| Author | Message | ||
     ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4479 Registered: 9-2001  |
I love you too Pal, and you know who you are, and what I mean... FWIW, you should know by now, I post for my own entertainment and pleasure. Hopefully, I give some people food for thought, and others a bit of humor. My posting style favors my creative side, while the content expresses my politics and my passion for this community and the world in general. I will agree with you that not everyone reads the Ajc posts, but those who do I’d hope find them interesting enough to finish them, regardless of how long or original I try to make them. On the subject of who reads what. I love MOL, but have to admit that I don’t read the majority of the posters, and only follow a few threads on a regular basis. It’s not anything personal, it’s just there’s not enough time to do it all. BTW, thanks for the pleasant way you handled your comment...  | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4480 Registered: 9-2001 |
Yes, thank you "S"... I'm also glad you posted the Chief’s presentation from last week; I’m just curious why it was without further comment? FWIW, on the subject of who reads what, I always read every one of your posts, and you’re still the best!. However, I’ve noticed lately that some of your businesses seem to be inactive. What’s up pal, with this great Bush economy things should be booming? | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 379 Registered: 3-2005 |
Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 2:08 pm: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 380 Registered: 3-2005 |
Following the actual meeting, Fred's initial post on this subject is worth re-reading and it's worth asking: If a main focus of all this is CHS, wouldn't it be appropriate to have a meeting where the CHS principal is present, the superintendant is present and wouldn't it be appropriate to have sent messages to parents of children in CHS? Wouldn't it be appropriate to consider a school assembly where these issues are discussed with town officials? Also, wouldn't it be appropriate to start making clear distinctions between incidents in Maplewood quite far from CHS where people observe suspicious or menacing behavior, often at night, and people who experience problems with students leaving school in the afternoon? I have heard no one deny there might be youths or students committing crimes in Maplewood in any number of places. But the link between what was described above as a LONG time problem with traffic near CHS after school hours and a recently discovered "gang presence" in Maplewood is far from established and ought to be the subject of meetings with CHS parents in both towns before ordinances with severe penalties are passed with the admitted idea that they are going to affect "young people of color" first and foremost. Some of these ordinances (or versions of them) might be worth doing in their own right. Claiming we need to do so to drive Bloods from Maplewood is so far totally without evidence. Maybe Tuesday night's TC meeting will address that, but it certainly needs to be addressed publicly by town officials at some point. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 892 Registered: 2-2002 |
Dear Art, Sometimes you are a bit too creative. In the interests of useful discourse please try to pay the small respect to quote other people correctly. It only does a disservice to the discussion to do otherwise. In that regard and to all: -In no way have I implied that "ignorance of the law is an excuse". Quite the opposite. -I am pointing out that to know that you (any of us) are in fact technically breaking the law while also knowing that you are in fact doing no harm is an indication of a carelessly written law. And why should such a law exist? Is it really beyond the powers of our lawmakers to make illegal only that which they intend? I sincerely hope and do not believe that to be the case. It has yet to be explained to me why the simple phrase "shall not impede the flow of traffic" which already exists in one of the newly proposed ordinances would not suffice to give the police all the discretionary powers that are called for in the matter of "breaking up the herds" or to put it as did Chief Cimino, "enforce the law based on a person's conduct". My personal view on these proposed ordinances is as it has been from the beginning. A. If the people of Maplewood feel that new ordinances are required to help curb specific behaviors in specific areas of town then those ordinances should be crafted to do just that and no more. - In that regard, -the ordinance "prohibiting vehicles from parking or stopping on the south side of Parker Ave between 2 and 4pm" is an excellent example of an ordinance WELL DONE. -Why? because it is very specific to address a specific need. That part of Parker is particularly narrow and busy, and during those two hours can be prone to having cars disruptively block the way. And so, -WELL DONE!, -the police would have an effective tool to deal with that problem. Note that it does not say that "nobody should stop any time anywhere" because that would be unreasonable. Was that so hard? Remember that a person who breaks a law is a criminal whether they get caught or not. And so I would implore the TC do not make criminals of people who do not need to be made criminals. It is that simple. B. We don't need no stinkin' cameras in the village. In no way do the "crime stats" support such an intrusive and ugly need