“It’s only the timid half step of a beginning in the right direction,” Kelty said.
The best way to fight crime, he said, is to reduce unemployment. “At the end of the day we achieve a safer community when we have prosperity.”
Did Kelty really mean to suggest that economic growth will reduce pedophilia and other sexual predators? There is absolutely NO BASIS for that argument.
UPDATE: I decided to delete the previous portion because I think the tone was slightly over-the-top of what I really wanted to say. I came to this conclusion after speaking with somebody I respect that was taken aback by my comment. To that person the comment implied that someone who is indicted should not be allowed to speak on certain topics. That's NOT what I wanted to say. The real point I wanted to make was that the day of your arraignment might not be the best time to attack the other candidate's plans.
Even the most ardent supporters of supply side economics must admit that some crime is simply not related to prosperity. Will advancing prosperity in the area reduce crime in general? Perhaps but I suppose it depends on how one defines "prosperity". What will not reduce crime is cutting the city's budget to unrealistic levels that could impact the money available for public safety officers and programs. That is something Matt Kelty has proposed to do...