New Haven Independent

Posted by: on whalley | June 27, 2007 9:30 AM

I'm sorry but this is great: "It strikes me that either you get shot, or someone shoots you."

Hmmm.....
I didn't know that carrying a gun would either get me shot or GET ME SHOT.
I'm pretty sure that the mugger with the gun is more likely to shoot me than I am. Well, maybe if I'm really sad :(
I'm really tired of this irrational gun fear.

And whats with the "paranoia?"

White people make the "African-American" community paranoid? I'll try harder to not be so white. Oh but the EPDP is "multicultural?" Well, we'll just ignore that. It doesn't fit the fear model. If rumors and lies are making them paranoid perhaps they should stop buying into rumors and lies? Just a thought.

It seems like this whole meeting was just a bunch of fearful people trying to get Greer to at least say they would no longer carry guns. How about Greer just says they will no longer exist as the EPDP? Sure, they'll still walk every night armed as is their Constitutional right but the semantics will make all the paranoids feel better.

Take me for instance. I walk everywhere with a pistol. Supermarkets, malls, downtown, parks, all over the state, except where specifically prohibited by law, at all hours of the day and I have yet to encounter an irrational mob of paranoid residents. If they didn't announce it then the next to mug one of them would be unaware he was about to be shot. Perhaps it should be that way. Rather than avoid the clearly marked and defined EPDP they'd be forced to assume more and more people in general were arming themselves. After a few bodies pile up the message might get across. Then, criminals aren't terribly bright.

Just tell them what they want to hear if it will shut them up. If they haven't educated themselves by now they won't. They love to fear what they don't understand and have no experience with whatsoever. The fear gives them comfort. The ignorance gives them peace. The fastest route to bliss is to just look the other way. If it's all around you find a scapegoat and attack. Greer is the scapegoat. Sure he brought attention to the problem but since the problem is far to complex to fix the focus landed square on him and the oh so evil gun.

Posted by: charlie | June 27, 2007 9:42 AM

Why can't the city just hire more cops right now? Is the police union preventing that from happening? Cut a few of the city's nearly 100 $100K+ administrative salaries to pay for it.

Posted by: WEBbloger 1 | June 27, 2007 10:31 AM

Carl Goldfield is the person who injected paranoia while attempting to play the race card. Instead of Goldfield spreading rumor and inunendo concerning a park shooting of a black youth, goldfield's job and responsibility is to sort out and dispell any such false accusations, this one apparently created by Goldfield. Sgt. Shea who atended the meeting did not support goldfield's assertion. The main point that all residents were making is that we need more police protection than we are currently receving, this fact was confirmed by Sgt. Shea. What we do not need is the distractions and defensive posture offered by city hall agents and operatives.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | June 27, 2007 10:35 AM

Alder Goldfield's comments are typical of City Hall -- attack citizens who take action while they sit on their hands and do nothing. I've seen it on the tax and spending decisions across the last several months; I saw it at the Finance Comittee meeting last week and unfortunately, I see it in the situation here.

Mr. Goldfield needs to wake up, quit blaming citizen activists who are sick and tired of an unresponsive City Hall. There is no lack of tax money -- City Hall is flush with cash, brimming and overflowing. There is no lack of police officers. There is a lack of vision, a lack of accountability, the lack of action and the lack of management. Any department head who has a $6 million overtime budget and still can't stay within its spending boundaries as the police department does, is a problem. Any executive (read Mayor DeStefano and NH BOA PRESIDENT Carl Goldfield) who can't reign that in and move the department to properly address the issues raised in Edgewood -- are executives who should get the axe.

At very least, Goldfield should be more concerned with taking action than blaming citizen victims of their weak management and wrong policies. For once, I'd like to see Goldfield propose a solution to a problem -- other than "dialogue."

Posted by: Ned | June 27, 2007 10:58 AM

On Whalley: firearms are prohibited in public parks, in New Haven, as spelled out in your pistol permit application, from the city. White people make the "African-American" community paranoid?" Gee why would that be, not like there's any historical precedents http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics2/carnival/2.htm... Most of my fellow citizens of all races kind of scare me; there is seemingly so much general hostility towards others, ethnic balkanization and sectarianism. What ideas does Carl Goldfield have to address crime that don't involve state sponsored violence?