there. When people see surveillance cameras, their very first instinct is to think "I'm in a dangerous place" -that's just a fact and a natural human reaction yet when you are in the village you are NOT in a dangerous place and that too is just a fact. Thus to put cameras in the village does a disservice. It is counterproductive to the very environment that the TC wishes to engender there and has so far been successful. I will grant that some persons do in fact feel safer with a camera peering at them. That sense may be well earned when walking through a dangerous land but the village is not a dangerous land. It is however shared by all of Maplewood almost daily and so all of Maplewood's residents should have an equal say in how they would feel about cameras there unlike some of the other locations which I grant should be considered with more weight to those residents most immediately affected. Those who wish to have cameras in the village would be well served to consider that those of us who do not want cameras there are not trying to keep something from you but that we feel that you are mistakenly trying to take something away from all of us including yourselves. -The very small but valuable right to go about your business with your fellow Maplewoodians with what well earned dignity, privacy and freedoms are due. Carry on. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 381 Registered: 3-2005 |
I second the request for an offical explanation of why "shall not impede the flow of traffic" wouldn't be sufficient. And I agree with steel's reasoning on cameras in Maplewood Village. They would negatively affect the quality of life there and the perception of the quality of life in Maplewood to visitors. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 382 Registered: 3-2005 |
I just noticed Lydia's last post. Who said anything about racists? And yes: The leaves were picked up before the fire truck got there, which is but one indication of how easy it is for traffic to get blocked when cars are parked on Durand -- which is, as I said, the designated route for emergency vehicles, unlike other nearby narrower streets -- and people start to get noisy about it. It happens when the leaves are there, too, which is why I mentioned the leaves. I didn't say Ellen or Don walked in the street. I said I stopped my car on Durand the other day while I was driving downhill and Ellen was walking up the hill to say hi and we chatted for awhile with her standing in the street and I was still in my idling car. There was no other traffic on the road. She didn't have her dog. She was coming from Manhattan. Most people don't imagine that if they walk on a street twice a day during the school year they've seen everything people do there with each other, maybe especially when you consider most people here work. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4487 Registered: 9-2001 |
Creativity is subjective Steel. First of all, in the interests of useful discourse I didn’t quote you. It was just my opinion that, it’s getting harder and harder not to break some law, somewhere, somehow; and as a consequence, “ignorance of our laws is no excuse.” I agree it’s wrong to misquote or spin what others have to say. I also agree if enough people want new ordinances they should be drafted. However, that’s it! Everything else in your post I disagree with and see no point in discussing it any further. I have found anyone convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still…. Meanwhile, please carry on with your small but valuable right to go about your business with your fellow Maplewoodians with what well earned dignity, privacy and freedoms are due you. FWIW, I’ll carry on very comfortably without them... | ||
| JerryC Citizen Username: Jerryc Post Number: 194 Registered: 12-2002  |
kathleen. I missed the first part of the meeting. I drove three hours back from PA to attend and got stuck in traffic. I surrender. I'm leaving the rest of this thread to you. You are obviously on top of things, know more than the rest of us and will undoubtedly keep the interests of the ENTIRE town in mind as you have proven so far. I told AJC recently that I would keep the fire burning but I'm growing more convinced, mostly by you,that what we really need is less real action and more analysis and discussion. We need many more facts clarified and presented in a few more different manners so we can all be absolutly assured that we are protecting the rights of everyone. Given that my inclination is toward getting things done and resolving problems by taking them head on, risking making a few mistakes along the way, I am clearly out of step here. So, my dear, kathleen, keep pressing for more detail. get those explainations. be sure to question everything over and over until you are satified that you have a solution that does not offend anyone in any way. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 3833 Registered: 12-2001  |
"And I agree with steel's reasoning on cameras in Maplewood Village. They would negatively affect the quality of life there and the perception of the quality of life in Maplewood to visitors." I quite agree. Many is time that I have contemplated engaging in intimate activity in public places only to be deterred by the presence of cameras. It's such a damper on a good time. Come on people. Get a grip. Cameras in bathrooms would be intrusive. Cameras trained on a public street - what's the harm? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 9886 Registered: 5-2001 |
