| Author | Message | ||
     fredprofeta Citizen Username: Fredprofeta Post Number: 113 Registered: 10-2001 |
Everyone in town should now have received in the mail a Mayor's invitation to attend the special TC meeting next Tuesday. The meeting will be entirely devoted to a discussion of law enforcement issues in Maplewood. Topics will include both new ordinances and proposed pro-active measures to productively engage our young people at an early age. The meeting starts at 8:00 PM and will be in town hall. I hope that all persons who have shown interest in this topic on MOL will be present. I expect to begin the meeting with an overview of the issues now faced by Maplewood. This will be followed by a report from the Police Chief as to specific information. The third part of the meeting will be devoted to receiving your comments. The amount of time allowed for each speaker will be a function of the total number of persons who wish to speak. Please sign up at the Clerk's desk that night if you wish to speak. The TC may ask questions of individual speakers, but we will not engage in dialogue because of the time constraints. Bear in mind that each TC meeting has time for Public Comment, and these topics will remain very relevant for many months. In addition, no ordinance can be passed without a pubic hearing for the purpose of discussing that ordinance. As the TC has already indicated, the Police have reported an increase in evidence of a gang presence. I have attended several seminars on this matter in the last 6 months, and can assure you that the increase is being felt all over the State. No town is free of gang influence, primarily because the Bloods control all narcotics in New Jersey. The State Police are very involved. They have already eliminated the Latin Kings as a threat. Their focus in now upon the Bloods. State resources will be brought to bear in a way that will assist Maplewood. In all of this, remember that Maplewood's overall crime rate is still lower than Millburn's. The overview will contain proposals for pro-active programs. The Attorney General has spoken of several models for these programs. I will provide more details on Tuesday. The most successful models include a Police element. These pro-acitve programs are as important a component of Maplewood's response as are "get tough" laws. The Attorney General and others have made it clear that you cannot "law enforce" your way out of a gang problem. Rather, you need to reach youth early and provide incentives for constructive alternative behavior. The TC would be best served if you came to the meeting with creative suggestions on this component as well as the law enforcement component. Five proposed ordinances are now posted on the town website (www.twp.maplewood.nj.us). I will not discuss them here, except to say that one major ordinance is not yet up. That one refers to specific behavior patterns that are a species of loitering and disorderly conduct. I am meeting tomorrow with our township attorney to produce proposed language sufficiently precise to present for your consideration. This ordinance will provide the Police with a very important law enforcement tool. And bear in mind that we have already passed a very effective ordinance regarding litter. The language came from the State as an environmental imperative, but it can serve several purposes. For example, it makes it a crime to throw anything as small as a match or a bottle cap on the ground. Fines can be as much as $1,000. I would advise the public not to spend too much time on Tuesday discussing the exact langague of these ordinances. We know that they need to be refined. I am not thrilled with some of the wording. You may send specific suggestions to me at FRP713@aol.com. I am sure that other members of the TC will also welcome feedback. The most helpful comments in this area would relate to the broad categories of behavior covered by the ordinances, together with the underlying policy considerations. Certain measures to be discussed would not be implemented by ordinances (at least not at this time). These concern matters such as speed controls on streets, one way streets, and cul de sacs to make crimes utilizing motor vehicles harder to commit. Another such issue relates to the use of surveillance cameras. I have spent some time on Jacoby Street talking to residents about these matters. I have also received many post cards and emails from them. Without exception, those who have commented favor the controlled use of cameras. Jacoby is an area particularly impacted by some of the increased criminal activity. The Police inform us that the use of fixed and mobile cameras in this area, and others, would be of significant help in law enforcement. But there are civil rights implications. Like almost everything in this field, the proper solution results from a balance between competing considerations. In my view, the greater the threat, the more appropriate