Posted by: nfjanette | June 27, 2007 1:17 PM

Chief Administrative Officer Rob Smuts, who oversees the police department, rejected the "anger focused at somebody, in this case the chief." He condemned creating armed patrols the response to "one incident." He mentioned the city would be bringing in a new class of recruits to add to patrols, and rolling out the Street Outreach Workers program to reach at-risk kids.

I wasn't at the meeting, so I don't know the context of Mr. Smuts comments. However, I'm left wondering: one incident - which one? If the link below works, it points to the New Haven Independent crime log with a selection of a 3/4 mile square centered on the intersection of Whalley Avenue and The ETG Boulevard:

http://www.newhavencrimelog.org/cl/choose-area/coordinates/41.31901116026536/-72.94930458068848/0.75/

There were 257 incidents over a one year period in that small area. Obviously, much few were rated as "serious" incidents, but that's a significant amount more than "one incident". The woman that was carjacked on a Sunday morning around the corner from my home a few months ago no doubt felt her incident was important enough as well - but didn't bring the current level of response from the residents, the media, or the city.

This situation did not arise all of the sudden without precedent. One attack on the Greers did not make this neighborhood unsafe for residents. Perhaps the almost complete lack of community policing with the associated foot or bike patrols - whether because of the police chief's decisions or a simple lack of police officers - has emboldened the criminals. Whatever the causes, it's been getting worse over the past few years, and the recent crimes, and the various citizen responses, have been a long time in the making.

While the much discussed additional police recruits will help, my understanding is that the class size was smaller then expected. Also, remember that it takes several police officers to fill one 7x24 "slot"; four or five new officers may only mean a single additional resource at any given time. So, what does a group of 25 new officers get the city: 5-7 additional average additional officers on duty at any average time. How many additional foot or bike patrols will that enable across the entire city?

Bottom line: I look forward to Alderman Goldfield, Mr. Smuts, and every other member of WEB to put at least as much effort into fighting crime and criminals as they have been putting toward arguing with the Edgewood patrol group. There is more than one choice available to support; we don't even have active block watches on every block currently. I wouldn't haven't made some of the choices the patrol group made - but their effort and energy has set a much higher standard for the area that has forced the city to reevaluate their previous failed efforts, and that's a very good thing for the residents.

Posted by: strangerthanfiction | June 27, 2007 1:47 PM

Greer has made his point, and it's a valid one. Crime is spiking citywide and it's unacceptable. It's time to bring back the bike cops to Edgewood and make community policing work again. But it's time for Greer to put away the guns. Bike around the neighborhood as an extra set of eyes for the police, armed with cell phones to call the cops. Armed citizen patrols are unsettling, make an area more lawless and will inevitably blow up.

Posted by: Rob Smuts | June 27, 2007 2:04 PM

A note on Charlie's comment: my final pitch to the management team (my management team) was about police hiring. Because of civil service and state rules, the hiring process for new officers runs at least six months before getting recruits into the academy, and longer if you want a successful recruitment drive beforehand. New Haven will be taking applications for our next police class starting in September (with open houses and other publicity leading up), and you can get information now at:

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/Police/recruitment.asp

Community policing works when the police officers know and have a connection to the neighborhoods where they work. The most obvious way to encourage that is to recruit officers from those neighborhoods - and we need everyone's help getting the word out. Advertising doesn't work; it is all about personal word-of-mouth.

We will be hiring a quarter to a third of the department over the next two or three years. What the department will be like over the next generation will be determined by how successful we are at recruiting good candidates now. Everybody who cares about the police department should help us encourage good people to apply.

