« David Shi, Furman president | Main | Reed Swearingen on what he likes in a city »
Tuesday, 04 March 2008
How is crime in Columbia a federal responsibility?
OK, I get it that there should be standards for federally subsidized housing. But "security?" In what sense? Today's story seems to suggest that those looking to the federal government to require beefed-up security are thinking in terms of -- I'm not sure, but it looks like this -- landlords having to hire rent-a-cops, or turning subsidized housing developments into gated communities:
Columbia City Council members on Thursday will lobby the state’s Congressional delegation to attach security requirements to laws governing apartment complexes that accept federal housing vouchers...
I've got another idea. How about if city council members "lobby" their own city administration to enforce the law within the city limits? How about that? Note in this other story today that a lot of folks in that part of town feel like it's not doing that. Doesn't the city manager's responsibility in this matter extend beyond declaring a portion of the city "a community in crisis?"
You would think so. An interesting topic to have in mind as we begin interviews with city council candidates today.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 10:07 AM in 2008 Columbia, Crime and Punishment, Elections, Midlands, Rule of Law
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/337487/26775892
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How is crime in Columbia a federal responsibility?:
Comments
But Brad, we know the federal government is better equiped to pay for it, all they have to do is turn on the printing presses and print some more money......right?
And am I the only one who sees the irony in the fact that we can fence in/out? the tennants of the projects, but we,re not allowed to fence out illegal immigrants?
Nanny government at it's finest!
Posted by: mitchel connelly | Mar 4, 2008 10:42:10 AM
Brad, these large complexes are funded by federal tax credits and Section 8 vouchers through a national HUD contract. They are in essence a privately owned, but in large part publically funded, public housing projects. The history of these large complexes is that without on site security, cameras and fencing and a management that monitors and enforces lease provisions about criminal and violent behavior they can quickly become centers for criminal activity. In most cases the tenants themselves are the victims of these crimes. The federal government has minimum code standards for the physical structure of these apartments. I believe that the federal government should also require a security plan. If you go to the city website www.columbiasc.net and click on the Gang Assessment in the left hand column, you will see a number of graphs that locate youth violence and crime in the city and county. Much of this crime occurs in these apartment complexes such as Gable Oaks and the Colony Apartments. Just as these residents deserve to live in a well maintained apartment, they also deserve to live in a safe apartment. The City, including me, City Council, the City Manager and the police should be held accountable for safety in the City, but I think the federal government has a role to play in their federally funded apartments that account for a great deal of the crime in our City.
Posted by: Bob Coble | Mar 4, 2008 12:59:47 PM
More Liberal socialist Obamanist garbage, the Federal Government is not responsible for everything wrong with insolent, indolent, hate-filled, anti-capitalist bums. I was raised in the New Orleans area and heard this crap my whole life. I love this town and tired of hearing how the Bush administration created all of the poverty and crime in Columbia which had nothing but prosperity under President Clinton. When Barack Obama, the anti-Christian's and anti-patriot's answer to the free market society gets elected then please shut up!
Posted by: Craig Adams | Mar 4, 2008 1:33:15 PM
If you give someone $750 a month for an apartment because they are poor, what is the incentive to get out of poverty?
And as long as we have tax dollars to pay for security for a Confederate submarine, I don't want to hear about going to the Federal government for more money. The money is already available to do all the things the government should do... too bad it's wasted on politician's pet projects.
Easy fix. Cut funding for useless stuff like arts festivals, marketing studies, online courses for police officers, etc.
and you'll have plenty of money to spend on protecting people from being killed. It's all about priorities. Black people killing black people apparently hasn't reached the same level of interest as a concert in Finley Park. Someday...
Posted by: Doug Ross | Mar 4, 2008 1:56:19 PM
It was only a few years ago that Bob Coble and Charles Austin were saying, on the radio, that Columbia had no gang problem. We in the communities argued they were wrong...and now the truth is known.
Black Ausin and White Coble have teamed up to make an excellent elctorial team (Austin gets the votes, Coble gets the cash)...and the rest of us be damned.
I got smart, and moved, leaving the high taxes and crime behind me. Smartest thing I ever did.
Posted by: Yahoo | Mar 4, 2008 3:15:41 PM
Heh. I was right when I wrote this morning that politicians are ready to act. Point those fingers!
Mayor Bob’s logic is impeccable: were it not for the federal handouts, we wouldn’t have these apartment complexes and would not need increased security staff (i.e., law enforcement).
So this too is Bush’s fault!
We can carry Mayor Bob’s train of thought through to his caboose: while the poor will always be with us, they are the federal government’s concern, not the city’s. The message to me is that I don’t have to be concerned either because my federal taxes absolve me of any responsibility to care.
