 |
Mount Pleasant DC Forum
Discussion about the Mount Pleasant Neighborhood
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 4399
Location: 19th & Lamont
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:15 pm Post subject: Re: Public disorder |
 |
|
| Jennrgolden wrote: |
That was my rant...straight from the heart...I'll go back to "lurking" on this board and let all the nay-sayers rip apart my remarks. |
No, nobody's going to "rip apart" any such remarks. Your reaction is perfectly understandable. As I have said ever so many times -- public disorder is a problem that is probably more important to residents than actual crime, if only because it's something you may encounter on the street, day after day.
An easy answer is indeed to make them go away, where they'll trouble somebody else. As a resident, with the problem on my doorstep, I'd be inclined to say fine, that'll do it. But as an ANC commissioner, sworn to judge matters according to what is best "for the District, as a whole", simply shoving the problem into somebody else's neighborhood isn't something I can support.
Since early in my ANC years I've pressed for MPD foot patrols for the control of such bad behavior. Officers in squad cars will generally pass by, hardly noticing anything. Foot patrol officers get to know the "street people", and can persuade them to moderate their behavior, and make arrests where appropriate.
It's been hard to keep our foot patrol officers here, because 3D can be overloaded with calls for service, and then they want officers in cars. The MPD doesn't think much of officers who can patrol only small areas, for lack of mobility. (The Segways may help a lot in that respect.) The MPD also tends to discount control of disorderly conduct, because this doesn't produce statistics that they can then show off to the District Council. But we want foot patrols, because this is the most effective means of controlling public disorder.
Attached, just for example, a resolution I had passed by the ANC five years ago on this topic:
Resolved, that ANC1D advises the Metropolitan Police Department to provide adequate personnel for continuation of its Mount Pleasant foot patrols.
Why: Residents have observed a decline in the presence of foot patrol officers in recent months. The Metropolitan Police have indicated that shortfalls in the support of foot patrols have come about because of staff shortages and an internal policy of giving priority to officers sitting in patrol cars awaiting calls for service.
ANC1D asserts that this is a misplacing of police priorities. The foot patrol officers have been very effective at reducing disorderly conduct and harassment of residents by certain street people, and at reducing intimidation of residents by gang members. The cutback in foot patrols has led to a resurgence of these problems, which have a substantial effect on the lives of Mount Pleasant residents.
The policy of the Metropolitan Police Department to give priority to officers sitting in squad cars awaiting radio calls for service is an inferior use of limited personnel resources. In most cases, officers responding to calls arrive long after the incident in question, and can do little but take a report. This is ineffectual in deterring crime or capturing offenders. Conversely, police officers can be very effective at deterring bad behavior on the street, by creating an atmosphere of discipline on the street, persuading would-be offenders to cease their bad conduct, or go elsewhere. Furthermore, officers put in close contact with the residents, rather than sitting in isolation inside a squad car, create an atmosphere of trust and legitimacy with the residents, including some who tend to distrust authorities.
ANC1D asserts that it is in the interest of the police, as well as the neighborhood, to assure full staffing of the foot patrol effort in Mount Pleasant.
That's an approach to the problem that is consistent with my oath of office: I am sworn to "consider each matter before me from the viewpoint of the best interest of the District of Columbia, as a whole".
Not just what's good for Mount Pleasant, or what pleases my constituents, but what's best for the District, "as a whole".
-- Jack
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filename: |
MPD foot patrols.July 2006.pdf |
| Filesize: |
11.64 KB |
| Downloaded: |
60 Time(s) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gfletcher
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 89
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | An easy answer is indeed to make them go away, where they'll trouble somebody else. As a resident, with the problem on my doorstep, I'd be inclined to say fine, that'll do it. But as an ANC commissioner, sworn to judge matters according to what is best "for the District, as a whole", simply shoving the problem into somebody else's neighborhood isn't something I can support. |
Jack has often used this "oath" argument to frustrate those of us who want more aggressive action taken with respect to quality of life issues in the neighborhood - and getting into these discussions with him is an exercise in futility.
With this said, his "oath" logic falls apart, because even if by aggressively combatting the the drunks our neighborhood, they are pushed into another neighborhood in DC - it is NEUTRAL "DC as a whole".
Tilting at the ANC is not the way to attack this problem. My experience is that they actively try to counter quality of life progress in the neighborhood. Here are some effective things that people can do as individuals:
- email Councilmember Graham, he is responsive and gets resullts
- email Commander Krister and Lt. Pate, they are responsible for the police force in our neighborhood
Again, in my experience, individual emails can produce small scale results. If anyone wants to join a larger-scale effort, I will start an email petition to urge DC to address our problem more aggressively. My email address is [email address removed - log in to view] - shoot me a note if you care to join the petition.
