[angelgonzales]

I think the bigger story here is that there are many talented people who are drawn to California because of the opportunity but would rather live elsewhere. Some people in tech have the benefit of working from home and can be digital nomads but there are many of us who have to live where we work and often that’s not where we really want to be. If he had the same rights and cost of living as Idahoans do I’m sure he’d he’d live in the Bay Area. I would rather live in Seattle and so would my coworker, I know a very talented engineer who sits across from me who commutes every weekend from Los Angeles to Bellevue because he doesn’t want to live here. My boss is looking for land in Spokane to settle down and another coworker lives in Nevada but commutes to work here and stays in hotels. When I lived in Portland the police and firefighters did nothing about the tents and RVs that caught fire next to where I lived. Having lived in Los Angeles the firefighters here do nothing about tents which become molten plastic fissures in the ground so I think they need to get their priorities straight since they have finite time and resources.

[eesmith]

So you think it's appropriate for the chief of police to abuse his power to secretly break the law and regulations because he wants to live in another state during the weekends and have the government pay for his lodging?

And you think the chief of police never unexpectedly needs to be on-site during the weekend, nor needs to inform the Board of Supervisors of his regular weekly absences? (For that matter, does his compensation already include a cost of living adjustment with the expectation he would live in the county?)

I suppose you also think it's appropriate for a bomb squad member to live out-of-state for a job which requires they be able to respond to a bomb threat within one hour?

It really comes across like you have an axe to grind about the Bay Area and being forced to live there, causing you to be an apologist for police officers who break the law and their job obligations.

[angelgonzales]

I think I’ll just being empathetic here, maybe his heart is just in Idaho? If he is the chief if may be within his authority to built out infrastructure within the station. Presumably he can react much faster during weekdays since he’s already in the station and delegate authority during weekends when he’s away and cannot respond quickly. It would be in family for a police department to have redundancy and response plans for his brief absences. Flights from Boise to SF are relatively cheap and short so his commute could even be shorter than if he went snowboarding in Mammoth or backpacking in the nearby Sierra Nevadas over the weekend. Is he required to never vacation so he’s always available on short notice? Maybe we should look at the rules he allegedly broke and see if they need changing?

[eesmith]

> If he is the chief if may be within his authority to built out infrastructure within the station.

The article was clear that there was no building permit, it wasn't up to fire code, it violated ethics rules, and more. (Eg, "Millbrae officials tell me Eamonn Allen didn't get permission before installing those mattresses, he didn't get a permit, and that he changed the locks on the building." ... "Chief Allen has to get permits, modify construction, and pass inspection if he wants sleeping quarters there.")

> and response plans for his brief absences

It appears the city manager was not aware of his frequent absences, which is why he filed a complaint to the city attorney. Who is supposed to know these response plans and sign off on them?

> Is he required to never vacation so he’s always available on short notice?

Of course not. Holidays are something to work out with, among other things, your employer. It does not appear that city management knew he was doing this.

> Maybe we should look at the rules he allegedly broke and see if they need changing?

Like having building permits, the requirement for sleeping areas to have fire-resistant walls and a secondary egress, and the ethical prohibitions on using "city owned property for personal need, convenience or profit"?

You are joking if you think all of them should be changed so the police chief - who is supposed to follow and help enforce these rules - doesn't break them in secret because his heart simply isn't into living in Millbrea during the weekends and he doesn't want to pay for a studio apartment or motel room on his 6-digit salary, on top of his mortgage and travel cost for his house in Idaho.

[angelgonzales]

"We need to see was someone living in there permanently?" Canepa said. "These are taxpayer dollars and so we need to make sure that what's taking place in those facilities really is for the good of the taxpayer. That means people aren't living there." - this quote doesn’t follow logically since the chief living in the office may actually be better for response time. This article makes me feel like all critics involved are like crabs in a bucket that are frustrated that someone managed to supercommute. I worry that someone in city government directed the fire inspector to the station as a political move more than in the actual interest of safety! If this guy faces any response to his living situation I would hope he gets the same treatment that those living on the street (whose habitation poses a fire risk to the public and burden to taxpayers) do - support from the community and no repercussions at all.

[eesmith]

> since the chief living in the office may actually be better for response time

If only the police chief made that argument first, in public, instead of sneaking around the rules.

> This article makes me feel

That's because you seems like someone who really, really doesn't want to live in the place you work but don't have an option to work remotely.

> as a political move more than in the actual interest of safety

Then the police chief is extremely poor at understanding the rules and how to work within them to effect change.

> I would hope he gets the same treatment that those living on the street ... support from the community and no repercussions at all.

You really are ill-informed. "Millbrae is now the first city in San Mateo County to implement a no-camping ordinance intended to prevent unsheltered homelessness and remove encampments." https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/millbrae-passes-sa...

Ha! "It allows Millbrae to remove personal property and campsite-related items in public spaces with 24-hour notice for individuals. If personal items are removed, they will be stored at the Millbrae Police Bureau for up to 90 days." so technically the police chief could keep his personal items at the station for 90 days, just like homeless people could. But that's not what you meant since homeless people aren't being given free shelter at the police station.

I get it. You don't like California cities. You want to live some place cheap and with guns, while making a good income. Sounds great. But you are letting your emotions make you blind to anything outside of your tunnel vision and gut feelings.

[rendall]

It's strange how people are missing that the Chief of Police broke the law, and bringing up irrelevance like how Boise is nice or he deserves vacations (!?).