Bizarre? Yup, but totally in character.
Posted by: Mike Cakora | Mar 4, 2008 3:36:53 PM
Take the mayor’s and city council’s response as captured by those two articles, throw in Tom Teepen’s idiotic column today, and you’ve got a great picture of the failure of common sense and the disappearance of personal responsibility that’s so prevalent today. It ain’t that hard.
A police chief with some savvy and that city hall crew ought to figure out a way to really help those folks who are asking those whom they elected to do their jobs. If a police substation is too expensive, how about increased police patrols and helping the residents set up a neighborhood watch? You have a community calling for policing, so how about some community policing?
Put me down for $50 as a contribution for some radios for the residents of Gable Oak. Since all he seems to have on his mind is the feds, tell Mayor Bob to put on an apron and hold a bake sale to raise funds for more radios. Sheesh!
Posted by: Mike Cakora | Mar 4, 2008 4:03:29 PM
Doug Ross quote -
"Cut funding for useless stuff like arts festivals, marketing studies, online courses for police officers, etc. and you'll have plenty of money to spend on protecting people from being killed."
Arts festivals enhance the quality of life for the citizens of a community - and quality of life issues are what separate a vibrant city from a dead city.
Marketing studies. I assume you are referring to the city's efforts to market itself to the world -something else that is necessary to maintain a vibrant, growing city.
Online courses for Police Officers - Do you not want the person directly responsible for you and your family's personal safety to be more educated? A police officer on the street is expected to know the law (much like an attorney), is required to routinely subject himself to personal endangerment, and has to do it all without offending anyone or violating their rights. They need all the training we can give them.
The root causes of the recent shootings cannot be eliminated by simply throwing money at it. It can only be masked or "driven out" by private security on site - the perpetrators will just go to another area of the city or county to do their killing. THE ONLY WAY TO CHANGE THIS SITUATION IS FOR THE ROLE MODELS AND SOCIAL LEADERS TO PROMOTE A SENSE OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Unfortunately, only so much can be accomplished on a local level, but at least an attempt should be made. When The Rev. Jesse Jackson begins preaching about things a young black kid can do to better himself and not blame every ill on society, and when the rappers ALL stop talking and behaving like murdering street thugs, only then will the problem get better.
Posted by: WC Salley | Mar 4, 2008 4:17:23 PM
Arts are a matter of taste, like candy and deserts. Every dollar the government spends to subsidize some minority taste in the arts, is a dollar some individual doesn't have to spend on his artistic tastes - CDs, concerts, movies.
The arrogance of modern liberalism is its assumption that taxpayers would have mispent their money on lowbrow art, so better to have the liberals take it from them.
Columbia has spent almost $1,000,000 on marketing studies in my lifetime. Why? Because marketing companies also run political campaigns, and marketeers are close to those in power. The wishfull thinking is that everything is perception, and the problems of Columbia can be glossed over, bottled up, and offset by clever marketing. So far it has not paid for itself.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Mar 4, 2008 4:27:28 PM
Tom Teepan can't be real. He has to be a fictional character, lampooning dumb liberals.
He says we only increased spending on education 21% and prisons 127%, as if there is some sort of connection, in his feeble mind.
Federal spending on education is up 361% so far under President Bush. 800,000 prison inmates are illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico. How is our school system to blame for these carjackers, armed robbers, and murderers coming to America?
I am sure Charles Austin and Bob Coble could come up with some answer, after they did a mind meld.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Mar 4, 2008 4:43:29 PM
Lee –
Yo! If parts of the city are widely known as not being safe, that puts the kibosh on even the best laid marketing plan.
WC Salley -
Why is private security on site the only answer? If you want to increase a sense of political and personal responsibility, why not get the council to hire more cops and get the community to do its part with neighborhood watch? It takes some organizing skill, but you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a community organizer around these parts, so all you need are signs, radios, training, and motivation.
In fact, you could reach out to a part of the community that’s usually overlooked and often accused of being responsible for many of our ills: middle-aged white guys. I don’t know why -- maybe their receding hairlines and advancing waistlines make them do it --but these guys turn to power tools, firearms, and flashlights (PTF&F) for entertainment. Some communities might invite some of them over, the ones with the F&F part, for an evening or two to see what they might learn about Ruger, Taurus, Smith & Wesson, and Maglite. They’d learn why Colt is called the original point and click device.
Posted by: Mike Cakora | Mar 4, 2008 4:45:49 PM
To Craig: whatever drug dealers may be, they are certainly not "anti-capitalist." They are, in fact, capitalists.