it is to swing in the direction of tougher measures. Along with this, how should the TC view the fact that most of the objections to cameras comes from citizens who do not reside in the most heavily impacted areas? Is that relevant? Please should also think about appropriate measures to deal with gangs apart from what will be on the agenda. How do we properly make Maplewood inhospitable for these criminals? How should the School District react? Is there a connection between our non-resident school problem and criminal actitivty? On this subject, it is significant that CHS students posed the following question to TC candidates in the recent debate sponsored by and televised by them on November 4: "Within the past year, there have been many problems with out of district students. What steps could a school take to further investigate out of district students?" After the debate, I approached the student sponsors and asked them if they were sure that there were "many problems" associated with non-resident students. They were. But they indicated that peer pressure prevented them from speaking out about the problem or the identity of the non-residents. There is no denying the fact that the measures contemplated will primarily affect young persons of color, both pro and con. Maplewood has already discussed this concern with the Community Coalition on Race. Please consider issues on this topic. Should the Police receive additonal sensitivity training? How do we avoid profiling? How much improvement in this regard can we expect if the Police are directly involved in the pro-active programs? Hope to see you all on Tuesday. | ||
| xavier67 Citizen Username: Xavier67 Post Number: 596 Registered: 6-2002 |
Mayor Profeta, Do you know if Paula Dow, the Essex County Prosecuter and a Maplewood resident, will be attending? Has she been invited? It seems to me whatever we do as a town should be coordinated with the county for maximum effectiveness. | ||
| fredprofeta Citizen Username: Fredprofeta Post Number: 114 Registered: 10-2001 |
Ms. Dow has been invited. But she has not yet received a special call from me. Thanks for reminding me. | ||
| wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 1821 Registered: 5-2001 |
Thank you Mayor Profeta for that instructive summary of the goals of the meeting. See you there. Wendy Lauter | ||
| Chickenberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 6293 Registered: 10-2001 |
"Is there a connection between our non-resident school problem and criminal actitivty?" yes...Best place to start. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 3976 Registered: 5-2001 |
If you think that keeping them out of a classroom at 2 p.m. will keep them out of your Acura at 2 a.m. | ||
| wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 1823 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually it's not the best place to start at all and often functions as a red herring. While I don't dismiss out of hand what these CHS students have said by dismissing our "illegal" problem as an “urban myth”, neither do I feel that their sentiments/opinions carry any more weight than their opinions about leveling, etc. I don’t buy the peer pressure thing, btw. Anyone who doesn’t report a potential illegal student is part of the problem. And anonymous reporting is totally accepted and followed up on, btw. And speaking of problems, it’s notable and correct that Mayor Profeta mentioned the “illegal student” problem towards the end of his summary. It is not the most important issue affecting our town or other towns who are finally coming to terms with the escalating crime/gang activity affecting our quality of life. Kudos to the township committee and our school district for being pro-active. | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1353 Registered: 6-2001 |
I don't believe "peer pressure" is the correct term for what the mayor is talking about when he refers to students who are afraid to speak publicly about their knowledge of gang members and gang activity within our school district. gang members routinely intimidate students who won't comply with their "request" to sell drugs for the gang, by threatening to murder their parents, family and friends in addition to inflicting personal injury on anyone who might "talk" or inform the authorities about their activity in the schools and the community. this is not peer pressure we're talking about - it's outright physical and psychological intimidation - i'll give the tc and the boe kudos for their efforts when they've eliminated gang activity from our community and our school district. until then - Jacoby street and the assault on Ms Bustrin's son occured under THEIR watch. Clean up the mess and then I'll clap. | ||
| wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 1825 Registered: 5-2001 |
marie, marie, I'm certainly not as dramatic as you. I was responding to this quote by the Mayor:
Or are you saying that all illegal residents are ensconced here because of actual threats and coercion? That is not what I'm talking about and even if that which of you speak is occurring it is not the main issue. | ||
| slipknot (slippy) Citizen Username: Zotts Post Number: 189 Registered: 7-2004  |
I think all but one of the proposals are sound and reasonable, I don't know if I agree about the not walking more than two abreast down the street. I face the kids/people doing this everyday and I don't find it too bothersome. | ||
| mimosa Citizen Username: Mimosa Post Number: 199 Registered: 5-2001 |
Sounds very interesting. The Unlawful Acts of Minors proposed ordinance mentioned violation of existing curfew...is there a curfew? If so, what are the terms? I couldn't find it when I did a search on the township website. | ||
| cmontyburns Citizen Username: Cmontyburns Post Number: 1541 Registered: 12-2003  |
The town is actually writing an ordinance to say that people can't walk more than two abreast on a sidewalk??? So the opening to Three's Company would have been illegal if filmed in Maplewood. Don't ordinances like this sort of reinforce the idea that small-town local government can be awfully, well... silly? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 9821 Registered: 5-2001 |
cmonty, in Maplewood there is a major issue with young people using the streets instead of sidewalks. They impede traffic and sooner, not later, there are going to be serious injuries or a death or two. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 6696 Registered: 5-2001 |
This is a duplicate of a post I recently made to the Crime in Golf Island thread. It occurred to me that it might be more appropriate to post it here. The post was directed to a comment made by another poster who took exception to my suggestion that a series of workshops/discussions on indiviual related topics might be needed in addition to Tuesday's meeting to properly address what is a wide-ranging problem with far too many facets to adequately cover them all on Tuesday evening. The proposed workshops include such topics as: Early inervention/prevention programs for young children (elementary school age?) such as expanded afterschool programs, in home day care, neighborhood-based recreation activities, structured after school programs at the Hilton Library and/or DeHart Park, resurrection of the helping hand program, big brother/big sister mentoring program, etc. Programs directed at more at-risk age children which might include much of the above but would also include ways in which these children could become more actively/positively involved in their own neighborhoods -- a community service corps perhaps, an after school study center, after school and weekend job opportunities, some of which might be linked to classroom instruction, clubs which met after school hours and concentrated on subjects of interest to the kids, etc. Programs directed at kids (of any age) already labeled JDs (or what ever designation is used these days) or otherwise demonstrating anti-social behavior -- mentoring programs, programs aimed at building self-confidence, more positive use of existing skills (whatever that means) and development of new ones, forming of bonds with more positive role models, learning of techniques to ease out of active gang involvement if the child was already in a gang), peer counselling, etc. Neighborhood Security: Formation and continuation/enhancement of neighborhood watch programs, discemination of information on proper locks, exterior lighting, shrub/tree height for foundation plantings, what to do when on vacation to make the house look lived in, holding of block parties and other neighborhood get togethers, etc. Parenting: How to make your child feel loved and secure within the family, Knowing the danger signs that your child is displaying anti-social behavior and what to do about it, how to talk with your child, how to determine when your child needs help and where how to get it, etc. Partnering between home/school(s)/neighborhood and township departments to provide an integrated approach to this problem. Communication: sharing of ideas and FACTS between police agencies in the region, police and residents of our township, residents in various neighborhoods which may be facing similar problems to learn what works and what does not, among patrnerships (see above) and between partnerships and each other or the general public. Businesses and Commercial Enterprises - Techniques businesses can use in addition to or in place of hiring security during evening hours to reduce insidence of shop lifting, grafitti, break-ins, etc. Regionalization: Identifying ways in which law enforcement agencies within our region can work togher to share information and resources; dealing with problems of jurisdictional authority, etc. These are just a few related issues and topics for discussion which occurred to me as I was typiong this post. There undoubtedly many others and I doubt any one of them could be adequately covered during a meeting which is apt to be devoted primarily to people voicing their concerns about gangs and other forms of crime in the township and asking the TC to do something -- largely undefined -- about the problem which may also be largely undefined. Comments and suggestions regarding the above would be appreciated. Negative comments from those not seeing the need for such discussions are also welcome as long as they include an explanation of why the rebutting poster considers any or all of these to be counterproductive, a waste of time, unresponsive to the matter at hand, etc. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 870 Registered: 2-2002 |
OVERKILL on the WALKIN' DEAL sez STEEL From the proposed ordinance: "Pedestrians must use sidewalks where available." "Where sidewalks are not available pedestrians may walk in the street no more than two abreast and shall not impede the flow of traffic" _____________________________________________ Look, I understand what this ordinance is about. I too, am not fond of having to occasionally on some days at sometimes of the day having to stop for, drive around, or wait for herds of students to wake up, "hellooo, this is a freakin' road!" and get out of my almighty way, however this strikes me as overkill-restrictive in the extreme as written and simultaneously ignores the fact that many sidewalks suck and ignores what else such a law by defacto makes illegal thus raising the question of equal enforcement. -Does this mean that we can't go for a walk anymore without having to stick to the crappy sidewalks and thinking that we are breaking the law? -Or that even if in a "perfect sidewalk" Maplewood that all mom's with baby carriages, all racewalkers, all joggers, all strollers, all people walking their dogs should have to stay off public streets and go up and down the curbs, up and down the curbs, up and down the geological wonders that colorfully characterize Maplewood's sidewalks? Please don't anyone tell me that we should all have nice smooth sidewalks, (of course MINE are, -sort-of) with ramps at every curb because that ain't gonna happen, ($$$$$). The "no more than two abreast" also strikes me as crazy talk. Seriously, wouldn't simply, "shall not impede the flow of traffic" suffice in this matter as to what the problem is really trying to address and allow the judgment of police officers to determine such? -Afterall, we ARE talking about a police "tool" right? -I mean if the law were to go forth as written, are "regular" persons going to pull up along side three kids walking "abreast" and say "excuse me there youngin's but one of you is going to have to walk behind the other or I'm calling the police." Well it's kind-of a nice Sunday so I'm going for a walk, -in the Damn street! (I'm such a rebel). | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 871 Registered: 2-2002 |
Ok, I had to write this before my walk. DON"T TAKE MY PICTURE, (I'm not wearing any makeup): On the surveillance cameras deal, sez Steel: Ok I'll be the first proud liberal, libertarian, anarchist, privacy-hound to declare that I HATE the idea of cameras on the street. -Just on pure big-brother principal. That's right, I said "big-brother", ya know, -privacy, freedom, America, that old stuff. The idea that I can walk my dog, (if I had one), pick my nose, (I do have one of those) or talk to a friend, (I've got some of those too) on the street without some guy in a little room somewhere watching whatever the hell I do. Please don't tell me, "hey if you're not doing anything wrong what's the problem". -Well maybe I just don't LIKE the idea of strangers having the right to watch me just because I'm outside. Maybe I'm shy. Maybe I'm having a bad-hair day. Maybe I like to be with my own thoughts going about my business without seeing some little GD camera up on a pole eyeballing me and making it their business. -Call me crazy, call me old-fashioned. BTW: A little reality check: -Maplewood is not some giant all-night liquor store getting held-up every night. The New York Times has available on it's web site, (In the Real Estate section), a crime index that rates Maplewood a 4 on a national scale of 100, -a 4 people! -And that is down from 6 the previous year. This national scale is cited in Maplewood's own redevelopment plan and as pointed out by the Mayor, is lower even than Millburn's. Now, I know that people over in the Jacoby street neighborhood are asking for safety improvements, -I guess if they really really want cameras, -that's their business but before they get them they might want to ask a couple practical questions. 1. Will the cameras cover each other or will some ambitious young men simply knock them off the poles? 2. Will the cameras be EVERYWHERE, (in that neighborhood or eventually ALL of Maplewood) or will persons conducting dubious transactions simply conduct their business elsewhere? (as pointed out by our recent proud republican candidate Bart Albini). -In other words, is such an expensive, intrusion on privacy even worth it? | ||
