| Author | Message | ||
     Chickenberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 6318 Registered: 10-2001 |
"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." obviously..Newark and Irvington are.. You have no argument. You really have no clue what you're talking about. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 3985 Registered: 5-2001 |
I have no idea what you're talking about. On the one hand, you're saying it's obvious that the proximity of Irvington and Newark is the most significant factor; and on the other hand you're saying illegal students is an excellent place to start. What do illegal students at CHS have to do with burglaries, car thefts, etc. in the Hilton area (for example)? I don't think focussing on illegals shows we're serious at all. I think it would show we're a bunch of idiots. If I was a car thief or burglar operating out of Newark I'd be really pumped to hear that the Maplewood PD was going to be working overtime at the schools. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 4186 Registered: 5-2001  |
I don't think anyone is advocating one thing over another. I think we need to be attacking our problems from all the angles. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 10983 Registered: 1-2003  |
cameras I normally lean towards protecting civil liberties, but I don't see why we should object to cameras in public places. When we're in public, we're in the public view. I'm not putting forth the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" argument, which I do not subscribe to. I am saying that anything that is outside is free to be seen. If I pick my nose (to use steel's example) while outside, I should expect someone to see me, even if I don't see someone near me. Curtains are for privacy. Anything I do in front of (or without) curtains is fair game for anyone to see. What am I missing? =-=-=-=- crime rate The crime rate is largely irrelevant as long as we acknowledge that there are problems to be solved. As many have pointed out, there are pockets of high concentrations of crime in town. The crime rate is an average. If it's 30F outside and 90F inside, the average temperature between them is 60F, but that doesn't mean I'm comfortable in either place. The crime rate is too high in some places, and that's a problem we want to fix. If we shifted half of the crime from Jacoby Street to Wyoming Avenue, the crime rate would remain the same, but the residents of Wyoming Avenue wouldn't be as happy as they are now, nor should anyone in Maplewood be happy. | ||
| mjh Supporter Username: Mjh Post Number: 300 Registered: 5-2001 |
chicken: woops! I apologize for breaking my own rule of not acknowledging your existence in any way, shape or form. I won't let it happen again, and I humbly apologize. mj | ||
| Chickenberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 6319 Registered: 10-2001 |
exactly ffof.. I know you swing left but you do so with a certain sense of common sense. Others such MJH for instance, need to listen and learn from the likes of you and I. You want less crime in Maplewood? 1) Get rid of the students. 2) Build the damn Police station on the Irvington/Maplewood border. 3) Beef up patrols near the 78/24 on off ramps, So Ave and Springfield Ave.. Crime will cut in half if you do so..All the criminals in Maplewood come from the neighboring rat holes. This is a no brainer folks. Anyone who disagrees is a moron. | ||
| Case Citizen Username: Case Post Number: 822 Registered: 2-2005 |
Well, I suppose that ends the question - you agree, or you're a moron (and therefore your opinion is invalid). This is airtight - I can't see any other way to view things.... PS to all you parents out there - feel free to PM me for ideas on how to spend your free time once you've shipped the kids away! | ||
| mjh Supporter Username: Mjh Post Number: 301 Registered: 5-2001 |
 | ||
| Chickenberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 6321 Registered: 10-2001 |
holy stupidity. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 875 Registered: 2-2002 |
Regarding surveillance cameras etc, (again): Since when does being outside one's home grant the right to others to anonymously keep surveillance on people going about their business, minding their own business, in their neighborhood, on their street or in their town? When was that simple dignity given away? I am always surprised at the number of people who so willingly surrender to such invasive scrutiny. What happened to the right to a few simple freedoms in this country? There is a vast difference in being in the visible proximity of other human beings on the street going about their business, versus constantly being peered at and recorded from a little black lens on a pole by people who's business it is to watch you. If