False Alarms: The Debate Continues

So "Verified Response" is back in the news. There was an article in the San Francisco Chronicle (and posted on SIW) which had the city of Fremont, Calif. estimating that it was saving $600,000 per year with its Verified Response policy. Here's a passage from the article:

[Fremont Police Chief] Craig Steckler says the first three years of "verified response" have gone well, saving the city more than $600,000 a year. He says arrests are up across the board. Taxpayers without alarms, he says, no longer subsidize the 20 percent with alarms.

But of course, there are two sides to every story. Later in the article, it reports:

Alarm industry officials and some residents say criminals have taken advantage, pointing to a rising number of burglaries as a reason no other Bay Area cities have followed Fremont and the few dozen other cities around the country that have adopted verified response.

I have previously written about the issue of false alarms for SD&I here.

So what are your thoughts on the topic? What do you think is the "happy medium" solution?