EASTPOINTE, Mich. (WXYZ) — It was decided Tuesday night that Eastpointe residents will not be penalized for excessive 911 calls to the same location.
An ordinance was proposed to recover resource costs for certain incidents like setting a false alarm, bomb threats and reckless driving. The council vote was split down the middle and didn't garner the support to pass.
This ordinance was proposed because public safety officials felt emergency services were being wasted on empty threats and nuisance calls.
The two council members who voted no agreed that it's a problem, but they never want anyone in real danger to hesitate dialing 911.
The mayor of Eastpointe was not in attendance at Tuesday's meeting. During the first reading of the proposed ordinance, council approved it 3 to 2.
"I know sometimes people abuse it and things like that, but our residents do pay taxes for those services, so we should be providing them," Mayor Pro Tem Sarah Lucido said.
When drafting the ordinance, the public safety director hoped it would act as deterrent against unnecessary calls, particularly the countless school threats reported in metro Detroit and across the county.
"It ties up the officers and detectives and stuff. Its wrong and the parents have to be held accountable," resident Clifton Hall said.
The ordinance states if police respond to your location more than three times in a quarter of a calendar year, the person responsible will be fined.
You would also have to pay up if you are responsible for specific types of calls such tampering with a fire hydrant, threats on social media and illegal fireworks.
Some residents came to the meeting not expecting any action.
"I am not surprised, I am not surprised because there was a lot of division on this," Karen Mouradjian said.
There was division, especially amongst council members. Lucido and Councilman Cardi DeMonaco voted no. Councilmen Harvey Curley and Rob Baker voted yes.
"I guess there is no discussion needed because we already see at the table how it's going to go," Baker said.
Demonaco says there are already ordinances on the books for many of the items listed in the proposal.
Others argue many of these violations should be handled in court.
"It kind of seems like this ordinance is redundant and you can definitely see both sides," Mouradjian said.
The ordinance is essentially tabled and could be re-introduced to council at a later date.