To Mike: Tom Teepen's column was idiotic? So tell us your explanation of why America leads the world in jailing its citizens? I guess we really do have the most bad people in this country. Yippee.
To Craig again: just what is anti-Christian about Barack Obama?
To Doug: the $750 doesn't go to the families, but to the landlords under Section 8. And what is the incentive to get out of poverty? I dunno, I guess if we "received" $750 vouchers to live there, Doug, you and I would surely want to live in Gable Oaks forever, right? No incentive to leave that place, correct?
Gee, I'm surprised nobody's come on the post to recommend that the city provide firearms for all the residents of Gable Oaks. No gun-free zones in America!
Posted by: Phillip | Mar 4, 2008 4:48:30 PM
Geez. I have a novel idea, except that I'm just rephrasing what Brad wrote, something that got lip service from Mayor Bob.
The city should police the city.
I repeat, the city should police the city.
I live an hour away, and I'm already paying for the Section 8 housing for people I've never met, so let that be my contribution.
But let the city of Columbia keep them reasonably safe, because that's the city of Columbia's job, not Washington's, not New York's, not Montana's, not Hawaii's.
Posted by: weldon VII | Mar 4, 2008 4:52:49 PM
Phillip,
Do the residents of Gable Oaks pay on top of the $750? If not, then they are getting free housing. And what incentive (aside from the criminal element who frequent the free housing) is there to leave?
Wouldn't it be better to use $750 as a 2-1 dollar match on buying a home? A $1000 mortgage would buy a $100K home. We need to develop the incentive to break the cycle of poverty, not feed it by giving money to apartment owners. Encourage home ownership.
Encourage responsible behavior.
$750 is a lot in my opinion for what they are getting. I rented a three bedroom apartment near Polo Road in northeast Columbia five years ago for about $1000 a month.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Mar 4, 2008 4:58:58 PM
Phillip, as a matter of fact, the Clinton administration tried to set up all kinds of gun control for the residents of government housing, but the federal courts struck it down. They don't lose their right to self defense just by moving into a government project ( or Washington, DC).
The basic problem is that government builds these Instant Slums. Instead of wising up working poor people to break the cycle of poverty, as Doug says, the bureaucrats are more interested in maintaining a population of "clients" to justify their careers as social workers and whatever.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Mar 4, 2008 6:06:25 PM
Doug, my understanding of the Section 8 program is that the families still pay rent up to a specified limit based on their income, and that the Section 8 program then pays the difference up to fair market rent to the landlord. Brad would know this better than I and can correct me if I'm wrong. But I don't think this is "free housing."
But regarding Mayor Coble's response here, my question is this: there are federally-subsidized Section 8 complexes all over the nation. Crime has indeed been an issue in many of these places...surely then this issue of a city attempting to get HUD to include security as part of minimum livability requirements has to have arisen somewhere else before. Or has it? Is Columbia the first city to try this?
Posted by: Phillip | Mar 4, 2008 6:56:27 PM
You wouldn't have one-tenth of the crime that we do in this country if we adopted a program of drug decriminalization. With no incentive to make a profit from the black market economy, you wouldn't have dumb guys shooting each other over territory (or sneakers or whatever). Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal one.
Of course there is ample evidence that our own federal government has facilitated the transfer of drugs into this country, and more specifically, into poor urban neighborhoods. Air America, Iran-Contra, and farther back. Where the hell did all that heroin come from back in the 50's? The tooth fairy? It was (and is) not a war on drugs, but on minorities and other prone-to-disenfranchisment demographics.
And as for cannabis (ie marijuana, a made-up word), you're telling me that it's okay for people to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol--even pure grain alcohol--but not consume a plant that the God in which some of you seem to believe put into the very earth beneath your feet (and has resulted in exactly zero proven deaths)? It's a plant you can use to make everything from fibers to biofuels to a mild intoxicants that don't do near the psycological and physical damage that cigarettes and booze do.
You people arguing about the wrong stuff in this thread. Root causes, root causes. Say it like a mantra.
Cue some dimwit to assert that drugs are a problem of loose morals. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Posted by: James D McCallister | Mar 4, 2008 7:14:30 PM
You wouldn't have one-tenth of the crime that we do in this country if we adopted a program of drug decriminalization. With no incentive to make a profit from the black market economy, you wouldn't have dumb guys shooting each other over territory (or sneakers or whatever). Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal one.
Of course there is ample evidence that our own federal government has facilitated the transfer of drugs into this country, and more specifically, into poor urban neighborhoods. Air America, Iran-Contra, and farther back. Where the hell did all that heroin come from back in the 50's? The tooth fairy? It was (and is) not a war on drugs, but on minorities and other prone-to-disenfranchisment demographics.
