Today The Capital reported on the mayor's HACA crime fighting plan--the same one that AP commented on recently. If you want to read their version, click here. If you want to read my version, click here.
(When I refer to The Capital article in this post, I am referring both to the front page article by Nichole Young and the 'B' section article by Eric Hartley. I have a lot to write about today, and I don't have time to do separate posts. So lay off.....just kidding.)
I actually think The Capital dropped the ball on this one ( which wouldn't be the first time). They alluded to the $200,00 the city gives HACA to fight crime; but, they failed to mention that the mayor wants to take this away AND make HACA share additional costs such as cameras and sub-stations.
On the other hand, I think The Capital did a good job of portraying how un-cooperative and aloof the mayor seems to be. The mayor apparently was a victim of shock and awe:
The first thing I get hit with when I get back in town after meeting with our sister cities is "We've got a crime problem. We've got a crime problem. We've got a crime problem," the mayor said.
You didn't know about this before? Seriously? BE SERIOUS. Did you know about this before? WERE YOU SHOCKED AND PISSED OFF THAT YOUR IMPORTANT SISTER CITY BUSINESS WAS INTERRUPTED BY THE TRIVIAL, MUNDANE ISSUE OF.........FELONY VIOLENT CRIME??!! WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN DOING FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS?!!!!
Ms. Moyer called that charge unfair and said she's been working with residents on crime issues for 20 years, going back to her 14 years as an alderman from Eastport.
Bullshit. The charge is fair.
And let me sum up HACA's reaction to this whole thing:
Capital Reporter: What do you think about this whole thing?
HACA guy: Uhh, this is what we have been saying for, like, many months now.
Capital Reporter: But what do you think about the mayor's ideas?
HACA guy: It's all the same crap.
Capital Reporter: And what if you had a pen pal in a sister city?
HACA guy: Neat-O!!
And now for my favorite part of the article(s), a quote from police chief Johnson:
We already co-op secondary employment to them, but we need more manpower.
What, I ask you, WHAT does this mean? This is horrible. Grammar. That should. Be a better sentence. With logic.
Ever onward!
Friday, August 24, 2007
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Selected Quotes From Mayor's New Drug Fighting Plan
As I briefly announced 2 posts ago, Mayor Moyer wants to establish illegal drugs and illegal guns task forces that work with federal and state agencies. So says she:
In 2006, the Annapolis Police Department made 275 arrests on drugs and conducted 45 raids. Our goal, with the unified effort I am requesting, is to double the number of arrests and to make it crystal clear that the Capital City is not a Drug Capital.
Great. So, you're going to hire the additional 23 officers to do this?
Surveillance for some nuisance crimes may have to be reduced, but available personnel must be utilized to deal directly with serious crime.
No, no. Silly me. You are not going to fill the vacancies in the police department to achieve this goal--you are willingly and knowingly going to sacrifice the quality of other crime prevention so you can better prevent these crimes!!!!!
I'm all for prioritizing, but why not do both? Why not hire the 23 officers that are lacking in the police department, continue addressing nuisance crime, AND work harder to deal with serious crime?
And, Mayor Moyer, what do you expect of these new policies?
Over the past few days I have made some specific recommendations and requests. I am hopeful that the agencies involved will join me in assuring that Annapolis remains one of the finest Cities in the world to live in and visit.
Let's re-visit these specific recommendations:
-get a horse
-buy Segways (instead of bicycles)
-have better lighting
-end policing grant to HACA to centralize duties and increase accountability
-make entire city a drug free zone (a formality, largely)
-reduce number of police shifts from 5 to 3
-create drug and gun task forces with other agencies
What I like about this:
-acknowledgement that public housing is probably the biggest crime issue
-possibility of cooperation with other jurisdictions
-city takes its own responsibility for policing all areas
What I don't like about this:
-no commitment to fill 23 vacancies in police department
-no plan for community policing/foot patrols
-increased overtime for police officers, paid by taxpayers
-why Segways?