Finally, much of the problem is related to the fact that Sacred Heart Church provides food and shelter to these people by night and releases them into our neighborhood by day. I appreciate their mission of charity, but it has a disproportionate impact on our quality of life. I think it would make sense to engage with them as a neighborhood, but I think that would only make sense if we did so with a unified voice. Maybe if the petition drive gathers steam....
_________________
GWF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TJinMtP
Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Posts: 63
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Has a civic-minded person ever spent so much time as Jack at striving to lower the expectations of the very neighbors who are most enthusiastic about improving the community?
* In excusing a crime rate status quo that most, if not all neighbors believe requires improvement?
* In suggesting that the current level of crime is inevitable until poverty and bad parenting are solved, and relentlessly dismissing effective approaches for countering crime?
* In calling the rising expectations of residents irrelevant to public-safety outcomes in our neighborhood?
Rather than waste time debating defeatist propositions, I suggest we focus our efforts on the bread-and-butter actions that we know will improve public safety: vigilance against risks to ourselves and each other, and close engagement with the MPD and city officials.
Enough of these distracting debates. Steady ACTUAL PROGRESS in Mt. Pleasant during recent decades demonstrates where we are heading, and the growing number of optimists here must ensure that we continue on this path.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kelly5612
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 260
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I can't sit back and let you fight this battle yourself, TJ. I've been really disappointed by Jack's reactions to residents complaints about crime (and I really don't wish to single him out because he is the only commissioner to engage residents on this forum, which should be noted and makes him unfortunately "the nail that sticks out"). I don't want to debate the whys of alcoholism and homelessness; those are too large for us to solve. We need to focus on methods to decrease our problems that actually have a chance of being effective, if only on a localized scale, such as greater police presence.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 4399
Location: 19th & Lamont
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:53 am Post subject: Lamont Park problems |
|
|
| gfletcher wrote: |
Finally, much of the problem is related to the fact that Sacred Heart Church provides food and shelter to these people by night and releases them into our neighborhood by day. I appreciate their mission of charity, but it has a disproportionate impact on our quality of life. I think it would make sense to engage with them as a neighborhood, but I think that would only make sense if we did so with a unified voice. Maybe if the petition drive gathers steam.... |
It is true, I believe, that the services to the homeless provided by Sacred Heart tend to promote a population of homeless in this area.
So, what's the alternative? What would people propose be done that would (a) reduce the homeless population here, and yet (b) continue to provide food and shelter to the homeless of DC?
I know what I would propose: daytime shelters, so that the homeless would have a place to spend their daytime hours, and would have access to toilet facilities, so they wouldn't be using our alleys as open-air urinals.
Practice in DC's shelters is to close them early, putting the occupants out on the street for the day, and to keep them out until evening. That's why DC's parks -- not just Lamont Park, but others around the city -- become congregation sites for the homeless during the day. And those men use our alleys as toilets (is there a business on Mount Pleasant Street that doesn't have a "restrooms are for customers only" placard?).
Changing these homeless shelter policies would substantially mitigate the problem, without simply driving the homeless off into somebody else's neighborhood.
-- Jack
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 4399
Location: 19th & Lamont
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:45 am Post subject: crime in Mt Pleasant |
|
|
| TJinMtP wrote: | Has a civic-minded person ever spent so much time as Jack at striving to lower the expectations of the very neighbors who are most enthusiastic about improving the community?
* In excusing a crime rate status quo that most, if not all neighbors believe requires improvement?
|
There's an assumption here that crime rates (and let's distinguish between "disorderly conduct", such as POCA and public urination, and "crime", such as robberies and burglaries) can be reduced through public pressure. This assumes that (a) the police aren't already doing all they can, and (b) there hasn't been public pressure in Mount Pleasant for crime reduction before now. (That's quite an insult to the efforts of the MPNA, and in particular, by Laurie Collins, who was extremely active in this respect before she left the neighborhood.)
| TJinMtP wrote: |
* In suggesting that the current level of crime is inevitable until poverty and bad parenting are solved, and relentlessly dismissing effective approaches for countering crime?
|
There's another assumption -- that there are "effective approaches" that aren't being implemented here. (What are these "effective approaches"? and why aren't they being implemented?)
The problem is not that simple, and many of the approaches that are popularly thought to work, in fact do not, such as "more police". There's been a great deal of studying of crime and crime reduction techniques, and it's well worth the time to read some of these studies. Here's an excerpt from one such study, pertinent to the current debate: "In summary, in spite of significant changes in policing philosophy and practice over the last decade—or perhaps because of the rapidity of those changes—the independent impact of policing practices and policies on the recent crime drop remains uncertain. Across-the-board responses, such as mass hiring and more patrolling, have had little effect."