Posted by: Carl Goldfield | June 27, 2007 2:05 PM

Eli Greer and I did not "clash". While the headline is attention grabbing, it distorts the whole point and tone of the meeting which was intended to avoid an acrimonious confrontation within the community over a controversial topic. To that end Charlie Pillsbury of Community Mediation was invited to moderate. I challenged Eli in a civil manner, and he responded in kind, over the reasoning behind the choice made by some members of the EPDP to carry arms. I thought the discussion was intense and illuminating. It brought the people in attendance together with a plan to get better policing for the area. While I still believe that armed civilian patrols carry the potential for disaster, I left with respect for Eli, a better understanding of the fear the crime occurring in his neighborhood engenders, an appreciation for his commitment and motivation, and hopeful that armed patrols will be a temporary phenomenon.

Posted by: Taxed To Death | June 27, 2007 2:57 PM

Robert Smuts is the senior DeStefano guru who's supposed to be overseeing the police department. This is the same guy who has refused to get answers to police overtime, despite three requests to do so from Jorge Perez, NH BOA. This came out at last week's Finance Comittee meeting.

Smuts is the same guy who allows the police department to overspend it's overtime budget by at last count $2.2 million, does not require the NHPD to have a working internal affairs department, and doesn't have a clue as to how to fix the chaos at the police department without spending $130K of our money to have outsiders tells us what to do.

With that as a backdrop -- he wants to say the problems in Edgewood are "one incident" and accuses citizens of seeking revenge or venting anger at the chief. Maybe we should also target Smuts who is another lackluster performer it certainly seems -- or maybe, what he's trying to say is that we should all shut up and keep quiet while King John and Prince(s) Smuts and Ortiz run the city in the ground. I think not.

Posted by: guest | June 27, 2007 4:20 PM

Smuts response is precisely what this neighborhood has had it with, namely, minimizing, evading etc. That is precisely what the administriation is offering as THEIR end of thi community policing partnership. the community groups are decent, honest, caring and putting their best foot forward. We aren't getting that kind of integrity in return. Either they get some integrity, or they should go, period.

Eight of the 24 murders last year were in our district, district 10. I don't know what one incident Smuts is talking about. I do know the fact that that is his response, and is the typical response we have been getting from city leaders and the chief -- blowing us off -- isn't going to fly. There is no good faith in their dialogue with us. They aren't even honest with us.

let's look some more at this one incident. Take any one family in our district, and stack up the crime they are the victims of. Let's look at the Greers.

We know from news stories alone that the Greer family has had a homicide victim plow his car into Rabbi Greer's living room, and that his son has been physically attacked in his own home. That's in a period of about one year.

Smuts doesn't think that's much. So New Haven, you tell us how we should repond to Smuts? How do you answer that?

Mr. Goldfield? How do you answer that?

Posted by: FairHavenRes | June 27, 2007 5:25 PM

The folks downtown just do not seem to get it. Community policing is dead. It was killed by Chief Francisco Ortiz. Our statistic quoting, self defending, asleep at the switch Chief Ortiz has lost the confidence of the officers and now a growing number of residents. Come on Mayor, what are you waiting for, another summer like last year?

Smuts sounds just as disconnected from the problem as the Chief does.

Goldfield, isnt he the Mayor's man? No wonder he does not get it either.

Our self defending, statistic quoting, everything is great Chief, I feel, has played his last hand. Time to go Cisco. Accept that offer with the consultant, take your retirement, and please please, leave now before more people are harmed. You have become a threat to public safety.

Posted by: Cait Sith | June 27, 2007 7:20 PM

I applaud any legal resident with a legal permit walking around with a gun. The problem is that it took me 2 and a half years to get my permit because Chief Ortiz doesn't sign permits for New Haven residents. I had to go through the State appeal system to get my permit. Ortiz clearly doesn't want legal residents to have their Constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun.

Do yourself a favor and perform an experiment and apply for a pistol permit (remember you don't have to buy a gun) and see how many YEARS it takes you to get your denial.

You see, Ortiz would rather hide behind a desk instead of let residents arm and defend themselves.

