Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Police Suggest that People Move from Crime-ridden Areas

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Police Suggest that People Move from Crime-ridden Areas

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 12 posts - 61 through 72 (of 72 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #312420

    joev
    Participant

    rus wrote >>

    HeySquare wrote >>
    The police cannot enforce quality of life, and we all do have to make choices based on the level of disturbance we can tolerate.

    Very insightful.
    I was talking about this news item with a friend today. He said complaining about petty crime in the city was like moving to the country and complaining about the smell of manure.

    But cows have to shit no matter what you do. Your neighbors don’t have to commit crimes.

    #312421
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    myliftkk wrote >>
    Want crime statistics to look better, don’t document crimes. It’s worked for years :)

    Reminds me of the section in Freakonomics on school teachers “helping” students get higher grades…

    #312422

    JonMyers
    Participant

    @Rus – I agree to some degree. There will always be crime in a city. I hear that sort of line a lot from leadership in Columbus. “Ohh, just chalk it up to living in a city”.

    On the flip side I think the general population of Columbus is naive as to what is or is not an acceptable level of crime and an appropriate level of response in an urban environment. That naivety is exploited in the leadership’s response.

    #312423

    myliftkk
    Participant

    If you really wanted to incentivse the police force, just tie increasing property taxes to increasing area crime rates with that increase earmarked for improving protective services.

    That would put the dis-incentive on the property-owners to tolerate criminal activities in the area (or in their buildings, whether they lived there or not).

    #312424

    myliftkk
    Participant

    JonMyers wrote >>
    @Rus – I agree to some degree. There will always be crime in a city. I hear that sort of line a lot from leadership in Columbus. “Ohh, just chalk it up to living in a city”.
    On the flip side I think the general population of Columbus is naive as to what is or is not an acceptable level of crime and an appropriate level of response in an urban environment. That naivety is exploited in the leadership’s response.

    We (pseudo-puritanical american society) don’t even tolerate our kids fidgeting in their seats without forcing a behavior-modification drug down their throats. I think we can safely say that an “acceptable level of crime” is off the table for discussion ;)

    #312425

    coolbuckeye
    Participant

    myliftkk wrote >>
    If you really wanted to incentivse the police force, just tie increasing property taxes to increasing area crime rates with that increase earmarked for improving protective services.
    That would put the dis-incentive on the property-owners to tolerate criminal activities in the area (or in their buildings, whether they lived there or not).

    That’s a great idea if you assume that all property owners actually care about the value of their property. I like where you are going with it. How about we this incentive; do your job and you don’t get fired. That’s my incentive at my job. I think there should be a stick to every carrot.
    I also think that there are a lot of cops doing a great job out there and a few just frustrated. They see the world through a very unfortunate perspective given their occupation. I know it would be hard for me to be as idealistic as I perceive myself to be when I have to respond to issues regarding crime all the time.

    #312426

    JonMyers
    Participant

    myliftkk – reminds me of a recent visit to NYC. I was hanging out front of a coffee shop in Chelsea and struck up a conversation with some dog owners that lead to the pros and cons of doggie prozac. Both of their dogs were on prozac because it “calms their anxiety”. I was able to proudly exclaim “my dog is free of any psychoactive drugs”. Nutso world.

    #312427

    berdawn
    Member

    myliftkk wrote >>

    If you really wanted to incentivse the police force, just tie increasing property taxes to increasing area crime rates with that increase earmarked for improving protective services.
    That would put the dis-incentive on the property-owners to tolerate criminal activities in the area (or in their buildings, whether they lived there or not).

    so THAT’s why there is so much crime in my neighborhood…I’m just far too tolerant of it.

    #312428

    JonMyers
    Participant

    I’d gladly go all vigilante on crime in my hood if the law would permit it.

    #312429

    HeySquare
    Participant

    And y’all are probably going to think I’m weird when I say this, but I actually think this article is positive.

    The east side of Parsons has traditionally (for the last few decades) had a… not-so-nice reputation, and the property values to underscore the reputation. Recently, within the last few years, it seems as though there has been a real push to revitalize that neighborhood, and make safe and appealing for young professionals and families.

    The interest in security issues and improving the neighborhood seems to be increasing, along with this new population of home buyers. I suspect that there is an increasing demand for policing services in these areas because the residents are becoming less tolerant of disturbances in the neighborhood, and are looking for ways to address the issue. I suspect this may be a bit of a “birthing pain” in terms of neighborhood revitalization: the neighborhood is expecting more from the police, because they are putting time and effort into the neighborhood. A quick look at the Ganther’s Place newsletter shows that the folks in that neighborhood are pretty serious about trying to address crime and quality of life issues. And good for them!

    So as horrifying as this article sounds, I think, in a weird way, it is good news: the neighborhood is asking for what appear to be (from their newsletter) high standards of policing and enforcement. And when you get a pairing of active neighborhood interest and effictive police intervention, you get a better neighborhood.

    #312430

    JonMyers
    Participant

    HeySquare – Sorry, other than the fact that the coverage has started this conversation I can’t find one redeeming thing about the situation.

    It confirms a lot of awful stories I’ve heard and confirms a few terrible experiences I’ve personally had with CPD are not isolated.

    #312431
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    myliftkk wrote >>
    We (pseudo-puritanical american society) don’t even tolerate our kids fidgeting in their seats without forcing a behavior-modification drug down their throats. I think we can safely say that an “acceptable level of crime” is off the table for discussion ;)

    Got a laugh out of me, and there’s something to it. One of my neighbors keeps a few larger dogs. They bark.

    Some other neighbors were wondering who they could call to get the dogs removed ( and the owner as well, I suspect ) because the dogs bark whenever someone walks their dog on the sidewalk near the house.

Viewing 12 posts - 61 through 72 (of 72 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: