Stooping

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

July 25th, 2005, 10:41 AM
reason

The last several nights I spent an hour or two each night stooping on the bad end of gae's street. "Stooping" is merely sitting on the street corner with other concerned residents, monitoring the area, maintaining a presence. The idea is to let residents - good and bad - know that someone is watching.

Amazing what a difference a few blocks make. The hardcore among the stoopers point out all the questionable homes and people. Prostitute here, drug dealer there. A different world of people who don't give a rats ass about themselves or anyone else.

While it cannot be a permanent solution, stooping does seem to prevent large crowds from gathering, and those seeking to buy drugs appear to be afraid to stop.

On a side note, for those appalled about the Supreme Court's decision regarding eminent domain, I suggest spending a couple hours sitting at the corner of Hanfield and Witler. Do that for a several nights and you can easily see a bulldozer ripping down the whole block of pre-1900 rental homes.

[ July 25, 2005 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Captain Whizbang ]
July 25th, 2005, 04:27 PM
travelinman

Most defiantly, the east end of Hanfield could sure use a bulldozer. I would also clean out the intersection of Colerain, Montana and Virginia. Get rid of all the buildings on the each side of the street from the entrance of I-74 up the hill to where the sidewalks and retaining walls are. Create a left turn lanes on Colerain north and south. Create right turn lanes on Colerain onto Virginia and Virginia onto Colerain. This would reduce a lot of congestion and get rid of a lot of trash. Cleaning out all those falling down buildings will make the back entrance into Northside much better.

Other things that can be done to reduce the drive by drug buys is to, make Hanfield a one way east from Kirby, make Jerome, Georgia and Florida a one way heading south from Chase. We get a large number of cars that cross Kirby heading west on Hanfield from the area you have described and ether turn right on Jerome or Georgia to Chase, then left on Virginia to the I-74 entrance. By doing what I suggest all the drug traffic will be funneled back to Hamilton and away from an easy escape onto the interstate.

Do you take a camera with you when you stoop? Taking pictures of people is not recommended (you could get shot), but license plates work. I use to do that on my corner as the cars went back and forth to Jerome and any cars I didn?t recognize I took a picture of the plates and e-mailed them to district five.
July 25th, 2005, 05:41 PM
reason

No cameras. A couple of the women bring notebooks and write down plate numbers, one of them not so discreetly.

One woman goes up and talks to passing kids, just so they get to know her/us.
July 25th, 2005, 05:59 PM
reason

Quote:

Other things that can be done to reduce the drive by drug buys is to, make Hanfield a one way east from Kirby, make Jerome, Georgia and Florida a one way heading south from Chase. We get a large number of cars that cross Kirby heading west on Hanfield from the area you have described and ether turn right on Jerome or Georgia to Chase, then left on Virginia to the I-74 entrance. By doing what I suggest all the drug traffic will be funneled back to Hamilton and away from an easy escape onto the interstate.

I've long wanted Florida to be blocked off, much in the same way Jerome is.

Anyway, I think there are a number of things short of stooping every night to make things more difficult for the unsavory elements.

First, put the cameras out. The drug dealers don't like them, and the buyers certainly don't.

Secondly, hit up these frickin' landlords. I checked the county website and I could only one property owner that actually lived on Witler between Hanfield and Blue Rock. Fine the hell out of the ones not maintaining their properties. Be strict on code violations and those who harbor bad tenants.

I wonder how many of these are Section 8? Shouldn't there be restrictions on how many single family Section 8 homes there are per block?

When a building gets boarded up and remains vacant, TEAR IT DOWN!

The city should identify certain blocks where homes have lived their lives and buy these $20,000 dumps and tear them down. It's got to be cheaper than the cost of crime that drives productive citizens away. Give the land to a developer (with a plan) with tax abatement and let them have at it.

As a final note, I want to get a specific list of Section 8 housing locations in Northside. I'll be damned if we've got entire blocks inhabited by subsidized housing. Once I know where these homes are, I want to see what condition they are in. I'm very curious to see what the Section 8 administrators consider "clean and safe" housing that passes their annual inspection. Excuse me for having my extreme doubts. I'm betting anything with a roof is considered clean and safe, which allows the Section 8 folks to dump its applicants into whatever's available (ie very old, cheap housing in Northside).

That section of Hanfield, Witler, and Lakeman can make or break the west side of Northside. I think it's time to become militant and demand some substantive action to rid ourselves of the persistent problems that exist down there and spill into the nicer areas from time to time.

[ July 25, 2005 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Captain Whizbang ]

[ July 25, 2005 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Captain Whizbang ]
July 26th, 2005, 07:44 PM
Lew

You know, I give Reason all props in the world for being impossible to pigeonhole. You get him talking gay rights, he sounds like the Village Voice. You get him talking eminent domain, he's pimping for Forbes. You get him talking about street crime, he sounds like Simon Leis.