I further support your effort to oust Ortiz. It's time New Haven was run on the peoples' need, not the Mayor's want.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 27, 2007 8:08 PM

Rob Smuts
I have to say you are right! We need people that care about the areas! I don't want a cop that lives and Branford that looks down on New Haven working my streets! I want one that knows New Haven and what a wonder place it is! A place worth fighting for! I already have 2 people that would make fine officers going out for it! And they have lived here all there lives and care about this city and will live here the rest of there lives!

If I was not in my 40's I would go out for it! I qualified many years ago but was put on the wait list now I am just to old.

Posted by: veryconcernedcitizen | June 27, 2007 8:32 PM

What will it take to change?

Posted by: guest` | June 27, 2007 11:20 PM

I like the idea of recruiting for cops in the neighborhoods, but I really quesiton recruiting to the same lackluster programs.

I support instead, a program of total reform and overhaul of policing in new haven, to be a progressive model for the nation. this would require:

1. four year degrees, with exceptions for exceptional ability.
2. recruiting for unprecedented diversity, of views, lifestyle, politics. All efforts would be made to recruit those who might never consider police work.
3. To do this we offer the highest officer pay in the country.
4. the money savings will come from making this city less crime ridden, and the fact that with the best offiers and detectives money can buy, we won't need as many to do a task. (Just look at the great job the state PD did hitting our streets for a short period)
5. Institute the most progressive, groundbreaking academy curriculum in the country, where civil rights attorneys lecture along side regular old line teachers of the nuts and bolts of police work. Let's become a city and state that cares about civil rights. One that is inclusive, instead of the same tired old oppositions.
6. Head up the police department with an uncommonly capable chief - intellectually superb, ethically superior, respectful of citizens, and able to gain the trust and respect of officers, rallying them to the highest standards.
7. Overhaul police policies so that they do not subvert citizen rights, as some do now. Fine tune them.
8. above all, make it a department that responds to the community first, the mayor later.
Inclusive, Diverse and Progressive.

How does that sound?

Posted by: jane | June 27, 2007 11:37 PM

" Posted by: Rob Smuts | June 27, 2007 2:04 PM

A note on Charlie's comment: my final pitch to the management team (my management team) was about police hiring."

I am confused on what management team you are referring to there. Do you mean the WEB management team? Can you say what you mean by "my management team?"

Posted by: Taxed To Death | June 28, 2007 12:05 AM

Community policing is not a new idea and it's not the silver bullet. Didn't New Haven used to have community policing? Equally not new, is the youth program which will do little but babysit the trouble makers for some period of time before they're turned loose to wreak more havoc. Like so many problems in New Haven -- the solution is a management problem -- what we have is a failure of vision that is New Haven-centered vs. Governor's Mansion focused. We now have mediocre caretakers in charge of the city -- what we need are folks interested in positive, constructive change that actually solves problems vs. creating new ones, putting bandaids on old ones and in the meantime, demonizing citizen activists. It's time for a change.

Posted by: on whalley | June 28, 2007 8:52 AM

Ned, firearms arent permitted in state parks and federal parks. Unless the law has changed recently city parks are not off limits. Otherwise I wouldnt be able to cut across Ernest Borgnine Park on my way to Stop and Shop. All 3 feet of it.

I havent found anything stating otherwise here:

http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=1251&q=254198&bfpeNav=|

but I'll continue to look.

If you have a link to the information I'd be glad to see it as I wouldnt want to have my permit revoked over something so stupid.

BTW, you're link didnt work.

Posted by: on whalley | June 28, 2007 11:18 AM

Cait Sith,

When I applied I dont believe Ortiz was chief but I grew anxious as the 30 days turned into 6 months.
I was taking Judo at the time with a NHPD detective who told me to call them and start pushing the issue.

I called and they spun me some story about how it was just all ready and they have been trying to get a hold of me. I dont know if they had sent carrier pidgeons out or what but they clearly didnt try calling me. Two days later I had my permit.

At that time the game was that the NHPD would just hope the permitee would just forget about it and move on. Its disgusting if Ortiz is now actively refusing permits to qualified applicants. Not to mention unconstitutional.