-why a horse?
-mayor blames everyone but herself ("Accountability from HACA has been questionable", etc.)
-no mention of a change in police department leadership
-inability to collaborate with HACA
-no structural plan to provide incentive to public housing residents to improve themselves/take a stake in the community
I suppose it's a start--at least the mayor is paying attention to the problem. But how committed is she, really? Does the have the will to see this through? Does she expect with honesty that her changes will help the problem?
Time will give us the answers. And if not, the candidates running for mayor will be sure to jump on the opportunity.
In 2006, the Annapolis Police Department made 275 arrests on drugs and conducted 45 raids. Our goal, with the unified effort I am requesting, is to double the number of arrests and to make it crystal clear that the Capital City is not a Drug Capital.
Great. So, you're going to hire the additional 23 officers to do this?
Surveillance for some nuisance crimes may have to be reduced, but available personnel must be utilized to deal directly with serious crime.
No, no. Silly me. You are not going to fill the vacancies in the police department to achieve this goal--you are willingly and knowingly going to sacrifice the quality of other crime prevention so you can better prevent these crimes!!!!!
I'm all for prioritizing, but why not do both? Why not hire the 23 officers that are lacking in the police department, continue addressing nuisance crime, AND work harder to deal with serious crime?
And, Mayor Moyer, what do you expect of these new policies?
Over the past few days I have made some specific recommendations and requests. I am hopeful that the agencies involved will join me in assuring that Annapolis remains one of the finest Cities in the world to live in and visit.
Let's re-visit these specific recommendations:
-get a horse
-buy Segways (instead of bicycles)
-have better lighting
-end policing grant to HACA to centralize duties and increase accountability
-make entire city a drug free zone (a formality, largely)
-reduce number of police shifts from 5 to 3
-create drug and gun task forces with other agencies
What I like about this:
-acknowledgement that public housing is probably the biggest crime issue
-possibility of cooperation with other jurisdictions
-city takes its own responsibility for policing all areas
What I don't like about this:
-no commitment to fill 23 vacancies in police department
-no plan for community policing/foot patrols
-increased overtime for police officers, paid by taxpayers
-why Segways?
-why a horse?
-mayor blames everyone but herself ("Accountability from HACA has been questionable", etc.)
-no mention of a change in police department leadership
-inability to collaborate with HACA
-no structural plan to provide incentive to public housing residents to improve themselves/take a stake in the community
I suppose it's a start--at least the mayor is paying attention to the problem. But how committed is she, really? Does the have the will to see this through? Does she expect with honesty that her changes will help the problem?
Time will give us the answers. And if not, the candidates running for mayor will be sure to jump on the opportunity.
Drug Task Force
The mayor has just directed the city police department to work with federal agencies to conduct more drug raids. It seems that she is still looking for ways to fight crime without hiring any additional officers, or making a committment to community policing and/or foot patrols.
More to come soon.....
More to come soon.....
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Reciprocation
Capital punishment saw it fit to praise this blog, and in this post I endeavour to do the same for him, and others.
When I started writing this blog a few months ago, I did it mainly for my own benefit--as a fun way for me to stay involved and keep up on city happenings. One of the first people to contact me was CP's publisher, Paul Foer, and since then we have become friends, and tend to agree on most ways to make this city better.
I also have received feedback and interaction from concerned citizens, as well as city officials. For this I am very grateful, and I am tickled that this blog is becoming somewhat of a voice for the local issues.
Compared to most public servants, activists, and politicians, I am young and inexperienced. It is my desire to continue to be a sponge--soaking up the information regarding how the city works, and trying to apply any enthusiasm and logic that I have to efforts to make this city better. I have lived here for all of my 26 years, and plan to be here for the rest of my life--pending approval from Mrs. Politics.
Thanks for reading.
