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.
July 27th, 2005, 02:20 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

Lew,

Don't you also find it a bit, uhm, incongruous that Trav is championing social change via bulldozer? I always thought he was in favor of the strong individual being allowed to operate independently of those oh-so-onerous governmental intrusions. Anarchy uber alles and all that.

I guess his Libertarian mantra of ?Don?t tread on me? only applies to him and those he deems worthy.

Why am I not surprised?
July 27th, 2005, 02:25 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by Pi?a:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by 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.

Lew,

Don't you also find it a bit, uhm, incongruous that Trav is championing social change via bulldozer? I always thought he was in favor of the strong individual being allowed to operate independently of those oh-so-onerous governmental intrusions. Anarchy uber alles and all that.

I guess his Libertarian mantra of ?Don?t tread on me? only applies to him and those he deems worthy.

Why am I not surprised?<hr /></blockquote>Live by it/in it, deal with it on a regular basis, and you can completely understand the bulldozer sentiment.

This is simple case of absentee landlords trampling on the rights of everyone else. The property rights argument don't cut it. If you don't bulldoze them, they will definitely "bulldoze" you.
July 27th, 2005, 02:32 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain Whizbang:
Live by it/in it, deal with it on a regular basis, and you can completely understand the bulldozer sentiment.

This is simple case of absentee landlords trampling on the rights of everyone else. The property rights argument don't cut it. If you don't bulldoze them, they will definitely "bulldoze" you.

Reason,

I have lived "by it/in it" and while it is not pleasant the solution is not to just tromp into neighborhoods and bulldoze the properties you personally don't happen to like.

If you don't like prostitution and drug dealing then address the problem directly. If you don't want run down properties in your neighborhood then form a homeowners association and develop standards. Get together with your neighbors and buy the offending properties if they bother you so much and then bulldoze away.

Keep in mind though that while you may find the run down properties to be so objectionable, others may find yours to be sub-standard. Should they be able to compel you to raze yours?
July 27th, 2005, 04:02 PM
reason

Quote:

Keep in mind though that while you may find the run down properties to be so objectionable, others may find yours to be sub-standard. Should they be able to compel you to raze yours?

The market has determined that for me. Unlike Lakeman and Witler, my street doesn't have homes go on the market for $3,000, or $15,000.

If someone wants to pay me market rate for mine, hand me the pen...
July 27th, 2005, 04:27 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain Whizbang:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />If you don't like prostitution and drug dealing then address the problem directly. If you don't want run down properties in your neighborhood then form a homeowners association and develop standards. Get together with your neighbors and buy the offending properties if they bother you so much and then bulldoze away.

Keep in mind though that while you may find the run down properties to be so objectionable, others may find yours to be sub-standard. Should they be able to compel you to raze yours?

The neighborhood has been dealing with the problem "directly" for years now.<hr /></blockquote>Oh? How so? Have they been addressing the underlying problems that contribute to illegal drug abuse, prostitution and the accompanying violence? I?m willing to bet that what has been done is more on the order of attempting to address the symptoms and not the disease. (Bear in mind that my definition of what that disease might be may be different than yours.)

Quote:

Over the past week I've gotten an education on everything they've done, yet the problem of absentee landlords exist. THEY are the problem.

No. They may be a problem but I hardly think they are the entire problem. It has been my experience that people tend to latch onto easily visible characteristics of problems, in this case the run down housing, that are concurrent with the greater concern, illegal behaviors, because they are something that can be pointed at while the deeper problems are hardly so concrete.

Quote:

You can go year after year of having prostitutes and drug dealers evicted, only to be replaced.

Quite true.

Quote:

Hit up Masud Whathisface with 12 violations on his 5 properties and let him do his patch up job.

I actually agree with this one point but do not agree that it would solve any other problem besides getting the buildings up to code. The other problems would continue.

Quote:

But thankfully we've got the property owners' rights to protect them at the expense of everyone else.

Unless you are willing to give up those very same ?property rights?, which I?d love to hear you enumerate, then you can hardly call for others to give up theirs. Still wouldn?t solve much and introduces other problems.

Quote:

And why should I have to front MY hard-earned capital because of someone else's antisocial behavior? Why should I be the one to pay? The one to pay should be the offender.

You seem to be expecting a perfect world where everyone takes responsibility for their own actions. Interesting in a theoretical sense but don?t hold your breath. In the real world things are a bit more difficult.