Actually, I say props for 'stooping.' If it has a deterrent effect on crime, terrific. But as for the eminent domain sidelight....hey, if Developer X wants to buy the property and doze it, go right ahead. I just don't see the Constitutional grounds to allow the government to do it. And thankfully, most of the state legislatures that have consulted me agree; I hear 20 states have pending legislation that would effectively abrogate the right of the state to condemn for businesses. I'm all for development, Reason, but there's a right way and a wrong way.

I'd stoop in my neighborhood but then I realize I'm the one they're all looking at in the first place.
July 27th, 2005, 10:41 AM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by Lew:
You know, I give Reason all props in the world for being impossible to pigeonhole. You get him talking gay rights, he sounds like the Village Voice. You get him talking eminent domain, he's pimping for Forbes. You get him talking about street crime, he sounds like Simon Leis.

Actually, I say props for 'stooping.' If it has a deterrent effect on crime, terrific. But as for the eminent domain sidelight....hey, if Developer X wants to buy the property and doze it, go right ahead. I just don't see the Constitutional grounds to allow the government to do it. And thankfully, most of the state legislatures that have consulted me agree; I hear 20 states have pending legislation that would effectively abrogate the right of the state to condemn for businesses. I'm all for development, Reason, but there's a right way and a wrong way.

I'd stoop in my neighborhood but then I realize I'm the one they're all looking at in the first place.

We have a tendency to uphold the rights of the individual at the expense of keeping hostage society as a whole. Somehow maintaining property fit for crack dealers and prostitutes while people get shot on the street corner doesn't seem like a good advertisement for individual property rights.

Maybe if people are repeatedly getting shot just blocks from your home, you'd feel differently. It's like I told a couple stoopers last night: I shouldn't have to babysit my neighborhood, and it's never going to change until all the substandard housing gets removed.

Inner cities need the ability to reinvent and renew themselves. Eminent domain is not a simple process used at whim. It should be available to save cities from the abyss.
July 27th, 2005, 01:38 PM
Anton von Stockhoff

"Inner cities need the ability to reinvent and renew themselves. Eminent domain is not a simple process used at whim. It should be available to save cities from the abyss."

Spoken like a true Socialist. I can see why you don't understand individual property rights as a concept. You don't take any pride in your home or yard based on the comments you have made about them. But a lot of people do. If the city decided to re-invent itself by razing YOUR BLOCK I guess you would be OK with that? Right.
July 27th, 2005, 01:41 PM
Anton von Stockhoff

Quote:

We have a tendency to uphold the rights of the individual at the expense of keeping hostage society as a whole.

Like gay marriage issues contaminating the ballot. Oh you only want minority protections when it applies to YOU. When it comes to individual home owner rights the "public good" takes precedence? Like I said, spoken like a true socialist loser...
July 27th, 2005, 02:07 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by Live from Florida:
"Inner cities need the ability to reinvent and renew themselves. Eminent domain is not a simple process used at whim. It should be available to save cities from the abyss."

Spoken like a true Socialist. I can see why you don't understand individual property rights as a concept. You don't take any pride in your home or yard based on the comments you have made about them. But a lot of people do. If the city decided to re-invent itself by razing YOUR BLOCK I guess you would be OK with that? Right.

Given that I own a real house that's appreciated about 140% over the last 6 years, I think I'm quite clear on the issue of property rights. I'll be damned if I'm going to let a bunch of absentee landlords who live as far away as California screw it up for me and everyone else.

You see, I'm for getting rid of the prostitutes and drug dealers, the drive bys and other assorted violence. Others' property rights do not supercede my right to safety and well-being. Their property rights should not infringe on my property rights.

While what happens on Witler and Lakeman don't currently affect me directly, letting the situation fester will change that.

You know what I think would be funny? Handcuffing your overly effeminate self to a fence at the corner of Hanfield and Witler at midnight on a hot steamy summer night. You and the bros can hang out and get to know each other. Maybe you can discuss your sunset paintings with them.

[ July 27, 2005 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Captain Whizbang ]
July 27th, 2005, 02:17 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by Live from Florida:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />We have a tendency to uphold the rights of the individual at the expense of keeping hostage society as a whole.

Like gay marriage issues contaminating the ballot. Oh you only want minority protections when it applies to YOU. When it comes to individual home owner rights the "public good" takes precedence? Like I said, spoken like a true socialist loser...<hr /></blockquote>The block of Witler between Hanfield and Blue Rock has one owner-occupied residence. The rest are owned by landlords, almost all who live outside the neighborhood. Two homes are owned by someone in California.

The home owned by the guy in Rising Sun, INDIANA is boarded up and is a tear down...except it shares a wall with an occupied home owned by the guy in Torrance, CALIFORNIA.

It's people who don't own real property who tend to understand it the least. Which would explain your tirade. You have nothing to protect except your throw-away. Those in disposable housing shouldn't be throwing stones at those who own real brick and mortar.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page