When I started writing this blog a few months ago, I did it mainly for my own benefit--as a fun way for me to stay involved and keep up on city happenings. One of the first people to contact me was CP's publisher, Paul Foer, and since then we have become friends, and tend to agree on most ways to make this city better.
I also have received feedback and interaction from concerned citizens, as well as city officials. For this I am very grateful, and I am tickled that this blog is becoming somewhat of a voice for the local issues.
Compared to most public servants, activists, and politicians, I am young and inexperienced. It is my desire to continue to be a sponge--soaking up the information regarding how the city works, and trying to apply any enthusiasm and logic that I have to efforts to make this city better. I have lived here for all of my 26 years, and plan to be here for the rest of my life--pending approval from Mrs. Politics.
Thanks for reading.
Politics On Tap, 8/23
Tommorrow night, August 23:
What: Politics on Tap, an informal (read: with alcohol) setting to discuss topics of the day.
Where: Weather Rail, Loew's Hotel, Annapolis.
When: 7 pm
Who can come: Anyone, although the waterfront tables are reserved for republicans. (read: joke)
Hope to see you there.
What: Politics on Tap, an informal (read: with alcohol) setting to discuss topics of the day.
Where: Weather Rail, Loew's Hotel, Annapolis.
When: 7 pm
Who can come: Anyone, although the waterfront tables are reserved for republicans. (read: joke)
Hope to see you there.
The Mayor Proposes Changes to HACA Crime Fighting
In perfect coordination with the topics discussed on this blog, the Mayor today unveiled a proposal to change how the city fights crime in public housing (HACA) areas. Although AP is convinced that the mayor did not act as a result of this blog's objections, maybe I will make a post demanding a $1,000,000 discretionary grant from the city, and let the leaves fall where they may!
The issue is that HACA is a somewhat independent agency. The commissioners are appointed by the mayor, but have to operate under federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines concerning public housing. Apparently the city gives HACA $200,000 per year, which is to be matched equally by HACA (probably through money collected for rent), to total a $400,000 public safety program.
The mayor wants to city to be able to control this program, and is requesting that the $200,000 grant be terminated, and the city spend its own $200,000 protecting crime. A problem, at least as I see it, is that the city does not have the track record to prove that they can do any better of a job at preventing crime. They should be able to, in theory, because they can raise their own police force.
The grant would have to be terminated within the context of the FY 2009 budget.
The mayor also proposes 4 procedural changes:
1. The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis and the Annapolis Police Department share to outfit each HACA neighborhood with surveillance cameras.
2. HACA and APD share costs for a sub-station program.
3. APD, if HACA agrees, assign undercover police to the area and enhance neighborhood watch training.
4. HACA to implement the community service program for all residents as required by HUD.
My feeling, and I imagine the feeling of HACA as well, is that if the city takes away their grant, then requires HACA to share costs for cameras and a sub-station, then the city had better do a hell of a job policing these areas.
To do this, almost everyone involved advocates filling the 23 vacancies in the department as a start. And when I say almost everyone, I mean all males and females age 1-100, except the mayor and the police chief.
The mayors next request:
Additionally, I am requesting the City's Community and Housing Board to review successful housing programs in other jurisdictions, research opportunities for home ownership and social service needs, and to recommend changes in our federal housing program required to enhance public safety.
I would be appalled if HACA is not doing this already---I am sure that they have studied other jurisdictions and are trying to figure out how to get people to own their homes. And to do the above:
Money will be allocated for a staff consultant to assist in the task.
I have participated in the budget process for the last 2 years, and I cannot tell you where this money comes from. When the budget is made, all requests for money have to go through committee, and be voted on by the city council. The mayor has some discretionary money, but not enough to hire someone else. If the money comes from the "contract services" portion of the budget, it means that the budget process was secretive enough include enough unspent money to hire this person. Not good, not good.