Unfair? Well, life aint fair. Deal with it.

Quote:

Why should I put my money into properties who have no other life than to be housing attractive to only those who have no other options? Why should I pay to get rid of drug dealers?

Because they aren?t going to go away by themselves and no matter what the solution you are going to end up paying for it.

Quote:

What I'll probably end up doing is simply moving - and that's what most people do. So in the name of sacred property rights, whole neighborhoods die, the slum lords continue to collect their money and the drug dealers continue dealing drugs.

And so the cycle continues. Again, until the underlying problems are addressed the decay/rehab cycle will continue.

Quote:

But at least we've protected property rights.

Rights are funny things. Once you start stripping them away from one segment you end up losing them across the board and getting them back can be damned near impossible.

Be careful what you wish for as you may the next target of those who want you gone to improve the neighborhood. (I really shouldn?t have to point this out to a fairly astute gay man.)
July 27th, 2005, 04:56 PM
travelinman

All that HTML code and not one original idea of your own. What?s the matter, afraid if you post what you think you will get laughed at?
July 27th, 2005, 05:55 PM
reason

Quote:

You seem to be expecting a perfect world where everyone takes responsibility for their own actions. Interesting in a theoretical sense but don?t hold your breath. In the real world things are a bit more difficult.
Unfair? Well, life aint fair. Deal with it.

Ok, so what you're clearly saying is that for the absentee slumlord who houses prostitutes and drug dealers we need to maintain utmost fairness, but for law abiding homeowner who maintains the property and increases property values, life should remain unfair and they should simply deal with it.

Huh.

I'm thinking if life should be unfair, it should be for the ones aiding and abetting criminal activity.

[ July 27, 2005 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Captain Whizbang ]
July 27th, 2005, 06:08 PM
reason

Quote:

Rights are funny things. Once you start stripping them away from one segment you end up losing them across the board and getting them back can be damned near impossible.

People who harm society routinely have their rights stripped from them. It happens to drug dealers and prostitutes. And it should happen to those who willingly house them.

The concept of taking away rights from those who infringe upon others is nothing new. Except maybe for you.

In Pina's world we should allow the hookers and drug dealer roam because we wouldn't want to take away any of their rights, by gosh. And the homeowners who have to deal with occasional drive by? In Pina's world, they should just DEAL WITH IT!

[ July 27, 2005 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Captain Whizbang ]
July 27th, 2005, 08:39 PM
gae

Quote:

In Pina's world we should allow the hookers and drug dealer roam because we wouldn't want to take away any of their rights, by gosh. And the homeowners who have to deal with occasional drive by? In Pina's world, they should just DEAL WITH IT!

That's correct, Cap'n. That *IS* the liberal agenda. Everyone has rights EXCEPT law abiding, tax paying citizens.

Because, really... how do you KNOW that the people you saw were hookers and dealers? Making an assumption based on behavior (in the case of the dealer) or appearance (in the case of the hooker) is profiling. And that is a BAD, BAD thing. If you'd just think it through, you'd realize that those young men are trading summer school homework or baseball cards. And those unfortunate young women are too poor to afford clothes that fit.

Where in the world have you been? Doesn't your radio get AirAmerica?
July 27th, 2005, 10:16 PM
Piña

See, the funny thing about "rights" is that according to the Constitution, they're inalienable.

For braindead neocons like gae and trav that means that they cannot be taken away even if you don't happen to approve of the ones who hold them.

I just find it amazing that someone who has to deal with people denying him rights is so quick to want to strip others of thiers.

I said it before, and yes, I will say it again, be careful of what you ask for 'cause it will turn around and bite you firmly on the ass if you're not careful. (I am assuming that everyone agrees that ass biting is a bad thing. [img]smile.gif[/img] )

And besides, bulldozing the slums doesn't work, at best it temporarily moves the unsavory behaviors, but they will just come back. If you want a real solution you have to go beyond the knee jerk "easy" solutions that posers like g and t are famous for.

(I'm really surprised at you reason, you're smarter than that.)
July 27th, 2005, 10:20 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by gae:
That's correct, Cap'n. That *IS* the liberal agenda. Everyone has rights EXCEPT law abiding, tax paying citizens.

No gae, that's incorrect.