In the end the proposed new ordinances are about quality of life, especially for those who live on the so called eastside of town. Obviously, quite a few Maplewoodians are no longer comfortable in their own neighborhoods and that is a shame. Many others are not comfortable visiting Springfield Avenue and that is also a shame and a detriment to economic development as well. The question is does the Town have the witherwal to do something about it or are we going to go back to the days when a bicycle helmet law couldn't be passed because TC members were afraid of being called racist. I hope for the former, but espect the latter.  | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 5239 Registered: 12-2001  |
Look to London for the success of camera's trained on the street. JerryC, please don't give up. Despite what either you or Kathleen believe both of your inputs have GREAT value. There are short term fixes and long term fixes. We need some of each. They are not now, and never have been, mutually exclusive. I have to agree with mem on the Parker ave situation. I drive it daily, when school is gettin in and when school is getting out. There are herds of kids in the street. But from my observation it is as much the parents sense of entitlement that drives the attitude the kids then portray. Parents would rather double park and block the street to let their kid out, and mind you these are teens so every thing happens in honest to god slow motion, and the back up goes as far as my street (burrougsway/highland ave) sometimes. So while some of the onus is on the kids, what are the parents thinking? that is is ok to stop traffic cause its cold and little darling _______________(insert name here) might get cold? What gives? It is the parents who help instill this attitude. The kids see the parents stopping traffic to let them out so it MUST be ok, right? Cause parents never break the law. There is still work to be done. My problem, having lived here 9 years, is my still confounding inability to tell the herds of kids from the gangs. Cause when I have said "excuse me guys" while walking with my kid I have often as not been met with a "no problem, sorry" as I have with disinterest or disdain. And I'll be darned if each group couldn't be confused one for the other. | ||
| LW Citizen Username: Lrw Post Number: 35 Registered: 10-2005 |
JERRYC--I'm starting to feel like you're avoiding my question as to whether or not you have organized a block association, or neighborhood watch with other concerned citizens in your area. If so, what measures have you all taken as an organization regarding the QoL issues in your area? If not, it's a good start. Grassroot movements can go a long way. Also, any comments on my earlier post regarding the ineffectiveness of surveillance cameras in other cities, specifically urban areas. I think we'd be very silly to continue to jump on an idea that was proposed without doing some research, first. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 5240 Registered: 12-2001 |
LW..Again, look to London and how those cameras helped in a VERY serious crime involving terrorism. Not that Mwood has such an issue, but they can be incredibly useful. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 893 Registered: 2-2002 |
Regarding cameras in the village: I enjoyed tjohn's joke but he is reflexively asking the wrong question. He should not be asking "what's the harm?", -(which I have already explained at length). He should instead be asking, (as should we all) "for what good is this expensive intrusion necessary?" Is the barrier to whether or not to have surveillance cameras for some people the question of whether you plan to have sex in front of them? Is that really the extent of your sense of privacy in public? I'm really curious about this because so many people including Art who is otherwise always asserting his rights seem to be completely nonplused about having constant peering anonymous authoritarian surveillance and additional lack of regard about how it makes most other people uncomfortably feel that they are in a dangerous place even when they are not. So many people seem so ready to fight to have any protection what from they perceive as criminal threats, (or rather demand that other professionals protect them) and yet lay down immediately without question to whatever solutions those professionals may suggest. Such persons (curiously to me) see absolutely no irony in that equation. Such persons it seems even get angry at those who do dare to ask questions. Thankfully the Mayor of our town is not such a person. He is asking for the opinions of others out of respect and rightful concern for the opinions of all. PS: I'm glad that Art agrees that "it’s getting harder and harder not to break some law." I'm suddenly remembering a rhyme from childhood, -"elbow room sez Daniel Boone." | ||
| apm Citizen Username: Apm Post Number: 317 Registered: 5-2001 |
Or that Carly Brushia case. If that ever happened in town to someone's child, I don't think anyone would mind cameras in a public place. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 383 Registered: 3-2005 |
