TL;DR BSO cites a 35-year partnership as a reason to stay. Chaz argues municipal contracts aren’t marriages—they are purchases that must be justified by current data, not history.

This isn’t a warning.
It’s a hostage note written by the vendor.

Read it again.
Slowly.
Strip out the drama and what’s left?
Fear words stacked where numbers should be.

“Catastrophic mistake.”
“Jeopardize public safety.”
“87,000 people.”

Big claims. Zero math.

No response times.
No staffing ratios.
No cost-per-resident comparison.
No rebuttal of a single assumption in the feasibility study.

If public safety were actually at risk, this would look like a spreadsheet. Instead, it reads like a sermon—long on moral pressure, short on facts.

Calling the study “error-plagued” without naming a single error isn’t analysis. It’s branding. If the memo were truly flawed, dismantling it page by page would be easy. They didn’t even try. That tells you everything.

Then comes the emotional blackmail: a 35-year partnership, as if longevity were a performance metric. Municipal contracts aren’t marriages. They’re purchases. History doesn’t excuse inefficiency.

The most revealing part? The paragraph aimed not at residents—but at BSO personnel. Job reassurances. Political framing. Vendor talking to its own workforce in public.

That’s not safety. That’s contract defense.

And “People over politics”? Please. Every sentence above it is politics—pressure, positioning, and blame-shifting preloaded for the record.

Here’s the simple test they failed:
If staying with BSO were obviously safer, they wouldn’t be begging for time. They’d be asking for a vote.

Safety arguments that can’t survive a spreadsheet aren’t safety arguments.

They’re delay tactics wearing turnout gear.

FAQs