And as for cannabis (ie marijuana, a made-up word), you're telling me that it's okay for people to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol--even pure grain alcohol--but not consume a plant that the God in which some of you seem to believe put into the very earth beneath your feet (and has resulted in exactly zero proven deaths)? It's a plant you can use to make everything from fibers to biofuels to a mild intoxicants that don't do near the psycological and physical damage that cigarettes and booze do.
You people are arguing about the wrong stuff in this thread. Root causes, root causes. Say it like a mantra.
Cue some dimwit to assert that drugs are a problem of loose morals. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Posted by: James D McCallister | Mar 4, 2008 7:14:51 PM
Thanks for weighing in Mayor Bob. You're a brave man.
And Craig, the mayor is not an... what did you call it... "Obamanist." He was for Edwards, but I don't hold that against him.
I'm the one who likes Obama. And McCain.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Mar 4, 2008 7:14:52 PM
Not sure why that post went through twice. Sorry for the eyestrain.
Posted by: James D McCallister | Mar 4, 2008 7:17:03 PM
It's the responsibility of the community to police itself. Why can't Columbia put one of its sub-stations in there at least until it calms down. Have the people there set up a crime watch system? Do they even know about one? It's not up to the US gov. to police these areas. It's up to us. This is supposed to be 'affordable housing'. But when 'affordable housing' may cost your life or your child's, I have to question how affordable it is. These unethical entrepreneurs (i.e. drug dealers and such) are being allowed to get away with murder, literally. It will take the community there and the larger community of Columbia to put a stop to it. If either one fails to do its part the community will remain lawless and dangerous.
Posted by: Karen McLeod | Mar 4, 2008 7:28:33 PM
Phillip – Teepen plays the race card and ignores the fact that the US tends to lock up, some nations ignore, and them Yurripeens like to fine. The US crime rate is not out of line for developing countries.
Look at burglaries per capita, the rate per 1,000 people:
- Australia - 21.7454;We’re about even with assaults, are slightly higher on murders, in the hunt with robberies. Cruise around there and see for yourself.
Denmark -18.3299;
The UK - 13.8321;
US is right down there with France - 7.09996
The question Teepen doesn’t address is whether the folks behind bars are duly convicted, regardless of race, which arguably is the false category, whereas the socioeconomic factor is. (James D McCallister implies as much with his point about drug decriminalization, something the folks in the old country have done too.) Politics lets the folks decide what’s criminal and what isn’t; the point is whether the law is applied fairly, blindly.
My point is that if we strive to have a fair, blind system, we should not worry about the outcome, i.e., who gets snared. Yes, lots of young black men get locked up, but the victims of their crimes are predominantly black. The Gable Oaks folks have a right to security; if more folks need to be locked up to provide that, then let’s do so.
Posted by: Mike Cakora | Mar 4, 2008 7:32:46 PM
With the right to shoot rifles in populated areas and near interstates, no wonder we have low crime. So what if a school bus is hit. So what if the murder rate in the US is in the stratosphere - mere collateral damage.
God bless the excesses of the 2nd amendment. May every home have a 50 caliber rifle!
Posted by: Randy E | Mar 4, 2008 8:32:36 PM
Randy E -- I suggest that you calibrate your opinions with data. The US murder rate ain’t great, but it could be worse.
Whatever right you may believe folks have to shoot wherever, remember that they are obligated to do no harm to innocents. In my book that’s part of the ethic of reciprocity, a/k/a The Golden Rule.
Besides, I’d love to fire off a few rounds from a .50 caliber with a great scope at a target over 1,000 meters downrange. I would of course do so only under safe conditions and while wearing a condom or two.
But what does that have to do with folks living in a subdivision or apartment complex who are plagued by gang-bangers? Don’t they have the right to, at a minimum, defend themselves and demand that the politicians they vote for provide more than lip service to provide security? We’re not talking mortars and hand grenades, but police patrols and assistance in organizing the community to deal with vermin.
Conservatives have this odd notion that the purpose of government is to promote the general welfare by protecting our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These folks have the same rights and it’s irresponsible of the city’s leaders to make it a federal matter.
Posted by: Mike Cakora | Mar 4, 2008 11:08:14 PM
Mike, thanks for the web-site. Although the U.S. is not as high in the violent crime rate categories as I thought we'd be we still rank ahead of the other developed nations of the world in murders per capita. We can't hold a candle to Columbia or Russia when it comes to killing each other but we still manage to kill each other at quite a torid pace.
Posted by: bud | Mar 5, 2008 8:52:55 AM