| Jonathan Teixeira Citizen Username: Jhntxr Post Number: 220 Registered: 10-2005 |
It's worth it... even if it catches the person knocking the camera off the pole. And if it makes people conducting dubious transactions move to another town , then all the better. So you're worried about being seen picking your nose ? What about someone else trying to pick your nose with the barrel of a 38 !! You don't see a problem with a bunch of teenagers ,walking down the middle of the street. No , not walking, sauntering , very slowly. While there is a sidewalk ??? If you don't have a problem with them not moving out of the way of vehicular traffic , then you can slow down to 2 miles an hour and pace behind them, while you're at it , strike up a conversation , you might even get a smoke from one of them.. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 6701 Registered: 5-2001 |
Jonathan: Would you rather see the affected sections of Parker Avenue turned into a pedestrian mall during the hours when the high school lets out every weekday? That would also alleviate the problem by removing the vehicles rather than the pedestrians. | ||
| Jonathan Teixeira Citizen Username: Jhntxr Post Number: 222 Registered: 10-2005 |
Yes , give us all golf carts to drive on the sidewalks..... | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 872 Registered: 2-2002 |
I'm not saying that students walking down the street in herds is not a problem, though personally I think that at worst it is an occasional annoyance, (and I have this situation in my neighborhood). I'm saying this is not a problem that warrants the language of the ordinance as proposed. I say again that the simple language of "shall not impede the flow of traffic" should suffice, otherwise it would de-facto make all kinds of normal street use that many Maplewoodian's presently enjoy illegal. As to the cameras; -for God's sake I'm not "worried" about someone watching me, - I just don't LIKE it and I'm quite sure that I am not alone in that sentiment especially when weighed against the reality of the present extremely low level of crime in Maplewood. I say again, if Jacoby street residents really want them, -swell. I'm not going to tell them they can't have them. As to the use of a .38 to pick my nose. That's right, even then I don't want cameras on my street and that's assuming that I thought they would be any real protection. When a camera can protect itself AND climb down a pole to protect me in the 30 seconds that would matter, maybe then but just maybe. PS: I like the gold carts idea. | ||
| Chickenberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 6300 Registered: 10-2001 |
Get rid of the garbage and you get rid of the crime. Illegal students bring with them an element and culture that only leads to more problems. Is this point racist? No. Newark and Irvington are some the most dangerous communities in this nation. Those who live there live a way of life that's blanketed with crime and gangs. Many youngsters will choose that way of life as well, including those who spend a few hours a day in Maplewood/So Orange before being returned to the streets. As some of these street punks get more familiar with this community, it is this community they will target as Tom says at 2AM. | ||
| mjh Supporter Username: Mjh Post Number: 297 Registered: 5-2001 |
Illegal students are presumably the children of parent(s) who are willing to beg, borrow or steal in order to get their kids away from failing and dangerous schools. I don't know if they add to the criminal element/culture because such data is not available. The available data indicates, however, that there are NOT very many illegal students in our schools. But this urban myth will never go away because 1) there ARE some illegal students and 2) the people who want to believe that there are loads of illegal students will continue to believe that there are loads of them NO MATTER WHAT THE DATA SHOW. Generally these are the same folks who chronically try to raise a general panic about rampant crime in our towns every time there is a crime reported (regardless of statistics showing relatively low crime rates). I know it feels better to blame the surrounding communities (and surely they are an influence)for crime here, but there is no reason to think all would be well if we could just get rid of illegal students. We'll be better off working together as a community to implement reasonable and rationale policies and procedures that have been shown effective in similar communities (e.g. neighborhood watch programs). Hysteria, grandstanding and pointing fingers at a relatively small group of illegal students that the town is always working to root out doesn't seem very helpful, IMHO. In fact, I think we tend to get "stuck" on this tired issue, to the detriment of more important factors. Incendiary comments referring to illegal students as "garbage" also just holds us back from making real progress. Let's not let a small group of Neandrathals hold us back from coming up with solutions that work. I think Fred has given us a pretty good starting point with the research he has done. | ||
| wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 1829 Registered: 5-2001 |
Great post mjh!!!!! | ||
| cmontyburns Citizen Username: Cmontyburns Post Number: 1543 Registered: 12-2003 |
"But this urban myth will never go away because 1) there ARE some illegal students and 2) the people who want to believe that there are loads of illegal students will continue to believe that there are loads of them NO MATTER WHAT THE DATA SHOW." And because it's always easiest to blame all of a community's problems on "outsiders." | ||
| fredprofeta Citizen Username: Fredprofeta Post Number: 116 Registered: 10-2001 |
I have just completed a review of the draft ordinances with our township attorney. We have added an ordinance and modified the language in others. These ordinances should be posted on the town website by about noon tomorrow. The new ordinance relates to various forms of disorderly conduct. Again, the language is not sacred and can be changed. These are all proposals for your consideration. I would suggest paying attention to the behavior in question and considering whether it should be prohibited or not. Bear in mind that we are attempting to provide our police with additional tools to deal with objectionable acts and other behavior associated with criminality. There may be additions to this ordinance that specifically target gang behavior, but the trick here is to hook into some objective, state-recognized critieria, and not prohibit pure status or language. Some of the comments on this thread, read by me, have led to changes in wording. For example, the sidewalk/street ordinance has been changed to allow walking or running in the steet if the sidewalk is available but unsafe. The parental responsibility ordinance has been cleaned up to make it clear that parents violate the ordinance and may be fined where they have received notice of unlawful conduct by their children, and those children are guilty of such conduct 3 times within 60 days. Thank you all for your helpful participation in this important initiative which is so important to our town. This is real direct democracy, and, as far as I'm concerned, the more of it the better. | ||
| Chickenberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 6306 Registered: 10-2001 |
"I know it feels better to blame the surrounding communities (and surely they are an influence)for crime here," duh, do ya think so?? pointless drivel. | ||
| sylvester the investor Citizen Username: Mummish Post Number: 69 Registered: 6-2004 |
Steel, I think you are missing the point, although I do understand your concerns about the "restrictions" on walking down the street. But what we are dealing with here is a "soft" problem that if dealt with correctly could have very positive implications. I think that if you go with your "impede traffic" wording you leave too much subjectivity in enforcing the law. The new ordinace is very straight forward and can easily be enforced. You complain about "bad sidewalks", but I tell you what... I would much rather walk on a terrible sidewalk than allow my town to continue to see a decline safety. I advise you to read "Tipping Point", there is a great story about crime in NYC and how the simple act of cleaning up graffiti was the most influential factor in the significant reduction in crime. If you can control these "soft" issues, many of the larger issues fall into place by themselves. ...finally, I think you couldnt be more off base by saying that the kids blocking the street is an "occasional annoyance". These kids have no respect for anything. If you try to drive through them they stare you down like they would do you harm if you were not in your car. There is no respect for adults. When did kids decide that if a car is coming down the road it is ok to just keep walking 10 abreat and clog up the street. These kids do not walk on the sidewalks... the street is for cars, not for 15 year old punks to use as their playground. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2363 Registered: 6-2002 |
Whatever one's view of the illegal student issue and the crime issue, they are two different issues and we should not be diverted from dealing with the latter by concentrating on the former. If crime is being committed in Maplewood by people who live elsewhere it is far more likely that the criminals are adults or drop-outs rather than students. Of course an exception is the mugging inside the High School which appears to be an isolated incident. And the kids blocking the streets possibly include "illegals" but they also include kids who do live in Town and getting rid of all the "illegals" doesn't end the problem. However isn't there already a State traffic law against "jaywalking" and haven't a number of CHS students and even Middle School students been given tickets from time to time? Why is a new law needed? Why not more forcefully enforce the already existing law? | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 6136 Registered: 5-2001  |