you do not hold a sense of privacy in that regard then there is little that I can do to persuade you. Cameras will not make you safe or even make you FEEL safe if you are the sort of person who feels threatened in Maplewood, -certainly not in the village(!) Now we have a fine business owner like Art Gartenlaub being told that he may have to pay to have a ridiculous security guard sitting there in his quaint cafe, (H2TA) after 11:00 pm as if BAKER street(!) had suddenly become some crime zone! It's utterly crazy. Must we really so willingly subject ourselves to all these extreme, draconian overkill intrusive measures? --and for what? Where is the freakin' crime wave that brought on this hysteria that we are no longer supposed to walk unobserved by police or walk IN THE STREET AT ALL(!) or stop to talk to someone we know who is driving by, or walk your dog with your kids in the park after dark!? -Ridiculous you say? -The police would never bother ME doing such a thing. -Well that my friends is the way the presently proposed ordinances are written and so what of equal enforcement? And if not equal enforcement than what do we have? Think about it. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 4187 Registered: 5-2001 |
In the case of Jacoby street, if they, as neighbors, all decided to install security cameras on their street, why shouldn't they be able to? steel- you got me thinking about the park. My kids tell me they would never go in the park at night. They say that is where the "homies" (their words) are selling drugs. I walk my dog alot. On Mondays there are always loads of beer and booze bottles strewn about. WHERE are the cops? Do they ever police the park? Especially weekend nights with all the boozing and drug selling going on, it would be like fishing for trout at a fish hatchery ("shooting fish in a barrell" didn't seem like the right imagery  ) | ||
| fredprofeta Citizen Username: Fredprofeta Post Number: 117 Registered: 10-2001 |
Steel: Calm down a bit. Art G. is not "being told" to do anything. These ordinances are not ready for introduction. We are putting them out there now to get precisely the kind of feedback which Art provided. This process is not "crazy" in my view. Your comments about the sidewalk/street ordinance led us to make an amendment already. I am not as impressed by your "nose picking" argument, but maybe others are. I'm sure we'll have a friendly chat tomorrow. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 5193 Registered: 12-2001  |
Mr. Profeta, thanks for taking the time to post here. I hope the meeting tomorrow night is instructive and civil. I wish I could attend but work in NYC in the evening will prevent my attendance. I am in accord with many of the people who have expressed their fears about crime seeping from east to west and do hope that something can be done to relieve the stress on the folks who live on Jacoby street and surrounding neighborhoods. I was told flat out by an officer that the MPD never caught the jerk who set my back yard on fire last year a few days before Christmas so I have some interest in this issue as well, despite the fact that I am not in a "hot zone". Good luck tomorrow and again, thanks for your time and energy on this board. | ||
| JerryC Citizen Username: Jerryc Post Number: 157 Registered: 12-2002 |
I have been reading the posts here with interest and have concluded that as long as the approach to crime in Maplewood is directed by the wimpy, bleeding heart liberals, there will be little hope for improvement. Chickenberry is not so far from correct as some would like to think. We are just a few storefront roll-up gates and check cashing businesses away from becoming little Irvington. Having lived in this area for many years, I can tell you that not so long ago, Irvington was a wonderful town, not unlike Maplewood. It was safe to walk around. Neighborhoods were clean and free of crack dealers and whores. Let's make sure that we don't offend anyone or invade anyone's privacy. That would be far worse than having our town deteriorate, wouldn't it, Steele? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 10995 Registered: 1-2003 |
Well, JerryC, I think Fred is making a good start of this. If you want to ensure that it fails, you're doing your part by saying how little faith you have in the process. I will put my faith in other people. If you have better ideas than those Fred has put forth, please bring them. If you just want to say who is wrong without offering alternate ideas, I don't know what you expect the outcome to be. | ||
| JerryC Citizen Username: Jerryc Post Number: 158 Registered: 12-2002 |
