Two weeks ago, I wrote about a possible 3 percent increase in the utility tax for Maple Valley, to pay for five full-time positions in the police department, and for a new emergency operations center. Obviously, I was in favor of it, but I also asked those of you who oppose it to speak up.

It was a pretty simple request. If you oppose this tax increase, where would you cut?

I can’t find any informed and sane person who says Maple Valley has too many police officers. If you haven’t been the victim of crime this year, you probably believe the hype that we’re in a low crime area. Relative to the high crime areas in King County, we are, but our police are in reactive mode only, and often we don’t have the resources to stop known criminals before they act.

And guess what; the criminals know this. They only have to avoid the patrol officers, without fear from special emphasis teams who take on special problems like illegal gun and drug sales. Why? Because those teams don’t exist in this town. Our police department is mostly limited to answering 911 calls (reactive mode) and dealing with crimes in progress where they can actually see or easily find the criminals.

Let’s talk about this city’s drug problem, for example. For the most part, it’s invisible to sheltered suburbanites, but it’s happening right in front of us. Spend some time at the Safeway parking lot or the community center’s skate park and just people-watch for a while if you want to see it for yourself. Last week’s drug search at the high school made the news, but it only picks up the dumbest drug dealers who are too lazy to meet their customers outside of school. Maybe they’re trying to save on gas money during these tough economic times (drink).

With only patrol officers available, the city isn’t able to stop these daily drug deals unless an officer stumbles upon it in progress. Even then, many of these dealers are armed, so it’s not always a good idea for a single officer to chase several suspects into the woods alone.

There are some very bad people in our city, including a recent incident on the trail resulting in a man being stabbed multiple times, guns being drawn in crowded neighborhoods (including mine this month).

I’m sorry to burst our shiny happy suburban bliss bubble, but the police blotter you read in both papers is not a complete picture of crime in this town. Drug deals are causing most of the dangers, and that’s a big part of what this utility tax would address.

All right, so we had the public hearing on Monday, and I challenged opponents to state exactly where they would find $800,000. Four opponents spoke, but only one person offered a suggestion, which is to use the ball field money (good idea, but the law says that money has to pay for capital improvements like ball fields or sidewalks).

The other three didn’t offer any suggestions. Not one. Plus, the city councilor that most opposes it also has zero input on alternative ways to fund this city’s police shortage. I think her plan is to study it for another six years, which is how long she’s already avoided this problem. To hear her say it, it’s “due diligence.” To me, it’s “indecisive.”

The debate on Monday night also brought up another soon-to-be-banned word, “unconscionable.” It was used no less than three times, and each time was directed at the city staff for their heinous acts.

Gasp! Unconscionable? Such as, completely without a conscious or a moral center? Yes! Their crimes against humanity included things like freezing city staff raises and health benefits to balance the budget, while proposing the utility tax increase to pay for the public safety problem. Wait! There’s more…they also suggested that the community center use the city-owned Lake Wilderness Golf Course for their yearly fundraiser, since the city is already giving them a $192,000 grant.

Unconscionable? Hardly. That word is being tossed around so indiscriminately, that the councilors are going to have to step up to Hitler-level insults for more serious offenses.

I wouldn’t even use that word to describe the previous council’s lack of action on public safety. Even if this council punts on this issue again, I still wouldn’t use it. I’ll pick a more accurate one, such as irresponsible. Pass this tax, councilors, then lower it when times are better.