Fred - I don't have as many problems with these ordinances as some others do (hell, if TS agreed, I'd let you put a camera on my roof) but there is one thing I wonder about. How will MPD be empowered to act on these ordinances? Will there be funds and resources to back them up? We joke all the time about living in the "Land of No", but I don't really mind because I agree that stopping the little things stops the bigger things. Ounce of prevention and all that. But we will be nothing but a joke if we have lots of rules and no enforcement. I am not in town Tuesday night, so I won't be able to make the meeting. I don't know if resources will be addressed at that time. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 4845 Registered: 10-1999  |
Thank you to MJH for your post above - I was trying to think of how to comment on this, but you did it better. And thanks to Mr. Profeta for bringing this out for discussion, and for listening to the comments. | ||
| Chickenberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 6308 Registered: 10-2001 |
Actually his post was foolish and under no circumstance should the Mayor believe that opinion is the opinion of the masses. I represent the masses. Maplewood wants Short Hills, not East Orange. Liberal stupidity, amazing. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1689 Registered: 8-2003  |
ooh, so close. you're only off by one letter. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 3983 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw, do you really think that if we got rid of whatever illegal students there are, what would significantly reduce the amount of crime in Maplewood? As you so eloquently put it above, "duh": do you think we'll then have different surrounding communities than we do now? | ||
| Scalia Citizen Username: Scalia Post Number: 15 Registered: 7-2004 |
There appears to be some misinformation with respect to crime rates for Maplewood, South Orange and Millburn. Compiled below is a comparison of the crime rates for each town. The following information is based on the 2003 FBI Report of Offenses Known to Law Enforcement (the first number represents the occurrence of that crime per 100,000 persons and the number in the parenthetical denotes the actual number of that crime. The first set of numbers is for Maplewood, then South Orange and, finally, Millburn): Murder: 4 (1), 0 (0), 5 (1) Rape: 21 (5), 18 (3), 10 (2) Robbery: 192 (46), 211 (36), 111 (22) Assault: 134 (32), 158 (27), 25 (5) Burglary: 413 (99), 498 (85), 387 (77) Larceny: 1833 (439), 1709 (292), 2648 (527) Car Theft: 647 (155), 1282 (219), 558 (111) Arson: 0 (0), 0 (0), 5 (1) The populations used to generate the adjusted numbers were: Maplewood: 23,944 South Orange: 17,082 Millburn: 19,904 The overall, adjusted crime rates are: Maplewood: 3.244% South Orange: 3.876% Millburn: 3.745% While it is true that the Maplewood’s overall crime rate is less than Milburn’s, the violent crime rate is higher (violent crime includes murder, rape, robbery and assault): Maplewood: 0.35% South Orange: 0.38% Millburn: 0.15% Please note that the FBI Report lists only the unadjusted number of each crime (and not the per 100,000 number); therefore, any errors in the adjusted numbers and the various crime rates are due to my miscalculations and are inadvertent. The raw statistics used to determine the adjusted rates can be found at (the three cityrating.com sites are much easier to read): http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Maplewood+Township&state=NJ http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=South+Orange&state=NJ http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Millburn+Township&state=NJ | ||
| Chickenberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 6309 Registered: 10-2001 |
"Straw, do you really think that if we got rid of whatever illegal students there are, what would significantly reduce the amount of crime in Maplewood? " yes, it would be a fantastic start and a very strong statement that we finally mean business. | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1354 Registered: 6-2001 |
wendy, you also thought i was being overly dramatic the first time i mentioned i suspected gang activity in maplewood. i think that was six years ago at tuscan. david huemer was the pta president? not only did you think i was being overly dramatic then, but you called my observation the most ridiculous thing you'd ever heard. i'm saying that some students at columbia are threatened and coerced by gang members ( yes, I know of two students )into selling drugs and keeping quiet about any and all of the above activities. other students just keep quiet because they live by the "look the other way, stay out of their way and you'll be fine" rule. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 873 Registered: 2-2002 |