I was not counting Fred among the bleeding hearts. I think he is making a very good effort. My concern is for how diluted his efforts may become as a result of some of the comments here. Fred seems ready to do what is necessary such as getting survelliance cameras in place, but people like Steele seem ready to contact the ACLU to insure that people's rights aren't violated. Well, as JB said many times on another thread, when will we put the rights of normal, law abiding citizens ahead of the rights of the criminals? If you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you care if there is a camera there acting as a deterrent to crime? Why are we sooooo concerned about the rights of these kids who walk 5 abreast down the middle of the street and dare you to hit them? | ||
| Stevef Citizen Username: Stevef Post Number: 128 Registered: 5-2005  |
Listen to JerryC: NEVER question your government | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 876 Registered: 2-2002 |
Thanks Fred, Actually I can assure you that I am entirely calm although my posts may not always make that impression. Fear not, I shall not be storming the dais. Tom, As JerryC has already pointed out, he was referring to the likes of me, (and BTW Jerry, "Steel" is spelled with only two "e"s my good sir). -As regards to good citizen Jerry's remarks (which I do not take personally, this isn't about me) I always get a kick out it when people are called "wimpy" because they do not reflexively cave for every so-called "law-and-order" mandate that comes down the pike. It strikes me instead that many people lack the incentive or will to stand up for the most basic of civil liberties. That's right, I said civil liberties. I am not interested in protecting criminals, I am however very interested in law-abiding citizens such as myself being made criminals by ridiculous laws or being unnecessarily made to feel that dangerous criminals are lurking and ready to pounce from around every corner when they are not. As to reality check, -if persons such as Jerry have lived here such a long time, then they, as myself have noticed that the houses have gotten fancier and fancier, with fancier additions and landscaping. The cars have gotten fancier, the village has gotten fancier, (ie: Richard Roberts vs the old five-and-dime), Springfield ave has gotten fancier, (certainly so far, at Valley), there are now leagues of bright young professionals pushing their toddler-laden fancy strollers around and yet very oddly we are somehow now being led to believe by some that Maplewood with it's extremely low crime rate is on the verge of some cataclysmic tipping point that requires the proposal of such extreme ordinances that soon you could be breaking the law if you walk your dog in the street if a "safe" sidewalk is available. -To whom does this really make sense? (BTW, the irony in the scope of these proposed measures of using the word "unsafe" even in regards to sidewalks does not escape me). Meanwhile, As I have said before, -If the people on Jacoby Street really want cameras , then let there be cameras. I realize that the Mayor has asked us to try to avoid overly picking on the specific language of the proposed ordinances but frankly I'm sure it can be appreciated that that is a bit difficult and akin to discussing a painting without referring to the colors. -Afterall, -the ordinance IS the words. If I sound at all agitated it is because it strikes me that although these ordinances are presently only proposed, it has been my observation that once legislation is proposed, and is not overly objected to, -then it goes through and becomes law as opposed to only going through if a goodly number of people say it is a good idea. But the REAL issue here in terms of practicality is not whether the pros and cons of these ordinances reflect opposite sides of the political spectrum, -They do not, as reflected by the agreement, (on at least one) between myself and my fine republican friend Art G. The REAL issue is will they even work for their intended purposes or are they overly broad and unnecessarily restrictive on the population as a whole? And if they be overly restrictive, then what sort of climate does THAT endear to the community? -I would say precisely the opposite direction of that which those who put forth the virtue of these ideas are trying to establish, ie Maplewood being a nice place to live. Dear citizens, If you honestly believe that you can't feel secure to shop in Maplewood village without be peered at like it's some giant ATM machine, if you feel that you can't sit in Art's place at 11:01 without staring at a security guard, if you feel that you should not even be able to walk your dog in the street without realizing that you too are doing something illegal, then I would suggest that there are few places on earth where you would feel secure. Personally I am not that wimpy. | ||
| Case Citizen Username: Case Post Number: 825 Registered: 2-2005 |
