[DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL ARTICLE IN WORD FORMAT]
[DOWNLOAD EDITED ARTICLE IN WORD FORMAT]

P.A. passes first reading of an amendment to counter excessive false alarms

A bill to reduce excessive false alarms that have overburdened the police was passed unanimously on first reading Tuesday by the Palo Alto City Council. If approved on second reading, it could take effect as early as March.

Under the bill, initiated by the police department and passed on its first reading, local residents will be subject to a $250 fine if they fail to register their alarm systems and obtain permits from the city.

To register alarm systems, users will have to pay a $35 annual fee, according to the bill. The new measures will help city police establish a better database of alarm system users, and allow officers to prioritize responses based on a user's records, said Lynne Johnson, the assistant police chief.

Police currently stop responding to alarm system users who are found to have produced 10 false alarms a year, and the new law will reduce the limit to six, she said.

The present law requires all users to file a registration, which is offered for free. But few users actually register, because the law does not provide for a penalty, and it's difficult for police to track a user's records, Johnson said.

The number of false alarms is going up each year, Johnson said.

From 1999 to 2000, the Police Department responded to a total of false 4,800 alarms - an average of 13 calls a day, she said. The comparative number in 1997-1998 was 3,735False alarms not only overburden the police, but also increase the danger to officers and the public, Johnson said.

"Ninety-eight percent of the alarms we respond to are false" Johnson said. "he more false alarms officers go to, the more their guard is down, Johnson said. Hence, once they go to an . actual alarm, , their chances of getting hurt are higher

Most false alarms are caused by human errors but sometimes there are mechanical problems, she said.

Joe Lopez, who works at California Security, a large major alarm company, agrees.

"People enter their house and they don't know the alarm goes, or they are having trouble turning off the alarm," he said. "Because they are not familiar with the system, or because something goes wrong with the system, we send out police and it turns out to be a false alarm" Lopez serves as a "dispatcher" at California Security's branch for the San Jose and Santa Clara areas, has the responsibility of contacting police and fire departments whenever one of his firm's alarms is triggered.

During his eight-hour shift, Lopez usually responds to 20 or more alarms, most of which are false.

Stephanie Munoz, a resident of Palo Alto, agreed that something should be done about false alarms but said the new law was "unfair and counterproductive."

The city should not resort to a registration system under which all users are forced to pay, including those who have never produced false alarms, she said.

"The city simply tries to ignore 'the boy who cry wolf' through the registration system," she said. "The boy would be eaten when a wolf really comes. That's very inferior and stupid, because they don't touch the criminals and they don't prevent a house from being robbed, which is what they ought to do.".

"The new bill also fails to give incentives to alarm companies to improve their products," she said adding that if their products cause false alarms someone else has to pay Assistant Police Chief Johnson disagreed, saying that users should take responsibility to make sure they maintain and use their system properly.

"It's their responsibility." She said. " It's not the city's responsibility."

The police department had consulted with homeowner associations, chambers of commerce and business groups in the city before it presented the amendment, Johnson said, and no complaint was heard earlier.

"The only response we got was from somebody who said we needed to charge more," she said.