In short, "more patrolling", i.e., the famous "police presence", has little effect on crime. (Public disorder is a different matter. I note again my repeated calls for foot patrols on Mount Pleasant Street.)
| TJinMtP wrote: |
* In calling the rising expectations of residents irrelevant to public-safety outcomes in our neighborhood? |
Again, this assumes that simply demanding a crime reduction will bring about a crime reduction. It's not that simple. "Expectations" alone cannot overcome reality. As for "rising expectations" -- that's an assumption that nobody before has brought a great deal of pressure for crime reduction. Laurie Collins, Marika Torok, and Dominic Sale will dispute that.
| TJinMtP wrote: |
Rather than waste time debating defeatist propositions, I suggest we focus our efforts on the bread-and-butter actions that we know will improve public safety: vigilance against risks to ourselves and each other, and close engagement with the MPD and city officials. |
Yes, vigilance works. This isn't Chevy Chase, it's the inner city, Ward One, east of Rock Creek Park, and residents really have to be alert to trouble.
| TJinMtP wrote: |
Enough of these distracting debates. Steady ACTUAL PROGRESS in Mt. Pleasant during recent decades demonstrates where we are heading, and the growing number of optimists here must ensure that we continue on this path. |
And why has there been progress "during recent decades"? Yes, conditions are much better than they were 20 or 30 years ago, before "gentrification". Is that because the police are somehow more effective than they were back then? Or is it because increasing rents and property values have driven the poverty population out of Mount Pleasant, and lately out of western Columbia Heights. The farther one lives from poverty neighborhoods, the lower the crime rate will be.
Just as an example, recall my map of street robberies in Mount Pleasant, showing that nearly all of them are east of 18th Street. Is that because we've got fantastic policing here on the west end, and lousy policing on the east side? No, it's all about proximity. The closer you are to the poverty neighborhoods, the more accessible you are to the source of robbers, the more vulnerable you will be to robbery.
Put the distance of Rock Creek Park between yourself and the poverty neighborhoods, and you'll enjoy a low crime rate.
It's all about proximity. Not policing, not public pressure for crime reduction, not any magic policing techniques. Proximity to poverty is the driving factor. And Mount Pleasant, in particular the east side of Mount Pleasant, is far closer to poverty neighborhoods than any west-of-the-park neighborhood. That's the reality that we must face.
-- Jack
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TJinMtP
Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Posts: 63
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:36 pm Post subject: Re: crime in Mt Pleasant |
|
|
You're fighting straw men, Jack. No one here is saying that expectations alone are sufficient. The issue is, you have said they are irrelevant. No one here is saying that the police must simply do more.
Why keep this up? We're not visiting this forum to have petty fights with you about why we can't make the neighborhood better. Are you so determined to be a negative force? Is this a compulsion?
If you REALLY care about involving more people in our community, then I suggest you try to be positive and find common cause with others who share the goal of making the neighborhood better, and have demonstrated their interest in promoting that goal.
At this rate you will never help bring more people to local meetings! Certainly you are doing no favors for Mt. Pleasant's reputation as a viper pit of self-important community leaders.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 4399
Location: 19th & Lamont
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:28 am Post subject: Re: crime in Mt Pleasant |
|
|
| TJinMtP wrote: | You're fighting straw men, Jack. No one here is saying that expectations alone are sufficient. The issue is, you have said they are irrelevant. No one here is saying that the police must simply do more.
|
Well, what then are you saying is to be done, if you're not simply pressing the police to do more? You've said the following:
| TJinMtP wrote: |
* In excusing a crime rate status quo that most, if not all neighbors believe requires improvement? |
"Requires improvement" -- if not by the police, then how? "Increased vigilance" is certainly appropriate, but that implies that residents of Mount Pleasant aren't already "vigilant".
| TJinMtP wrote: |
* In suggesting that the current level of crime is inevitable until poverty and bad parenting are solved, and relentlessly dismissing effective approaches for countering crime? |
What are these "effective approaches" that you propose, if not simply "more police presence"? What's to be done that's not already being done?
| TJinMtP wrote: |
* In calling the rising expectations of residents irrelevant to public-safety outcomes in our neighborhood? |
How are "rising expectations" relevant to reducing crime rates? Is that not simply "pressure the police to do better"?
| TJinMtP wrote: |
Why keep this up? We're not visiting this forum to have petty fights with you about why we can't make the neighborhood better. Are you so determined to be a negative force? Is this a compulsion? |
I've been working with the MPD for close to ten years now, and I respect them and their efforts to do their best for us. I also respect the efforts of many other Mount Pleasant residents to work with the police to deal with the problems in Mount Pleasant. You seem to think that you're the first resident to arrive in the neighborhood and want to do something about crime.