My "liberal" agenda holds that EVERYONE has rights INCLUDING law abiding, tax paying citizens. They're not conditional. Conditional is for privileges.
July 27th, 2005, 10:21 PM
Lew

There are a myriad of variables being injected into this discussion, which is healthy except it requires an increase in the complexity of our respective analyses. Let's look at a few-

- Crime. Obviously, crime should be punished and if the police in Northside (or anywhere else) aren't doing their jobs, then that is a separate issue that needs addressing. Gae has told me horror stories, and the lack of response by City Hall is disgraceful.

- slum lords. There is (or can be) a remedy for their blight: BUILDING STANDARDS. Tighten up the rules and requirements of a dwelling, and then give some teeth to the enforcement of those standards. When a property falls below standard, and the landlord does nothing about it, down it comes. And, why don't we increase the criminal penalties for these slum lords? Force them to get in line or else find out what insider trading is like in the big house.
July 27th, 2005, 10:51 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by Lew:
There are a myriad of variables being injected into this discussion, which is healthy except it requires an increase in the complexity of our respective analyses. Let's look at a few-

- Crime. Obviously, crime should be punished and if the police in Northside (or anywhere else) aren't doing their jobs, then that is a separate issue that needs addressing. Gae has told me horror stories, and the lack of response by City Hall is disgraceful.

Why is it ?obvious? that crime should be punished? Another alternative is to remove the economic incentive that marries violence and abject conditions to drug use and prostitution. Would you be as ready to suggest that ?crime? should be punished if it were still illegal for people to engage in homosexual behaviors?

Quote:

- slum lords. There is (or can be) a remedy for their blight: BUILDING STANDARDS. Tighten up the rules and requirements of a dwelling, and then give some teeth to the enforcement of those standards. When a property falls below standard, and the landlord does nothing about it, down it comes. And, why don't we increase the criminal penalties for these slum lords? Force them to get in line or else find out what insider trading is like in the big house.

I agree for the most part. There are many regulations on the books that aren?t enforced. It?s a pity that it takes time and money to enforce them.

And have you considered what sort of political and legal fight you would have on your hands if you tried to take rental properties away from landlords for not meeting code to say nothing of attempting to jail them for it? It wouldn?t be pretty, or cheap.

So maybe just getting together with your neighbors and buying the properties and improving the area would be a more feasible approach. I mean either way you end up paying for them.
July 28th, 2005, 03:17 AM
travelinman

Quote:

Originally posted by Pi?a:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by 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.

Lew,

Don't you also find it a bit, uhm, incongruous that Trav is championing social change via bulldozer? I always thought he was in favor of the strong individual being allowed to operate independently of those oh-so-onerous governmental intrusions. Anarchy uber alles and all that.

I guess his Libertarian mantra of ?Don?t tread on me? only applies to him and those he deems worthy.

Why am I not surprised?<hr /></blockquote>Don?t? you have anything else to do but look for ways to insult my wife or me? When was the last time you had an original thought of your own?

Oh that?s right, when you do start threads, no one posts to them.
July 28th, 2005, 03:21 AM
Piña

Well, I guess that just shows that you can't refute my criticisms.
July 28th, 2005, 03:29 AM
travelinman

Quote:

Originally posted by Pi?a:
Well, I guess that just shows that you can't refute my criticisms.

There is no reason I should. You?re so far to the left that you have lost all touch with reality.
July 28th, 2005, 03:32 AM
Piña

Sure, sure. That must be it.

Does anyone else find it pitiful that Trav almost always relies on smoke screens and deflection to avoid having to defend his, well let's be charitable, insane ideas?

Kind of tells you how weak even he finds them.
July 28th, 2005, 03:44 AM
travelinman

Quote:

Originally posted by Pi?a:
Sure, sure. That must be it.

Does anyone else find it pitiful that Trav almost always relies on smoke screens and deflection to avoid having to defend his, well let's be charitable, insane ideas?

Kind of tells you how weak even he finds them.

There you go again, talking to those invisible people. I don?t keep track, but outside of myself and one from the Captain in this thread who else responds to your babble?
July 28th, 2005, 03:50 AM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by travelinman:
There you go again, talking to those invisible people. I don?t keep track, but outside of myself and one from the Captain in this thread who else responds to your babble?

Blah, blah, blah.

Care to answer my questions?

No?

Always the same with you. Can't keep up so you try and hijack the conversation into a personal flame war.