If cameras in the village will act as a deterrent to "annoyance crimes", then why not install them? Hey, there's a camera focused on the village right now - is anyone complaining? I recall the pet store window incident not too long ago - I wish there had been a recording of exactly how that window had been broken. I don't consider it an invasion of privacy to have a public street monitored, though I understand that other folks may feel differently. I think Maplewood is a VERY nice place to live, and I would like it to stay that way. If the choice is between (a) cameras on the streets and legislation that gives the police broader powers or (b) allowing an increasing amount of chaos... sign me up for (a) right now. Furthermore, if I get a summons for violating one of the new laws - my bad. I'll pay the ticket without a second thought. Its happened already, in fact: I got a ticket for being parked in front of my own house overnight (I forgot to move the car). I was annoyed for a moment, but then I realized that this no-parking law was designed to PROTECT me... and I sent in my payment that afternoon. I will not expect a lot of "selective enforcement" of these laws, nor do I anticipate Maplewood turning into a 1984-esque police state. | ||
| buzzsaw Citizen Username: Buzzsaw Post Number: 3164 Registered: 5-2001  |
I also choose A. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 5197 Registered: 12-2001 |
allowing an increasing amount of chaos?? Thats hyperbole right? given the choices above, I too, would choose A. But there is something better. And the camera aimed at the village is not an LE camera but a personal one. Shouldn't that be illegal under some peeping Tom law? Otherwise I should be able to point a webcam at my neighbors window and record and worse yet, broadcast what they do at all hours. Provided they are foolish enough not to pull the blinds  There are more choices than simply A or B. Trouble is both JerryC and Steel make compelling arguments. | ||
| Ken Scout Citizen Username: Lightningken Post Number: 22 Registered: 11-2005 |
Fred- I didn't vote for you, but now that I've seen the immediate effort and focus surrounding issues that truly matter, I'm thrilled to have you as our Mayor. My one question for you is whether or not these proposed steps have been implemented in other towns with success or not, and if so, can they be cited as examples of what generates these ideas and plans? That would be extremely helpful for those of us looking to support your recommended solutions to these problems. My own experience with this is limited, but on my first weekend as a Maplewood Resident last year, we (wife and 2 y/o daughter) walked into the idyllic town-center to buy dinner on a Friday night. This was the Norman Rockwell town that led us to leave Manhattan....Incidently, I was harassed fairly agressively by a pack of kids hanging out in front of the Big Old Bank building next to the Kings. (I will qualify this statement with the fact that my wife and I have very thick skins, and it takes a lot to bother us, but this was a situation that I'd never encountered after 5 years on various blocks in NYC). We love this town, but needless to say, we haven't bothered going back to Maple Ave. on Friday-Saturday nights. While this was a minor inconvenience for me which may or may not take place frequently, it just hasn't been worth bothering going back again on weekend nights. My heart goes out to those experiencing worse behavior/activity. It sounds like the causes to bigger problems are being addressed, but from a QOL perspective, I think it would be great to ensure that police would have more capability to handle loitering/wandering/harrassment situations both in town and on the neighborhood streets. I was unaware the Parks weren't safe, but our natural instincts are to avoid them anyway at night. I'd like to point out to the camera-phobes that MOL has a live Camera on the town already, and I've not read that it bugs anybody. The entire city of NY is on surveillance, and that doesn't seem to bother the Millions of inhabitants there. Please don't try and reduce this down to a Liberal vs. Conservative, Democrat vs. Republican issue......This is our homes and our town, and it's about solving problems that are affecting our neighbors on a daily basis. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11001 Registered: 1-2003 |
Lots of teenagers do "cruise" on foot Maplewood Avenue on weekend nights, but they rarely misbehave very badly. Please give it another try. | ||
| mjh Supporter Username: Mjh Post Number: 304 Registered: 5-2001 |
Nice post Ken. I agree with your points. There was an article recently in the NYT which indicated that the preponderance of security cameras (most of which are privately owned for use in and around private buildings) have changed police work quite dramatically. I'm sorry for your bad experience in town, but agree with Tom that you should give it another try. | ||