Duncan, I don't think mem was talking about parking problems, or parents. As for looking to London, look at what the cameras didn't prevent: A devastating series of suicide bombs, followed by a subsequent attempt that would have been equally devastating had the bombs not malfunctioned, plus the shooting of an entirely innocent man who was targeted for the clothes he was wearing. Scotland Yard was heavily criticized before and after the bombing for failing to do the community policing that might have given them better intelligence about domestic criminal groups. There really is no substitute for talking to people and earning their trust. Cameras don't do that. Bobk, Why divide into eastside and westside and into camps? I supported the helmet law. I'm highly supportive of putting police resources where it's needed to stop people from being menaced and crime victims. It will obviously cost money. Question is: Are you willing to see your taxes raised to pay for it? I am. But I'm not willing to see my taxes raised to satisfy some people's psychological need to get tough on today's youth. A minority of Maplewoodians haven't been comfortable here for years simply because racial demographics have changed and CHS has been a majority black high school for years. Their constant anxieity and theatrical demands for more policing and investigations of CHS students and trying to link all teen misbehavior to Bloods and vice versa is a wearying distraction that does nothing to solve neighborhood crime or even remove students who commit crimes to alternative settings, let alone improve education. I'm tired of a political leadership that fans the flames and then refuses to commit any money to rationally help solve what problems actually exist at the source. JerryC, It wasn't me who said there would be more analysis and discussion. It was the mayor. He said that at the end of the meeting, when he also said he didn't think it would be necessary to raise taxes to solve any of the problems you're complaining about. My inclination to get anything done at Columbia High School would be to include South Orange in the discussion and my inclination to solve neighborhood safety problems would be to commit more police to those neighborhoods, not go on and on about illegal students. tjohn, Why take scarce money and police resources away from areas that need it and -- oh wait! -- no kidding: Two women just jogged right down the middle of Durand Road. But they weren't impeding traffic. It's a good example of why you don't want to write overly broad laws that are bound to be selectively enforced in discriminatory, subjective fashion when you can write enforceable ones that both parents and children have a public safety reason to obey. Anyway, tjohn, my understanding is that tonight's TC meeting will further discuss cameras. I'm no longer sure Maplewood Village is even under consideration, given the costs. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8077 Registered: 4-1997  |
From David Brin's The Transparent Society
http://www.davidbrin.com/tschp1.html | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 3836 Registered: 12-2001 |
Steel, For reasons of cost, if nothing else, I don't expect cameras to sprout up like dandelions. I think that cost considerations alone will limit camera use to those areas where they are expected to help address crime problems. Kathleen, I don't favor laws empowering the police to arrest people for jogging in the street. I just want hitting pedestrians under such circumstances to be decriminalized. My most vivid memories of joggers in the street are these: 1. Two women jogging in the traffic lanes of Wyoming Ave. near the intersection of S.O. Ave. at 0615 hrs. Had I been speeding or distracted, they would have been toast. 2. One women jogging in the street on the bend of Glen Ave. near Sagamore at about 0800 hrs. Again, had I been speeding or distracted, she would have been toast. For the record, I believe that these women are vying for the Darwin Awards. I just don't want it to reflect on my driving record if I am the driver that allows them to qualify. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 894 Registered: 2-2002 |
Duncan, -I usually agree with most of the things that you post but please explain to me why exactly we should look to London regarding terrorists(?!) while discussing cameras in Maplewood village? Shall we also look to Baghdad and consider having armed Humvee patrols? Is that really where we are at? Seriously, -why bring it up if there is no real analogy? I'm quite sure that Maplewoodians can think for themselves and do not constantly need the argument that; "but mom! -all the other kids have one". PS: It seems that cameras did not help the Londoner who police drilled with seven rounds to the head whose only crime was that he was an electrician. Perhaps police there did not entirely well use their discretionary powers in evaluating his "conduct". -Good example. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 384 Registered: 3-2005 |
Dave, Interesting. Maybe we could save money and do job training at the same time: Hire CHS students to take cell phone pictures of everybody in the Village and turn them over to the police. tjohn, I didn't think you favored empowering the police to arrest joggers. The two women jogging down the middle of Durand weren't posing any traffic hazard. Don't people get ticketed for speeding on Wyoming? | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 3837 Registered: 12-2001 |
Kathleen, I wasn't aware that people get ticketed for speeding anywhere in New Jersey. I favor a strict enforcement of speed limits in residential areas. Police departments ought to run traffic enforcement as a profit center. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 385 Registered: 3-2005 |