Again, you can't argue your position so you take the cheap, cowardly, way out. Typical freeper technique.
July 28th, 2005, 03:53 AM
reason

Quote:

If you don't like prostitution and drug dealing then address the problem directly. If you don't want run down properties in your neighborhood then form a homeowners association and develop standards. Get together with your neighbors and buy the offending properties if they bother you so much and then bulldoze away.

Keep in mind though that while you may find the run down properties to be so objectionable, others may find yours to be sub-standard. Should they be able to compel you to raze yours?

The neighborhood has been dealing with the problem "directly" for years now. Over the past week I've gotten an education on everything they've done, yet the problem of absentee landlords exist. THEY are the problem.

You can go year after year of having prostitutes and drug dealers evicted, only to be replaced. Hit up Masud Whathisface with 12 violations on his 5 properties and let him do his patch up job, and life goes on as before.

But thankfully we've got the property owners' rights to protect them at the expense of everyone else.

And why should I have to front MY hard-earned capital because of someone else's antisocial behavior? Why should I be the one to pay? The one to pay should be the offender.

Why should I put my money into properties who have no other life than to be housing attractive to only those who have no other options? Why should I pay to get rid of drug dealers?

What I'll probably end up doing is simply moving - and that's what most people do. So in the name of sacred property rights, whole neighborhoods die, the slum lords continue to collect their money and the drug dealers continue dealing drugs.

But at least we've protected property rights. Or at least the slum lords' property rights.

[ July 27, 2005 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Captain Whizbang ]
July 28th, 2005, 10:55 AM
reason

Quote:

Because, really... how do you KNOW that the people you saw were hookers and dealers?

Neighborhood activists who live on Pitts, Witler, and Lakeman know who lives where, who owns what, the number of police visits to each location. They've spent a lot of time observing their surroundings, and it is truly amazing how aware of what everyone's doing around them.
July 28th, 2005, 10:57 AM
reason

Quote:

Another alternative is to remove the economic incentive that marries violence and abject conditions to drug use and prostitution.

How do you do this?
July 28th, 2005, 11:08 AM
reason

Quote:

Why is it ?obvious? that crime should be punished? Another alternative is to remove the economic incentive that marries violence and abject conditions to drug use and prostitution. Would you be as ready to suggest that ?crime? should be punished if it were still illegal for people to engage in homosexual behaviors?

This is getting off topic.

If we want to discuss whether drugs and prostitution should be legalized, fine. But they aren't legal, and their presence in a residential neighborhood has brought a slew of well-documented violence, including drive-by shootings and murders. Landlords who willingly and repeatedly host these activities to the detriment of the neighborhood should be punished.

Oh, I've never known the presence in a neighborhood of two dudes bumping uglies to cause drive-bys and other assorted street violence.
July 28th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Anton von Stockhoff

Quote:

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.

You know you are about the sickest individual I have ever encountered on-line. Tell me, what does it feel like being a homophobic queer? Life must be hell for you... I suspect while you were growing up you never received any praise or encouragement for anything, just criticism. It's about the only explanation for your bitter hostility now. Either that or just plain self-loathing.

And as to the value of your brick and mortar home, I'm not impressed. I could easily sell my home for 3x what I paid for it in 2002. But I won't go on in this vein because you have a sick need to engage in pissing contests. Lack of self esteem is your main problem, it comes across in almost everything you post. From your homophobic comments to your sarcastic put downs. You are to be pitied.
July 28th, 2005, 01:11 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain Whizbang:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Because, really... how do you KNOW that the people you saw were hookers and dealers?

Neighborhood activists who live on Pitts, Witler, and Lakeman know who lives where, who owns what, the number of police visits to each location. They've spent a lot of time observing their surroundings, and it is truly amazing how aware of what everyone's doing around them.<hr /></blockquote>Even though gae brought this into the conversation in an attempt to introduce the false idea that profiling was relevant and even more false idea that ?liberals? were somehow against using any type of profiling to identify those engaged in illegal behaviors. It?s not relevant to the current discussion. It?s just another distraction that she and her mate like to drag in when they know they can?t prevail by sticking to the subject.

I did want, however, to comment on your statement about what neighborhood activists ?know? about the targets of their scrutiny. While I?m sure that many, if not most, of the people they have observed are indeed engaging in illegal pastimes you really need to be very careful as to what you consider to be reliable information, the conclusions you come to based on that information and the actions you take based on those conclusions.