| mjc Citizen Username: Mjc Post Number: 934 Registered: 10-2004 |
Maybe I have wrong expectations, being from the west coast originally, but what is it with walking in the street anyway? There are sidewalks in most of M/SO, so why do people of all ages (including people with strollers, particularly horrifying) walk in the street? As a driver I've had several frightening near misses and countless inconveniences from this odd local custom. And with everyone else walking in the street, how surprised can we be when the kids do it too (and more so, being kids)? Isn't it already illegal? Do police often (ever?) give citations or even warnings? end of rant | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 877 Registered: 2-2002 |
Case, (and others), Regarding the damn cameras: A better question to ask might be: Why are so many people so willing to have spy cameras peering at them given the benign conditions of the village? Why now?- when things are nicer in the village than certainly I have seen in the 18 years that I have been here? To me it is an utter indignity, (and frankly I'm usually not all that dignified) and intrusion that sends a poor message. To me it is a giant step backward, it is a loss, not a gain to so-called "protect" what ever I have. If I go into a 7-11 to get a soda, -fine, I know I'm on camera cause those guys get held up a lot. -But "annoyance crimes!" (what is that anyway?) -One window broke a year ago? -I say no way do present conditions in the village even come close to or on the same planet as warranting the looming omnipresence of those things. I've also lived in NYC and worked there for over twenty years but New York is New York and this is Maplewood. The argument that just because there is a preponderance of cameras elsewhere and so why not everywhere just will not fly. Case, surely there are other choices besides (A) and (B),- particularly since choice (B) is presently not happening in the absence of choice (A), nor would (B) ever be prevented by (A) in the absence of other factors. ______________________ Also, as to restrictions: If there is no expectation of a lot of "selective enforcement" then the only two alternatives are either total enforcement, (see below) or no enforcement, -and what good is that? I say,- how about reasonable laws that can and will be evenly enforced? -like the overnight cars in the street thing. PS: I thank JerryC for his tacit agreement that "walking 5 abreast" or perhaps the simple "shall not impede the flow of traffic" would be more appropriate to give the police the ability to break up the herds as opposed to the presently suggested "no pedestrian shall walk in the street [AT ALL] with the availability of a safe sidewalk". I really hope that the present wording is not so difficult to see as overkill as are some of the other suggestions. To answer mjc's question about walking: -People often walk in the street because most streets, (not all) most of the time are quiet with relatively little traffic and it is just easier than having to watch your footing on the sidewalks and curbs, (and no, I do not think the solution is for everybody or the town to shell out for shiny new sidewalks.) Again, -still calm. | ||
| JerryC Citizen Username: Jerryc Post Number: 159 Registered: 12-2002 |
StEEl, You keep referring to how nice the village is and how wonderful the houses and neighbors are. I suspect that you must not get over to the other side of town much. Not that the houses are bad, but as you get closer to the fringes of Irvington and Union, it becomes sketchy at best. Do you doubt the statment that there are people selling drugs out of the Dunkin Donuts parking lot regularly? THAT's In MAPLEWOOD. Is that OK with you as long as it doesn't happen in the village or on your block? Do you doubt the fact that on Jacoby, at Seth Boyden and in Dehart that you can find empty crack vials? THEY are in MAPLEWOOD. Is that OK with you? Do you care how many times the Maplecheck has been robbed or when the last armed robbery of the Quick Check was? It is in MAPLEWOOD. Has you family been threatened by a gang of thugs lately? Just because it is your preception that there is not a problem, doesn't mean that there is not a problem. If you think it can't happen here, let me tell you about some other areas nearby. The Vailsbug section of Newark is just a skip away. Not many years ago, this was a wonderful neighborhood, safe to walk around and shop in, day or night. I suggest you take a stroll there now. Irvington used to be beautiful. As a kid I used to ride my bicycle down Springfield Ave to go to the Sanford theater or the Castle theater. I'd bicycle down