If you want to do something truly useful, see about reviving the MPNA LiveLink program. I have my differences with the MPNA, but that was a very good effort for enhancing the effectiveness of police in Mount Pleasant. It was especially helpful with foot patrol officers on call.
| TJinMtP wrote: |
If you REALLY care about involving more people in our community, then I suggest you try to be positive and find common cause with others who share the goal of making the neighborhood better, and have demonstrated their interest in promoting that goal. |
I think I do, and anyone who comes to a PSA 301 meeting to talk to and work with the police is made welcome, as you know.
| TJinMtP wrote: |
At this rate you will never help bring more people to local meetings! Certainly you are doing no favors for Mt. Pleasant's reputation as a viper pit of self-important community leaders. |
Well, no comment to that.
-- Jack
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TJinMtP
Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Posts: 63
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:03 am Post subject: Re: crime in Mt Pleasant |
|
|
| jack wrote: | | TJinMtP wrote: |
* In excusing a crime rate status quo that most, if not all neighbors believe requires improvement? |
"Requires improvement" -- if not by the police, then how? "Increased vigilance" is certainly appropriate, but that implies that residents of Mount Pleasant aren't already "vigilant". |
I'm just not interested in debating whether Mt. Pleasant's crime rate requires improvement. Surely the vast majority of our neighbors believe that our crime rate can and should be improved. And I suppose that most would regard disagreement with that proposition as defeatist and wrong. Really, it's an absurd question! If you want to carry on, please address your comments to others. The criminals skulking about the neighborhood would probably lend a sympathetic ear.
The discussion we should be having is what can practically be done to promote a safer neighborhood.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 4399
Location: 19th & Lamont
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:21 pm Post subject: Re: crime in Mt Pleasant |
|
|
| TJinMtP wrote: |
I'm just not interested in debating whether Mt. Pleasant's crime rate requires improvement. Surely the vast majority of our neighbors believe that our crime rate can and should be improved. And I suppose that most would regard disagreement with that proposition as defeatist and wrong. Really, it's an absurd question! If you want to carry on, please address your comments to others. The criminals skulking about the neighborhood would probably lend a sympathetic ear.
The discussion we should be having is what can practically be done to promote a safer neighborhood. |
"Can" is the operative word. You assume that there's something more that could be done to reduce crime, and which for some reason isn't being done. OK, what? Cease the hand-waving and provide some specifics about what the police, or the residents, ought to be doing, and which would reduce crime, but are not doing.
You really should do some reading of the research on crime prevention. Many of the things that seem intuitively effective, in fact prove to be ineffectual. It's just not that easy a problem to solve. You might start here: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/171676.PDF
Here's the "what's promising" list from that study. You might pick from this list to identify something that isn't already being done here, and which could be done:
• Proactive drunk driving arrests with breath testing (may reduce accident deaths).
• Community policing with meetings to set priorities (may reduce perceptions of crime).
• Police showing greater respect to arrested offenders (may reduce repeat offending).
• Polite field interrogations of suspicious persons (may reduce street crime).
• Mailing arrest warrants to domestic violence suspects who leave the scene before police arrive.
• Higher numbers of police officers in cities (may reduce crime generally).
• Gang monitoring by community workers and probation and police officers.
• Community-based mentoring by Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America (may prevent drug abuse).
• Community-based afterschool recreation programs (may reduce local juvenile crime).
• Battered women’s shelters (may help some women reduce repeat domestic violence).
• “Schools within schools” that group students into smaller units (may prevent crime).
• Training or coaching in “thinking” skills for high-risk youth (may prevent crime).
• Building school capacity through organizational development (may prevent substance abuse).
• Improved classroom management and instructional techniques (may reduce alcohol use)
• Job Corps residential training programs for at-risk youth (may reduce felonies).
• Prison-based vocational education programs for adult inmates (in Federal prisons).
• Moving urban public housing residents to suburban homes (may reduce risk factors for crime).
• Enterprise zones (may reduce area unemployment, a risk factor for crime).
• Two clerks in already-robbed convenience stores (may reduce robbery).
• Redesigned layout of retail stores (may reduce shoplifting).
• Improved training and management of bar and tavern staff (may reduce violence, DUI).
• Metal detectors (may reduce skyjacking, weapon carrying in schools).
• Street closures, barricades, and rerouting (may reduce violence, burglary).
• “Target hardening” (may reduce vandalism of parking meters and crime involving phones).
• “Problem-solving” analysis unique to the crime situation at each location.
• Proactive arrests for carrying concealed weapons (may reduce gun crime).
• Drug courts (may reduce repeat offending).
• Drug treatment in jails followed by urine testing in the community.
• Intensive supervision and aftercare of juvenile offenders (both minor and serious).
• Fines for criminal acts.
-- Jack
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