People are notorious for getting things wrong and skewing their observations to fit preconceived notions. If you go into a situation believing that there is illegal activity going on you will tend to see it everywhere you look whether it is actually occurring or not. It?s one of the reasons why our particular system has the burden of proof placed on the accuser instead of on the accused. It?s very easy to get swept up in the fervor of the moment, give in to our desire to be one of the good guys fighting the good fight and end up doing very wrong things in the name of all that is goodness and light.

For a good example of this you only need to look to interesting phenomenon like the Salem witch trials or an even grander and more contemporary example might be the way that american patriotism was manipulated to make it look justifiable to invade an essentially unarmed country based on trumped up evidence and bald faced lies. Remember all the flags? All the nuke ?em back to the stone age talk? Same principle, different scale.

Mob mentality is a very ugly, and usually wrong, sort of thing.
July 28th, 2005, 01:23 PM
reason

Quote:

People are notorious for getting things wrong and skewing their observations to fit preconceived notions. If you go into a situation believing that there is illegal activity going on you will tend to see it everywhere you look whether it is actually occurring or not. It?s one of the reasons why our particular system has the burden of proof placed on the accuser instead of on the accused. It?s very easy to get swept up in the fervor of the moment, give in to our desire to be one of the good guys fighting the good fight and end up doing very wrong things in the name of all that is goodness and light.

Ok, I'm sitting on the corner and one woman pulls out three sheets of paper with police statistics of hotspots. Hanfield and Witler is number 2.

These are people who have meticulously accumlated evidence and worked within the confines of the laws. By and large, they are liberals.

This is no Salem witch trial. There are clearly problems and they have been going on for years.

The prostitute to which I was speaking? A repeat offender. She's been in and out of the court system repeatedly. The police know it; the activists know it; the neighbors know it.

The violence is real, the vacant homes are real, the drug dealers are real, the dead people are real. This is no overzealous witch trial.

There's no reason to "believe" antisocial behavior is going on. The simple reality is that it IS going on.

Pina, you imply that stoopers only focus on the black yoof. On the contrary, when the big, shiney Hummer full of white suburbanites-types moseys on through, their license plate gets written down. You might call that a witch hunt, I call it common sense monitoring.

[ July 28, 2005 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Captain Whizbang ]
July 28th, 2005, 01:42 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by Live from Florida:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />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.

You know you are about the sickest individual I have ever encountered on-line. Tell me, what does it feel like being a homophobic queer? Life must be hell for you... I suspect while you were growing up you never received any praise or encouragement for anything, just criticism. It's about the only explanation for your bitter hostility now. Either that or just plain self-loathing.

And as to the value of your brick and mortar home, I'm not impressed. I could easily sell my home for 3x what I paid for it in 2002. But I won't go on in this vein because you have a sick need to engage in pissing contests. Lack of self esteem is your main problem, it comes across in almost everything you post. From your homophobic comments to your sarcastic put downs. You are to be pitied.<hr /></blockquote>My experience is that the biggest homophobes are the ones who refuse to fess up. Lashing out against someone who is open is a means to hide who they don't want to admit they are. Happens all the time.

While I normally don't respond to some of the silly stuff you post, I'm happy to report that I had a rather nice "Disney" childhood. After the death of my uncle last week and the ensuing day and a half of extended family activities, I got to reflecting on my family and realizing just how lucky I had it.

Last night I watched a 50 minute video of spliced 8mm home movies put to shmaltzy music. It's the second time I've watched it since my uncle died. I smiled through most of it, got teary-eyed through the rest of it. So many great memories.

My childhood was blessed, thank you very much. Despite my parents' flaws I couldn't have asked for anything better. They did a wonderful job raising their children.

Every birthday, Mom sends me a card with basically the same theme: How proud she is of me and who I am (Dad also signs the card). Every year. I save every one of them.

Should you be so lucky.

[ July 28, 2005 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Captain Whizbang ]
July 28th, 2005, 01:50 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain Whizbang:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Why is it ?obvious? that crime should be punished? Another alternative is to remove the economic incentive that marries violence and abject conditions to drug use and prostitution. Would you be as ready to suggest that ?crime? should be punished if it were still illegal for people to engage in homosexual behaviors?

This is getting off topic.<hr /></blockquote>Well, see, I think it?s right on topic.