I believe that the city has more 'teeth' when it comes to enforcing laws and preventing crime than HACA does, which leads me to believe that the mayor's proposal COULD BE a good idea. But we have still not seen a commitment to fill the police vacancies--we still do not know how the mayor's plan will improve the situation. We do not need more consultants, or studies. People already know the solutions, or at least better solutions. The mayor needs to listen to these people, many of whom will help for free (that is, without being paid taxpayer money), and commit to implementing their solutions.
The issue is that HACA is a somewhat independent agency. The commissioners are appointed by the mayor, but have to operate under federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines concerning public housing. Apparently the city gives HACA $200,000 per year, which is to be matched equally by HACA (probably through money collected for rent), to total a $400,000 public safety program.
The mayor wants to city to be able to control this program, and is requesting that the $200,000 grant be terminated, and the city spend its own $200,000 protecting crime. A problem, at least as I see it, is that the city does not have the track record to prove that they can do any better of a job at preventing crime. They should be able to, in theory, because they can raise their own police force.
The grant would have to be terminated within the context of the FY 2009 budget.
The mayor also proposes 4 procedural changes:
1. The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis and the Annapolis Police Department share to outfit each HACA neighborhood with surveillance cameras.
2. HACA and APD share costs for a sub-station program.
3. APD, if HACA agrees, assign undercover police to the area and enhance neighborhood watch training.
4. HACA to implement the community service program for all residents as required by HUD.
My feeling, and I imagine the feeling of HACA as well, is that if the city takes away their grant, then requires HACA to share costs for cameras and a sub-station, then the city had better do a hell of a job policing these areas.
To do this, almost everyone involved advocates filling the 23 vacancies in the department as a start. And when I say almost everyone, I mean all males and females age 1-100, except the mayor and the police chief.
The mayors next request:
Additionally, I am requesting the City's Community and Housing Board to review successful housing programs in other jurisdictions, research opportunities for home ownership and social service needs, and to recommend changes in our federal housing program required to enhance public safety.
I would be appalled if HACA is not doing this already---I am sure that they have studied other jurisdictions and are trying to figure out how to get people to own their homes. And to do the above:
Money will be allocated for a staff consultant to assist in the task.
I have participated in the budget process for the last 2 years, and I cannot tell you where this money comes from. When the budget is made, all requests for money have to go through committee, and be voted on by the city council. The mayor has some discretionary money, but not enough to hire someone else. If the money comes from the "contract services" portion of the budget, it means that the budget process was secretive enough include enough unspent money to hire this person. Not good, not good.
I believe that the city has more 'teeth' when it comes to enforcing laws and preventing crime than HACA does, which leads me to believe that the mayor's proposal COULD BE a good idea. But we have still not seen a commitment to fill the police vacancies--we still do not know how the mayor's plan will improve the situation. We do not need more consultants, or studies. People already know the solutions, or at least better solutions. The mayor needs to listen to these people, many of whom will help for free (that is, without being paid taxpayer money), and commit to implementing their solutions.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Email: Police Force
This was actually a comment on my most recent post, but I decided to put it up as its own post because the information is worth sharing. To the author: thank you for your service and for this comment!
I have been reading your blog with interest. I read often and never feel the need to comment. Today you have some misinformation that needs to be corrected. I am a 15 year veteran of the Annapolis Police Department. There are no such orders to remain reactive in our patrols. Annapolis Police embrace community policing and do our best to interact with citizens. You like stats so here is one for you to think about. Our patrol division consists of 63 officers. About 10 of them are supervisors. 53 officers answer all the calls for service in the city!!!!. Well we had about 45,000 calls for service last year. Not much time for proactive policing huh? A good place to start is to fill the 23 vacancies.
It's becoming very hard to defend the position that we do not need to fill the vacancies, as the mayor seems to be doing.
I soon hope to have the data on service calls (not just arrests, as the data detailed in the previous post was), so we can continue the analysis.
I am very happy that citizens, and the police in general, are concerned about this situation.