Lyons Ave or Chancellor Ave to visit a friend that lived on Union ave. Take that ride now. I used to walk from my home on Hughes St down the hill to the Dairy Queen on Styvesant Ave. There was a drive by shooting incident right around the corner from there recently. That is not far from where I and many other Maplewoodians live now. Have many drive by shootings near you? Would you let your kids walk down there to the Diary Queen now? There aren't a lot of bright young professionals there unless you consider drug dealing a bright profession. Orange used to be a great town. My wife's car broke down on Scotland road and she had to get out.She was harrassed and then chased by a group of kids who were nice enough to show her their gun as they threw bottles at her. When she finally got to the South Orange Police, they told her she was crazy to even get out of her car in that neighborhood. What's that, two miles from Maplewood? You suggest that some of us are over reacting. I suggest that you are way wrong. I guess I'm one of those wacky people who are willing to give up a few "civil liberties" for safety, security and peace of mind. | ||
| Case Citizen Username: Case Post Number: 826 Registered: 2-2005 |
When I say "annoyance crimes", I'm talking mostly about the kids gathering in big groups on the sidewalk... walking across the street in a manner seeming designed to stop traffic... the generally "annoying" behavior of unsupervised kids. Let me state that I know in my heart that YOUR kids are perfect angels - I'm not talking about YOUR child (whoever you might happen to be!). I was surprised and dismayed to read Ken's post about having a problem in Maplewood Village. I agree that its a very safe area; I've never felt unsafe there, nor has my wife. And to answer a few observations above... no, "Choice B" is not happening - yet. But when common sense (and common courtesty) are not enough to keep the streets safe, quiet and available for everyone's use then perhaps the time has come to start gently encouraging folks to behave in a manner more condusive to keeping the peace. Please refer to Ken's post for an example of what I'm talking about. And MJC, I've had one "frightening near miss" while driving also... and one while walking (in a legal crosswalk, I swear), and I would love to see a "rationalization" of the use of sidewalks and streets. I honestly don't mind if someone is walking in the street, but if they see a car coming - move! I realize this isn't a vote, but I would like to encourage everyone to support both cameras and empowering the police to maintain/improve our quality of life in Maplewood. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 5200 Registered: 12-2001 |
Why kids walk in the street, I don't know. Why people walk in the street, particularly with strollers or at night I can answer. The hideous condition of the sidewalks. Tree roots heave the sidewalk up and create really dangerous walking conditions. Can't tell you the number of times I have tripped and seen others trip on the sidewalks of this town. And they are the homeowners responsibility, not the towns. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11004 Registered: 1-2003 |
And the town does not enforce the law which requires homeowners to maintain the sidewalks. I think new laws will not be very effective. I favor enforcement of existing laws. As mjc, walking in the street when a sidewalk exists is already illegal. Perhaps the law is a state law, but we don't need a redundant township law. If the township doesn't enforce existing laws, new laws won't be effective in getting people to comply with either old or new laws. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 350 Registered: 3-2005 |
mjc, I'm also originally from the west coast and I've noticed that people on the east coast tend to view walking as the primary transportation mode of human beings and the purpose of all paved surfaces, not driving. In fact, many people never learn to drive and millions do not own cars. Some of these lifelong habits are developed in congested urban areas, but others are developed in rural areas without any sidewalks at all. I have a home office that overlooks the street and half the people walking down this leafy thoroghfare on any given day choose the road over the one sidewalk available. This is especially true of joggers, but also dog walkers and parents pushing multiple-child strollers uphill. (Once the snow comes, nobody walks on the sidewalk.) If the ordinance passes unamended, I have no expectation of seeing people ticketed here, and if they are, my conclusion will be that rather than a crime wave, what we are experiencing in Maplewood is a police force with too much time on its hands and a comic attempt to raise revenues in lieu of taxes by any means