You have a concern, a very valid concern, about the degradation of your neighborhood. I?m suggesting that there might be better ways of handling it than to call out the bulldozers and attempt to get rid of a problem by trying to manage it?s symptoms instead of working on the underlying causal factors.

Quote:

If we want to discuss whether drugs and prostitution should be legalized, fine. But they aren't legal, and their presence in a residential neighborhood has brought a slew of well-documented violence, including drive-by shootings and murders.

Actually I would suggest that neither drug use nor prostitution, in and of themselves, brings accompanying violence. For the violence component to become a factor you need to add some form of suppression and some benefit that causes the activities to be perceived as having some net good to the practitioners. It?s a very complex problem that has many many factors contributing to make it seem like a good idea to those involved. You and I might disagree and say that they are fooling themselves but what we think really doesn?t matter as they aren?t motivated by our perceptions, they?re motivated by their perceptions and beliefs. Change that and you change behavior. (Ask Karl Rove about the power of perception as opposed to the power of objective reality and see which he thinks is more important to control.)

Quote:

Landlords who willingly and repeatedly host these activities to the detriment of the neighborhood should be punished.

While I?m sure that ?punishing? them would seem somehow morally cathartic it does little to solve your problem. Frankly, this approach has never worked and IMO never will. We?ve been trying it for centuries and the only thing I see increasing is the number of prison being built. Some might think there is something wrong with the basic assumptions. (Note: I am not saying that we should not hold property owners to some minimal standards. I am only saying that we should approach it from a different perspective as the punitive just isn?t terribly effective overall.)

Quote:

Oh, I've never known the presence in a neighborhood of two dudes bumping uglies to cause drive-bys and other assorted street violence.

Really?!? Funny, I seem to have heard of a minority, a very vocal and currently powerful minority, that believes that ?two dudes bumping uglies? will be the ruin of everything we hold dear and are acting as if this ?ugly bumping? is of the same order of threat to apple pie america as drug use and prostitution.

I would have thought you?d have heard about that. Rick Santorum, one of Pennsylvania?s finest, just wrote a book attacking them thar ?bumpers? under the guise of family values. He and his brethren would just as soon string you up as any other unclean law-breaker and would feel just fine bragging about it at Sunday service as a service to the neighborhood.

To them you are just as bad as the drug dealers and prostitutes and just as much of a problem. Aint perceptions grand?
July 28th, 2005, 02:01 PM
Gunslinger

Ok, after reading this I have come to some conclusions:

1) Reason is absolutely correct in what he is doing. More people should be as involved in their neighborhoods and care about their surroundings as he and his neighbors do. Crime flourishes mainly due to indifference or fear and these people are showing that neither applies to them.

2) Pina, you are an idiot. Come sit with me for a day at work and you will see how flawed your 'vision' is of how things work. It is houses like these that perpetuate the drug trade in this city.

3) Buildings that are boarded up or run down need to be gotten rid of. These are the houses that drug dealers turn into crack houses. They serve no useful purpose to society and need to be gotten rid of.

4) While the idea of getting rid of those houses, taking some kind of punitive measures against the absentee owners and turning streets either into dead ends or making them one way is the sensible thing to do it will never happen with the bozos we have on city council. Since y'all live in Northside and not Over the Rhine or Avondale you won't get any help. It's not "newsworthy" enough nor does it sell to the African American voter to help out a neighborhood that is mostly white.
July 28th, 2005, 02:02 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain Whizbang:

Pina, you imply that stoopers only focus on the black yoof. On the contrary, when the big, shiney Hummer full of white suburbanites-types moseys on through, their license plate gets written down. You might call that a witch hunt, I call it common sense monitoring.

Reason (I just can't call you captain [img]smile.gif[/img] )

I've implied no such thing. I merely cautioned you about some very real tendencies that people exhibit related to how they perceive and interpret events.

I did not say that anyone was making mistakes. I did say that people tend to make mistakes. You are smart enough to understand that those are very different statements so I'll not belabor the point.

I also did not call stooping a witch hunt. I did say that there are human tendencies that made that witch hunts possible that we need to always keep in mind when accusing anyone of anything, whether those accusations are valid or not.

I happen to think that ?stooping? is a very good idea. It is also very prone to error based on preconceptions that invariably work their way into any such endeavor. Ask Lew about how reliable people are when it comes to reporting on objective events objectively.

It?s just a commentary on human fallibility and our need to factor it in.

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