I favor strict enforcement of speed limits as well, and not just to protect joggers on Wyoming. But I think more people speed on Ridgewood. Bobk, I just remembered that it was Chief Cimino who opposed the helmet law, among others. I do think stereotyping people in this discussion is a real disservice to the people who are trying to separate fact from fiction in this discussion. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 5242 Registered: 12-2001 |
Steel.. my point was not in anyway to compare or equate the two. Merely that the cameras in London led directly and from what I have read, swiftly to ID'ing the bombers and getting inside the cells in London that harbored them. Thats all. In no way did I mean to imply anything re: Humvees etc. My bad in not being more clear. As for preventing a shooting, even if there were an eyewitness there that shooting wouln't have been prevented either. More than likely if a cop was there the shooting still might not have been prevented. Note the NYPD officer shot in the heart last week trying to pull over a speeder. And Kathleen, apparently I was equally unclear about my Parker ave point. It is in a way about parking. Most kids take their cues from their parents, and if the parent decides they are above the law (in this instance by double parking and blocking the street) then that is what the kid absorbs and then proceeds, on foot, to do much the same thing. I appreciate your concerns about surveilliance and big brother and the laissez faire attitude many of us have adopted toward the deterioration of our civil liberties. I admit it is a thin line and one that is very hard to reconcile. But the truth of the matter is, when you are in NYC you can be traced from the moment you step off the train, until you enter the place you are going. In fact, I have often thought that I could make a kind of eerie short film using existing footage from existing cameras placed around NYC. So it is already happening in many places. Does it work? I don't know. But merely sending an email or posting to a site like this opens you up to just as much info gathering by good or bad people. Stuff is shifting in the world and our place in it shifts as well. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 895 Registered: 2-2002 |
From Dave's article: (thanks for posting it) "Starting with Redwood City, near San Francisco, several police departments have begun lacing neighborhoods with SOUND PICKUPS that transmit directly back to headquarters. " -Swell, -that's just swell. I'm sure that quite a few people will say "what's the harm?" or "but they WORK somewhere else". | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 5563 Registered: 5-2001  |
FACT: The extent that CHS students walk in the middle of Parker Ave and other streets, and the way many of them behave while doing so is DANGEROUS. Someone is going to get seriously hurt. Kathleen, you can stop with your mean little assumptions, I don't care what color these kids are, I don't care what clothes they wear, I don't care if they are illegal or not, I don't care if they are gang members or not, I don't care of they are walking up the hill where rich folks with white guilt like you live or to Newark or Irvington or right past my parent's old house off Parker, where we had been watching this problem grow for years. I grew up here Kathleen, and if I am the racist that you obliquely accuse me (and everyone else) of being I would have moved out a long time ago. I suggest you see a therapist about that enormous amount of white guilt you carry around because it's clouding your judgement and making you sound even loonier. I hope the ordinances help the kids to walk safely on the sidewalks and respect their surroundings. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 386 Registered: 3-2005 |
Duncan, It is not true that in New York City surveillance cameras can trace you from when you get off the train to when you enter where you are going -- and certainly not when it comes to police surveilance cameras. There are many, many, many private cameras and public police cameras in many places at well, but it is not seamless coverage by any means and the entire notion is under legal challenge. There is an enormous difference between posting on MOL and being opened up to information gathering and police surveillance cameras and tapes and files. And whether or not "it works" is precisely the question, but first people have to state what problem it is they are trying to solve. You can actually go on walking tours in New York that point out to you where the cameras are. Remember to get all the releases you need for your film. As for stuff is shifting, some of the push for cameras is coming from people who have trouble understanding stuff has shifted and their place in it shifts as well -- and it's not a threat. | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 599 Registered: 8-2001 |
mem, There are cops posted every single school day on Parker. All they have to do is enforce the current ordinances. Like no standing in the street. No jaywalking. No obstructing traffic. Or the ol' reliable failure to heed directions of a police officer. Voila. Problem solved. Oh no wait. We still need the prosecutor to actually prosecute, the cops to actually show up and testify, the judge to determine guilt or innocence based on the facts presented, not a liberal dismissal. Maybe there's a way to fix this on the other side of the legal equation. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 387 Registered: 3-2005 |
