posted on February 23, 2001 11:02:35 PM new"Maybe it was average starting salaries, but it wasn't in major cities. The plums, I guess are in the smaller communities with very large tax bases."
Show me, I'll submit the scales for contract negotiations.
Also, the new police chief at my department left the San Diego police to come here. He had 25 years with the SDPD. He will probably know what the average is.
posted on February 23, 2001 11:17:27 PM new
Those numbers probably are an aberration, krs. Binding arbitration has made us all familiar with the norms. The locals in the wealthier suburbs sometimes make in the 50's. Overtime csn make a big difference. It's possible to exceed 90k here with a lot of court time and paid details.
I'm up for a chief job now in a nearby town where the tax base is about as high as it gets. Patrolmen there start at 50k.
posted on February 24, 2001 12:07:32 AM new
It was in the paper. The entire pay package probably was included, with health benefits, COL allowances, uniforms etc. and the variables that can be subject to local agreement.
Doesn't matter to me at all, as I only asked a question about the effect of property valuation and the community tax base effect on public salaries. Did you forget about that?
A no bluster and fuss answer could be that police salaries are determined by nationwide collective bargaining in all cases and are thus not influenced by community budgetary limits.
posted on February 24, 2001 12:23:12 AM new
still, a quick look at job listings online shows more variance amongst those that show the starting salary then you would suggest to be the case.
Looks like Marcos Island, Fl. would be a good place to beat the cold:
lincoln, NE
Police Trainee: $1,800 monthly. Police Officer: starting pay $2,619.07 per month. Those who are currently law enforcement certified may be paid $31,420.80 annually at the time of hire
los angeles
Starting Salary: $42,800 plus to $56,500 plus
marco island,fl
Salary: $54,057 to $75,680
City of Santa Monica, CA.
Salary $4,001- $4,940 per month
phoenix, AZ
SALARY AND BENEFITS
Starting Salary
Annual $36,005.00
Monthly $3000.00
Biweekly $1,384.80
Hourly $17.31
posted on February 24, 2001 12:35:29 AM new
How, if there is collective bargaining on a national scale for police salaries, can there be this range within only 200 miles?
As you always do when (you) feel you been "one-upped," you start playing devious games with the intent to falsely accuse and to try and draw someone into a TOS violation.
I knew all along why you introduced totally unrelated topics about my area, the police departments, real estate, etc. I did not fall for it and it is driving you crazy. Since I did not bite, you decided to push the envelope and put one foot over the line.
I'll show you I am a nice guy, I'll help you to not put both feet over the line.
You will be considered in breach of these Guidelines if you do any of the following:
"Post private information about any person that is not readily available to the general public. This includes, but is not limited to, phone numbers, addresses, full names, email addresses, and an auction ID or auction user ID."
I guess you don't remember the thread about the shooting by accident of a person through a wall in a town in Illinois where you butted in to announce your authority in the matter and pretend that you were conversant with everyone involved, seemingly including the dead kid?
Obviously, you do not know when to stop. I thought you would get the message and get back on the topic.
I recall the thread regarding the accidental shooting. I recall stating I lived "close enough" and knew something about the incident. Did I state I live in "Illinois?" Show me.
I was not sure whether I have ever said what state I reside in, it has been a long while. Nevertheless, my warning to you was not based on that you might have divulged my state of residence, but that you were attempting to set up conditions that if I took the bait I would inadvertently disclose my city of residence, and maybe more.
When I did not bite, I detected you were pushing the issue and I could tell you were looking for the loophole to enable you to divulge more of my personal information without violating the AW guidelines. When you specified a state, consolidated with the other material, I felt you were about to cross entirely over the line. Hence the warning not to go further and close the traps.
Now you have crossed totally over the line.
The URL (http://www.XXXXXXXX.com/forsale/misfs/messages/70.html) you posted that links to a site message that contains a user ID I use here on AW, may or may not be me. The (linked) email address may or may not be (one) of mine.
Nevertheless, if the URL you posted is about me, then you have divulged my personal information that is not listed in my "AW Profile," and is information, I can assure you, I have never revealed anywhere on the AW site.
If the URL and accompanying information you have posted is not me, then you have just created problems for a person also using the same ID -and his site. In addition, you might have created problems for AW.
If the SgtMike on the site begins receiving harassing, unexplained, and unrelated (site) email, and begins receiving an extraordinary amount of spammed email, and the situation is traced back to being divulged on AW and under circumstances not conducive to the site's reputation, (that) SgtMike might (soon) be driving a new Lexus.
If I am not (the) SgtMike on the site you provided the URL for, I probably should contact him to advise what may be coming his way, where his site and email were posted, who posted it, and the purpose his URL to his site was posted on AW; under conditions and for a reason that is bad advertisement for his site.
posted on February 24, 2001 10:33:56 AM new
What a joke!!
What in the world is your paranoic fantasy bringing you to in "I detected you were pushing the issue and I could tell you were looking for the loophole to enable you to divulge more of my personal information without violating the AW guidelines. When you specified a state, consolidated with the other material, I felt you were about to cross entirely over the line. Hence the warning not to go further and close the traps." Now you have crossed totally over the line. Please! Laughing hurts me!!
In the first place you don't give me any warnings that I need to heed. In the second your premise that I was "laying a trap" couldn't be further from the truth and the workings of your mind are astounding to have concocted such a thing. My question was exactly as I presented it, and should not be subject to your perversions of misinterpretation. In the third, yes you did say that you were in Illinois in that thread. Convenient for you now is that it no longer seems to exist in the AW database. in the fourth, that Original sgtmike is a person in business selling fishing gear from California on the net. You go ahead and report that he has been receiving free advertising here. (you'll be delighted, I'm sure, to hear that he no longer uses 'sgtmike'--perhaps because he doesn't care to be associated with any other sgtmike...but instead is now 'mike49').
As foy your hopes for a Lexus, I'm afraid that you're on your own. I sold our old one last year. If you'd have let me know that you were interested??
posted on February 24, 2001 11:34:28 AM new
krs - I would ask that you remove the IP # you have posted on this thread. Whether it is SgtMikes or not, you are implying that it is his. IP numbers are private information, and this is not readily available to the general public
From our CGs Post private information about any person that is not readily available to the general public. This includes, but is not limited to, phone numbers, addresses, full names, email addresses, and an auction ID or auction user ID.
And I agree, by doing so you've step over the line.
posted on February 24, 2001 11:46:28 AM new
That IP is available to any general public with a computer who peruses that ad listing site; all IPs are posted with ads as a requirement. Many sites do that and once done it's as though the person has posted it by choice, which, of course, they have.
I'm really getting tired of people who somehow can know whether or not I am implying anything. I always thought that that was mine to do, another's to infer, however incorrectly.
edited with:
Oh, OK. Pat, it's not mikey's, it's a person whom I've done business with several times, and it doesn't matter to me whether it stays or not.
posted on February 24, 2001 02:09:45 PM new
Comments about the house are irrelevant now but for any other admirers of Frank Lloyd Wright's genius, a number of good online sites are available with good photography.
PSA
[ edited by antiquary on Feb 24, 2001 03:21 PM ]
I have deleted your post because it contained enough information to identify a seller. If you'd like to go through the process of inviting the seller, I'll be happy to restore your post.
posted on February 24, 2001 05:20:24 PM new
Oh, I never even thought of that. Antiquary and I have been having an offline discussion about the architect and when I tried to send the auction to him by their mechanism it wouldn't go. That occurred right before I posted. No big deal.