I have been reading your blog with interest. I read often and never feel the need to comment. Today you have some misinformation that needs to be corrected. I am a 15 year veteran of the Annapolis Police Department. There are no such orders to remain reactive in our patrols. Annapolis Police embrace community policing and do our best to interact with citizens. You like stats so here is one for you to think about. Our patrol division consists of 63 officers. About 10 of them are supervisors. 53 officers answer all the calls for service in the city!!!!. Well we had about 45,000 calls for service last year. Not much time for proactive policing huh? A good place to start is to fill the 23 vacancies.
It's becoming very hard to defend the position that we do not need to fill the vacancies, as the mayor seems to be doing.
I soon hope to have the data on service calls (not just arrests, as the data detailed in the previous post was), so we can continue the analysis.
I am very happy that citizens, and the police in general, are concerned about this situation.
Analysis of Actual Crime Data
A reader sent me a detailed study of all crime committed in 2006, broken down by type, location, and perpetrator. Here are the main findings, and my semi-excellent analysis is to follow. (Only semi-excellent today--my brain works better with sunshine, which we haven't seen in a while. The backup plan for occasions like this is to drink a lot of coffee, but my caffeine level is already approaching the maximum safe level as recommended by the Surgeon General.)
2006 Crime Statistics
(Note: According to published statistics, about 6% of city residents live in HACA communities)
(HACA stands for the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis)
-7.4% of all crimes occurred on HACA properties
-5% of all arrests were of HACA residents
-16% of all crimes occurred on OR NEAR HACA properties
-29.5% of all violent crimes occur on HACA properties
-26% of all drug arrests occur on HACA properties
The point that this blog has made is that ratios of officers per thousand employees are not helpful because Annapolis has more public housing than any other city its size, and crimes occur more frequently in these areas. We now have the data to show that this theory was largely, ultimately correct.
The first thing we need to consider is that this data UNDERESTIMATES the true link between public housing and crime. Why?
Reason #1: Nobody really knows how many people actually live in public housing. HACA has lease records, but an unknown number of people live in these dwellings and are NOT on the leases.
Reason #2: There is subsidized housing in Annapolis that is not subsidized by HACA, but rather by the federal government. So, crimes committed by individuals in these communities are attributed to the 'rest of the city', not the public housing areas, because the study that I have data for only considers HACA properties (and not the federal public housing properties.)
So, what this data shows is even more true when you try and understand the situation as it accurately exists.
We can see that drug crimes and violent crimes occur at a disproportionately high rate in public housing communities. (Drug crimes and violent crimes are undoubtedly correlated with each other, but we would need more detailed statistical analysis to determine by exactly how much). Furthermore, many of these crimes are being committed by people who shouldn't be there.
So, what do we do about this? HACA, like this blog, has advocated more police, and particularly police walking beats (this means on foot) in the public housing communities. This would allow officers to cover more remote areas than vehicle patrols, and would be a better deterrent to drug dealers/users. It would also allow officers to develop personal relationships with the residents, which would make it easier for officers to identify non-residents and people who don't belong there.
Sounds simple enough...so why aren't the police doing this? Answer: because they have general orders that they are to remain "reactionary", and not proactive*. Let me repeat this. Officers have general rules of conduct, coming straight from the top, ordering them to remain in their vehicles even when responding to a call. They are prohibited from preventing crime.
(*I have heard this from 2 reliable sources. Although I have not utilized a Public Information Act request to look at the general orders, I know people who have.)
Please reread that again...the police are prohibited from doing their job. Who can change this culture? The police chief, and the mayor.
Let's assume that eventually the city has a mayor and a police chief who are committed to addressing this problem in the right way. Done. Good. Now the question becomes, what is the strategy for structurally preventing crimes--that is, changing the culture so that people want to commit fewer crimes.