mem, I did not even obliquely accuse you of being a racist and your posts in response to mine are totally neurotic, to put it mildly. You can keep paying a forturne to therapists if you believe in that stuff. I've got an excellent picture of the results they get. I think some people are seriously trying to sort out these issues, and care a lot about all the things you say you don't care about. | ||
| LW Citizen Username: Lrw Post Number: 37 Registered: 10-2005 |
DUNCAN--I understand and appreciate the time you took on the research, and sharing the findings on London...(isn't there always a "but" ;-)) BUT, I think that in choosing between Newark or London to serve as a model in regards to Maplewood/SO's problems, Newark is a much more reliable indicator. Now if I saw stats and was informed about say, Montclair or West Orange using surveillance cameras, and it being effective, then I'd change my mind. Otherwise, I stick with what I see in surrounding cities with similar issues, but much more extreme, than with a foreign report on terrorism in London. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4490 Registered: 9-2001 |
“Look to London for the success of camera's trained on the street.” Yes Duncan... a camera in the right place at the right time could help bring back a kidnapped child taken off our streets, arrest a robbery or murder suspect, catch a car thief, and help police in a host of other circumstances too numerous to list. I have to wonder about those who protest too much. IMO, this issue seems to be more about what we have to lose, than what we have to gain. The latter is what the focus needs to be on… Less we forget, one of the first WTC bombers in the early 90’s lived here on Boyden Avenue in Maplewood. Who knows how often he was in and around our town with co-conspirators? Cameras a decade ago in town may have saved us from 911? Sadly, we'll never know. Now look how quickly they were able to follow-up in London after the bombing’s there... IMHO, we need as many cameras in our community as we can afford to install... | ||
| LW Citizen Username: Lrw Post Number: 38 Registered: 10-2005 |
KATHLEEN--I just read on this forum that you have "white guilt"!! Does that mean that white guilt equates to being conscious, rational, sensible, and obviously intelligent. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 897 Registered: 2-2002 |
Dear Art, -Very creative use of typography. -I wonder if the sub-committee of the planning board will now be including in their recommendations for a B&B, that surveillance cameras be required to be aimed at the front and back doors of any such public-use establishment and if you would be willing to endorse such a measure since it otherwise would seem to be so in-line with your thinking. Perhaps we can catch any future terrorist co-conspirators that may choose to have pancakes there. And there wouldn't have to be a question of whether the town could afford it as they could also easily simply require the proprietor to pay for such a valuable precaution. -Regards | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 388 Registered: 3-2005 |
LW, You're not going to make yourself popular on MOL with remarks like that! ajc, The perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing were put on trial and convicted long before 9/11/2001 -- and all of the 9/11 hijackers were seen on surveillance cameras boarding the planes they used as missiles. But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of panoptic paranoia. . . | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 389 Registered: 3-2005 |
Here is a worthwhile article for those who care about teens and gang prevention in communities. I especially draw people's attention to the last paragraphs about the desire for easy answers and quick fixes: Expert on youth violence says good parenting is best prevention By BONNIE PFISTER The Associated Press TRENTON, N.J. - Last week, state officials said they will reassign 20 state troopers to work on the growing gang presence in New Jersey, and acting Gov. Richard Codey is creating a Gang Land Security Task Force for interdiction and intelligence gathering. Prevention efforts by communities and families are an equally important part of the solution to reducing gang violence, according to Dr. Robert L. Johnson, a chairman of pediatrics at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark. With 30 years of both research and clinical work with adolescents, Johnson was part of a National Institutes of Health team that published a report on youth violence. In an interview with the Associated Press, Johnson said the state and communities should do more to help strengthen families. Q: What prompts young people to join gangs? A: One of the things kids need is something to belong to, to be involved in. And the gang unfortunately is a very supportive social structure for some kids at that particular time in their lives. One of the things I think, in my anecdotal experience, is the reason why we have these gangs in Newark and Camden and Paterson is there's nothing else there. You have kids walking around without anything to do and without good consistent adult supervision. So you end up in a gang, which has lots of structure and lots of rigidity and is something you can belong to and be accepted in. Q: How can parents keep their children away from gangs? A: You really need to know where your kids are and what they're doing. It doesn't mean keep them in the house all the time. But it does mean you need to know who their friends are. You need to talk to them about where they're going. You need to invite their friends