wardens.
They work road accidents that city dwellers may be involved in.
They are weather spotters for tornado and thunderstorms coming to a town you might live in.
They back up the small village Police(one guy, who must sleep at some point) that is near me.
They provide Horseback and ATV search teams looking for your lost loved one or child who decided to take a hike or drive down a county road on a whim and got lost. Or looking for that escaped murderer, in town or country.
They lead funeral processions to the 100s of small cemeteries out in the county that a city dweller might wanna be buried at.
They manage the drug dog teams in our area.
I don’t know where y’all live, but they are very important.
BTW …my taxes ain’t cheap.
Don’t police do all of that?
Why don’t police do all of that?
My point being, why do I pay for a sheriff and police?
Seems to me one of them is enough.
Well, I don’t know. Do city police actually man the County courthouse.
I don’t think so.
You could move out in the county…and really have the good life. 
I thought city police mostly managed parking/traffic, bar fights and shop lifters at Walmart.
Oh and school resource officers.
I’ve never seen a city police out here. I’m sure part of my tax dollars go to something that provides for them. I know it does. We have one jail in this county. The city uses it just like the county does.
I kid, I know city police are important. But so are the County Sheriffs department.
They both have a place.
I am suggesting if there were no sheriffs then the local police would take over those duties.
Why am I paying for both?
I can tell you the sheriff will never, ever show up to my place if I call 911.
I didn’t see mention of the rather evil, and pretty stupid Barry County Mi. “Sheriff” dar leaf.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-elections-michigan-investigation/
If he’s not a member of this organization, he should be. They’re right up his alley;
On a second scan of the article it looks like he is a member. I really would like to see the Attorney General, Joceyln Benson nail that little creep to the wall.
Oh, and as said by many above, county police do a lot especially in states like MI that have vast rural areas. And really, much as I despise MAGAs and their selfish hateful attitudes, we can’t leave them unprotected. Sad as that seems. Many are too dumb to relise they are voting against their own interests/safety.