necessary. Ken Scout, Living on the west coast and in New York City I often encountered packs of teenage kids whose greatest delight in life was making fun of the adults who passed them in daring ways. This sometimes consisted of yelling obsceneties or making humiliating comments about hairstyle or shoes, etc. Also, large packs of kids just out of school are talking while walking and want to keep talking and -- in case you've forgotten what it feels like to be a kid -- nobody wants to be walking behind everybody else. That's for wimps. It's like having to sit in the back seat of the car. Important people ride shotgun. Immature teenagers are not unique to Maplewood and you can't legislate them out of their immaturity. You can only appeal to their overwhelming desire to be accepted as serious people and adults. You can create problems bigger than the ones you've got by taking the wrong approach with kids or selectively criminalizing their behavior while letting adults get away with whatever they please. I see so much juvenile behavior exhibited and tolerated on MOL I'm amazed the same people have the face to point fingers at actual kids and scream they are responsible for the decline of civic life in Maplewood. I'm with Steel that laws should be reasonable and evenly enforced, or else it just gets harder to persuade kids why they might like to join the adult community. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 351 Registered: 3-2005 |
Case, The daughter of a friend of mine stepped out in front of my moving car two weeks ago as I was headed up Parker Ave. There was a boy across the street flirting with her and she stopped looking at traffic. I wasn't going very fast, and never do, on Parker. Living in an area with so many kids, I drive differently in Maplewood than I do anyplace else in the world. No matter how many laws are passed, people are still going to have to deal with the reality that we have a town filled with kids, whose minds aren't focused on traffic. You know, I don't think we can advocate outlawing rude staring and putting up cameras in the same breath. Or peg liberals as the ones in favor of the "nanny state." | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 352 Registered: 3-2005 |
oh -- and one more thing. Some of this thread would lead people to believe the parks are unsafe at night. Recently, when friends were visiting from India, we took them to the train and when we found out it was running late, we walked through Memorial Park to kill the time. We saw kids hanging out on the bridge (a public street) and a few other strollers in the park. Nothing intimidating or illegal. Women walking alone are pretty much at risk everywhere, and I wouldn't walk alone at night in any park. But I've heard nothing and read nothing in the News-Record or on MOL to make me think the parks have become unsafe, and I'm looking forward to enjoying evening walks again in the warmer weather. | ||
| JerryC Citizen Username: Jerryc Post Number: 160 Registered: 12-2002 |
Come on over and take that walk in Seth Boyden School Yard or Dehart park after hours. Do you know where those are? The border of Maplewood does not end at Valley St! | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 584 Registered: 8-2001 |
You're not supposed to be in the Maplewood parks after sundown. It's the law. Or something. Except for the 4th of July, I guess. | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 1055 Registered: 2-2004 |
I wonder if the people who are concerned about the privacy infringements imposed by surveillance cameras feel the same way about the presence of a beat cop. I've stated on an earlier thread that I'd like to see rigorous enforcement of anti-littering laws, utilizing plain-clothes cops, hefty fines and appropriate, humiliating community service. (Cleaning up litter in orange jump suits for a few weekends). I'm all for instilling a healthy sense of paranoia in the minds of punks of all ages. Let them think they're being watched. Cameras won't solve problems, they're just another tool. The fact is that police only enforce a fraction of the laws they see being violated every day. A basic part of the job is making judgement calls on what laws to enforce. There's really a pretty broad consensus on what illegal acts we as a town will tolerate and what we'd like to see cracked down on. Let's not allow ourselves to get bogged down by a debate over semantics. Instead let's take tangible, coherent measures to reign in some problems. | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 585 Registered: 8-2001 |