over so you can get to know them and get to know their families. You should have some idea in your head what their daily schedules are. You should get your kids involved in activities in their community, and the more activities, the better. I know it's a big job for parents, especially if you're working, if you're a single mom or single father that supports the household. Q: What is the state of New Jersey doing - or not doing - to help parents in that way? A: Well, they're not doing enough. Parents with jobs need opportunities to spend more time with their children. That's something we haven't done nationally. We're just beginning to talk about family strengthening. Part of it is providing parents with some support. One of the things we do with my program in Newark (which counsels parents and teens at University Hospital) is we have a monthly parents' support group. Parents can come there and share information with each other about the issues they face and how they handled them. The most important intervention and prevention entity in the life of a child is parents. I mean parents or individuals in parental roles - it could a grandparent, it could be aunt or uncle, it could be the state. It goes to reinforcing the role of adults being involved in the lives of children. Q: So it's not so much the money not being there? A: I don't think it's the money in this case. It's a change in focus. We've always thought about these problems: What the city could do, what government could do, what schools could do. If you have a group of bad kids in the community, your first reaction is to get all the kids together and do something with them. And actually we should get all their parents together and do something with them. Q: You've said boot camps, wilderness training and "scared straight" programs don't deter kids from crime, and can actually be harmful. How so? A: Research facts don't trump political realities, and the political reality is that people feel that kids who do bad things need to be punished. But the truth of the matter is they don't get better. What we found was congregating bad kids together gives bad kids the opportunity to teach more naive kids how to be worse. So they learn from each other. Every parent who's fed up with their 14-year-old son and can't take it anymore wants to do something: boot camp, military academy. In 30 years and hundreds, if not thousands, of parents who've talked to me about sending their kids away, it always makes it get worse. Always. I've never seen it get better. And that includes not only boot camp but Aunt Sally in South Carolina or Uncle Joe in western Pennsylvania. No matter how bad your kid is, no one's going to take better care of your kid than you can. Q: Are there other programs to avoid? A: Gang-awareness training. To do lectures, bring a gang leader or former member out to talk about how bad it is to be in jail, maybe the individual is in a wheelchair. For some kids, it may even glorify the gangs and make it more likely for them to get involved. It just doesn't work at all. Kids don't scare easily. Adults don't scare easily either. You pass an accident on a parkway, you'll slow down for a while but then you're speeding shortly after that. Q: What does work? A: If you're going to do counseling, it's best to do individual counseling. In groups, I would say less than five (participants). What's key is the leader needs to be someone really skilled at groups methods. In some programs you have unskilled individuals, or individuals who are not supervised well. You have the opportunity to make it worse. Family therapy and home visiting - there is proof that those interventions decrease negative outcomes among children. And it's been shown to be cost-effective. It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of effort. And the problem is the public wants an easy fix. They want to do something like send the kid away for six months and they come back and they're better. It just doesn't work. | ||
| JerryC Citizen Username: Jerryc Post Number: 197 Registered: 12-2002 |
LW, your racist remark in another thread here would indicate that you have no idea what being conscious, rational, sensible, and obviously intelligent is all about. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 898 Registered: 2-2002 |
I can't read that article. It takes too long. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4492 Registered: 9-2001 |
Dear Steel, I’m glad you appreciate my creative use of typography, I work at it pretty hard... FWIW, you have an excellent idea there pal... And, it would be my pleasure if the sub-committee of the Planning Board would include surveillance cameras in their recommendations for all B&B’s. Actually, I’d be willing to pay for them to be aimed at the entrance all such public-use establishments. If the truth was ever known, I swear I may have seen that dirty bastard around town back in 1993. And yes, perhaps we can catch any future terrorist co-conspirators that may choose to have pancakes here or elsewhere in our community? Hey, we never know, do we? | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 899 Registered: 2-2002 |
Art, Excellent. | ||
| LW Citizen Username: Lrw Post Number: 40 Registered: 10-2005 |
JERRYC--I find myself laughing at you more and more each day. I tried to offer you some suggestions to your "problem" days ago, and perhaps, out of embarassment, you've failed to respond. You're just a very angry person, and I don't know if I can continue to entertain you, anymore. Sorry! |