I applaud the Mayor for changing the restrictions on, "no walking in the street where there is a sidewalk", to making it ok if, "sidewalk is available but unsafe". I'm not sure how we define "unsafe" but I certainly think the new wording is more sensible. I still need to be persuaded that a simple "shall not impede the flow of traffic" would not suffice and address the frustrating experiences and concerns of "Sylvestor" (above) and others. I know that there is concern about an ordinance being too vague and thus allowing it to be challenged but this is not exactly like a vague loitering law where the right to assemble comes into play. I would think that "impeding the flow of traffic" would give a police officer enough discretionary power to "break up the herds" on a basis of safety. ___________________ I still don't care to have surveillance cameras peering down on people as they go about their day and feel that they are unjustified given the extremely low crime rate cited by myself and others, however if the majority of the crimes that have occurred in Maplewood have occurred largely in one neighborhood or another I would certainly grant that the majority of citizens in those neighborhoods should have a larger say in whether they want them or not in their neighborhoods. I pray that no one is even THINKING of putting them up in the village where I believe that they would very unnecessarily send the the very ugly and obtrusive message that, "you are so unsafe here that the police are watching you". -because people are NOT unsafe there. I've lived here over 18 years and in my personal opinion it has gotten nicer and nicer there, (and continues in that direction) and is LIGHT years down the spectrum of even being CLOSE to any sort of tipping point that would call for police cameras. _______________________ I can see how it can be difficult to draft an ordinance with a particularly narrow aim in mind since logic will constantly lead to a series of "what-if-what-ifs", - unintended consequences etc. I do think that common sense should rule along with the recognition that not all behavior can be controlled by law in the absence of other factors and frequently only adds to the misery. There is often a VERY fine line of relative value between small protections or even false protections called for by some and larger burdensome restrictions that fall on all. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 4182 Registered: 5-2001  |
mjh- your post is good, but there is a large number of illegal students each year - it is not urban myth. David Fraser of the BOE said that they got rid of 80 (give or take I forget the exact number) last year. So, in my mind, 80 is large. 10 would be small. For 80 illegals to be in our district year in and year out, the district has to be constantly vigilant. And they are. Whether crime comes from this group is entirely unwarranted speculation. Also, in regards to the CHS mugging, the victim recognized the "lookout" person. The lookout was later identified as a CHS student who did not live legally in Maplewood or SO. He and his brother have been kicked out of the district. He also had gang ties according to the police. As for the muggers, it can only be speculation if they are CHS students or if they were from the outside andlet in by the "lookout" kid. This is info directly as I heard it from Ms. Bustrin. I am grateful to the mayor for getting involved to such an extent. Thank you Mr. Profeta. | ||
| Chickenberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 6314 Registered: 10-2001 |
"I am grateful to the mayor for getting involved to such an extent. Thank you Mr. Profeta." agreed. | ||
| mjh Supporter Username: Mjh Post Number: 299 Registered: 5-2001 |
Hi ffof: I'm not sure where you got the number 80 (as to number of illegals), but we need to know the time period in order to make the number meaningful, as well as the denominator. 80 per year? Is this in all of our schools? How many kids are in our school system? I don't know where the most recent information is, but I recall it being fewer than this per year (but I'm not sure which year's data I was seeing). In any case, I'm not really arguing that the illegal student issue is unimportant.........My argument is that illegal students are not the most important or significant issue related to general crime in Maplewood or in M/SO schools. Anecdotally, I'm sure there are cases where they have caused problems. Overall though, there are more important issues. We are already pretty vigilant about investigating illegal students, and I think we all agree that vigilance is warranted.} |