ARTICLE IV Park Hours [Adopted 5-4-1999 by Ord. No. 2100-99] § 193-23. Opening and closing hours; artificial lighting. All parks within the Township of Maplewood will be open to the public during the times set forth below: A. Borden Park shall be open from 5:00 a.m. to sunset. The hours for use of the fields and courts shall be from 8:00 a.m. to sunset. B. DeHart Park shall be open from 5:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. The hours for use of the fields and courts shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Artificial lighting is available only for those users who receive permits from the Recreation Department. C. Maplecrest Park shall be open from 5:00 a.m. to sunset. The hours for use of the fields and courts shall be from 8:00 a.m. to sunset. D. Memorial Park shall be open from 5:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. The hours for use of the fields shall be from 8:00 a.m. to sunset. The hours for the tennis courts and basketball courts shall be from 8:00 a.m. to sunset Monday through Saturday and from 10:00 a.m. to sunset on Sunday. Tennis courts users may apply for a permit to use the tennis courts after sunset under artificial lighting conditions. Artificial lighting for the basketball courts will occur only during Recreation Department sponsored and/or sanctioned activities. E. Orchard Park shall be open from 5:00 a.m. to sunset. The hours for use of the fields and courts shall be from 8:00 a.m. to sunset. F. Walter Park shall be open from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Sunday. Artificial lighting is available only for those users who receive permits from the Recreation Department. [Amended 4-20-2004 by Ord. No. 2247-04] G. Notwithstanding the above, the Director of the Recreation Department of the Township of Maplewood may grant a waiver of closing times to accommodate special activities (Fourth of July, Omnifest, etc.). § 193-24. Authority to close parks and recreation areas. Any section or part of any park or recreation area within the Township of Maplewood may be declared closed to the public by the Director of the Recreation Department of the Township of Maplewood at any time and for any interval of time, either temporarily or at regular or stated intervals. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 354 Registered: 3-2005 |
JerryC, Yep. I do know where they are. What crimes have occurred in those places? Why would outlawing walking five abreast on Valley Street have any effect on crime there? I'm not saying no serious crime ever occurs in Maplewood. It does, and I know that it does. But as your post acknowledge, it's not taking place townwide. Why not target the tax resources and the effort on the places most in need of police help? I understand the police chief will part of the discussion taking place tonight. It's not obvious what most of these ordinances would do to prevent the serious crime (robbery, assault, car theft, burglary) that town residents most surely want eliminated. I hope he is coming with specific information about where the crime is occurring, what kind of crime it is, and what studies have shown would be effective in eliminating that crime, and at what cost. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 355 Registered: 3-2005 |
Joe, Why use plain-clothes cops to enforce littering laws? The point of a beat cop is a visible police presence to deter crime. Deterrence is what is we should be aiming for. The Essex County jails are full of people being humiliated and getting a college education in crime and gangsterism. That's really cutting off your nose to spite your face, and payng for it through what's left of your nose in taxes. Making people think they are being watched lasts only as long as it takes them to figure out that nobody actually is watching, since nobody is going to be following up littering violations from watchng surveillance tapes. I'd rather spend the money on something effective against auto theft and assault. | ||
| mjh Supporter Username: Mjh Post Number: 306 Registered: 5-2001 |
I like Kathleen's post. I drive home east on Parker every day.........often more than once, so I've seen Columbia students walking home a lot. Unfortunately, people find large groups of black kids vaguely threatening. Groups of AA kids become "packs" or "gangs" even without any bad behavior. Walking in the street is annoying to many, and probably dangerous, but it doesn't mean the kids are criminals, gang members, or anything else. Teenagers being annoying are just doing their job--child development 101. I really believe criminalizing kids walking home from school (because they drift to the street sometimes)will cause a lot more problems than it would resolve. Such an ordinance clearly targets black kids because there's a huge number of them all walking the same direction (east) while white kids are dispersed all over the two towns, and fewer of them seem to walk home. While I like many of Fred's suggestions regarding crime, I don't like this one at all. |