The answer, I would argue, is ownership. If people own their houses, they become stakeholders in their communities. They would be less likely to encourage or tolerate criminal or destructive behavior. Is this happening now? Sort of. All HACA subsidized housing is rental-only. HACA is trying to promote ownership in and around their communities, but there is too weak of an incentive for families to move out of public housing. If a family moves in to public housing, there is no requirement that they leave, even if they eventually earn enough money to buy their own house. HACA gives preference to working families and tries to promote self-sufficiency, but there is only so much they can do.
There is only so much anyone can do with a mayor and chief who don't want to help.
2006 Crime Statistics
(Note: According to published statistics, about 6% of city residents live in HACA communities)
(HACA stands for the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis)
-7.4% of all crimes occurred on HACA properties
-5% of all arrests were of HACA residents
-16% of all crimes occurred on OR NEAR HACA properties
-29.5% of all violent crimes occur on HACA properties
-26% of all drug arrests occur on HACA properties
The point that this blog has made is that ratios of officers per thousand employees are not helpful because Annapolis has more public housing than any other city its size, and crimes occur more frequently in these areas. We now have the data to show that this theory was largely, ultimately correct.
The first thing we need to consider is that this data UNDERESTIMATES the true link between public housing and crime. Why?
Reason #1: Nobody really knows how many people actually live in public housing. HACA has lease records, but an unknown number of people live in these dwellings and are NOT on the leases.
Reason #2: There is subsidized housing in Annapolis that is not subsidized by HACA, but rather by the federal government. So, crimes committed by individuals in these communities are attributed to the 'rest of the city', not the public housing areas, because the study that I have data for only considers HACA properties (and not the federal public housing properties.)
So, what this data shows is even more true when you try and understand the situation as it accurately exists.
We can see that drug crimes and violent crimes occur at a disproportionately high rate in public housing communities. (Drug crimes and violent crimes are undoubtedly correlated with each other, but we would need more detailed statistical analysis to determine by exactly how much). Furthermore, many of these crimes are being committed by people who shouldn't be there.
So, what do we do about this? HACA, like this blog, has advocated more police, and particularly police walking beats (this means on foot) in the public housing communities. This would allow officers to cover more remote areas than vehicle patrols, and would be a better deterrent to drug dealers/users. It would also allow officers to develop personal relationships with the residents, which would make it easier for officers to identify non-residents and people who don't belong there.
Sounds simple enough...so why aren't the police doing this? Answer: because they have general orders that they are to remain "reactionary", and not proactive*. Let me repeat this. Officers have general rules of conduct, coming straight from the top, ordering them to remain in their vehicles even when responding to a call. They are prohibited from preventing crime.
(*I have heard this from 2 reliable sources. Although I have not utilized a Public Information Act request to look at the general orders, I know people who have.)
Please reread that again...the police are prohibited from doing their job. Who can change this culture? The police chief, and the mayor.
Let's assume that eventually the city has a mayor and a police chief who are committed to addressing this problem in the right way. Done. Good. Now the question becomes, what is the strategy for structurally preventing crimes--that is, changing the culture so that people want to commit fewer crimes.
The answer, I would argue, is ownership. If people own their houses, they become stakeholders in their communities. They would be less likely to encourage or tolerate criminal or destructive behavior. Is this happening now? Sort of. All HACA subsidized housing is rental-only. HACA is trying to promote ownership in and around their communities, but there is too weak of an incentive for families to move out of public housing. If a family moves in to public housing, there is no requirement that they leave, even if they eventually earn enough money to buy their own house. HACA gives preference to working families and tries to promote self-sufficiency, but there is only so much they can do.
There is only so much anyone can do with a mayor and chief who don't want to help.
Conservative Refuge
The Conservative Refuge hosts a weekly podcast, and this week I participated along with Brian Griffiths. As of right now the new podcast is not ready yet, but you can listen to the old ones and see how it works.
To listen, simply go to the site and click on the link they give. Enjoy.
To listen, simply go to the site and click on the link they give. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)