Posted by: nfjanette | June 28, 2007 12:37 PM

Community policing works when the police officers know and have a connection to the neighborhoods where they work. The most obvious way to encourage that is to recruit officers from those neighborhoods - and we need everyone's help getting the word out. Advertising doesn't work; it is all about personal word-of-mouth.

My understanding is that 80% of the current police force resides outside of New Haven. It seems like a good idea to have more of the officers reside in the city, but is it realistic given that we can't attract a full class of new recruits even when searching outside towns? Also, what are our expectations for residential officers: that they somehow will work extra off the books by keeping an eye on their neighborhoods? I don't think that concept will attract many new recruits.

Perhaps a more viable mechanism for community policing that we can utilize now is to simply keep the same officers walking and biking in the same general areas over a longer period of time so that they can make relationships with the residents. That has not been happening over the past few years around here - walking patrols have come and gone several times - although our area police sergeant certainly knows the area and the people.

Posted by: Edward_H | June 28, 2007 9:11 PM

Plus, you're causing panic, Goldfield told Greer. A rumor is floating around some parts of the African-American community that the kid who was shot in Edgewood Park was taken there and shot up by the Greer's patrol, said Goldfield.

Rabbi Greer is not at fault because certain members of the African-American community cannot seperate fact from fiction, or distiquish rumors from factual reports. There is a strong history of African-Americans spreading such unsubstantiated nonsense. Spike Lee himself went on the record claiming Liz Claiborne was a guest on Oprah and stated she did not make clothes for black people to wear. Tommy Hilfiger was another victim of this same vile rumor. The list goes on and on. Even with the nearly unlimited research power of the Internet readily available many African-Americans still think the Willie Lynch document is an accurate record of a real speech. One would think Goldfield would take a stronger stance against such anti-semitic rumors. What is next? Will Goldfield ask the Rabbi not celebrate Passover because there are rumors the blood of Christian children will be used to make Passover matzohs?

While all in the room agreed the story was a wild, false rumor, Goldfield cited it as evidence that the patrols are inciting "paranoia," apparently with a racial thrust.

The "paranoia" Goldfield refers exisited long before Rabbi Greer and the EPDP came onto the scene and it will continue to exist as long as people like Goldfield play party to these disgusting rumors rather than fighting them. What if rumors circulated that any white person showing up at any Juneteenth celebration was going to be assaulted and robbed? Would Goldfield blame African-Americans for this?

Using a firearm against someone in self-defense is always a "murky situation," one that shouldn't be invited by the use of armed patrols, argued Goldfield.

Murky to whom? Not to myself or anyone else I know who has obtained their pistol permit in CT. I suggest Alderman Goldfield take a NRA certified firearms training class if he finds the laws "murky". The law is incredibly clear on the use of deadly force specifically to avoid "murky" situations. Goldfield might as well say the laws are "murky" as to when a driver can turn right on a red light.

Posted by: Wakeup! | June 29, 2007 8:27 AM

From the comments I read here, many from the same names, citizens are not happy about very much in New Haven. Yet, no one seems ready or willing to take on any of these positions they freely chastise. According to what I have read there are two challengers to Mayor DeStefano from the democratic party and another from the green party. None of them seem to have a chance in hell to beat the incumbent. Republicans do not even bother to pretend they exist. If you are feeling "taxed to death," inundated with illegal aliens, shot in your parks, failed by a decimated public school system that is headed by an "embattled superintendent," and unable to get a lawful gun permit from the Chief of Police or a straight answer from the Aldermanic president without a mediator present, one of you should come out and run for mayor and together find 30 more posters, one from each neighborhood, to run for aldermanic seats and take the city back. Wake up ! This administration is entrenched and not going anywhere - stock up on Vaseline.

Posted by: Ned Pocengal | June 30, 2007 6:10 PM

Sorry about the bad link, which was to a history of lynching in the U.S.
The Parks's Dept. rules state that: "All weapons are prohibited", in East Rock Park anyway (rule number 10).
http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/Parks/ParksInformation/eastrockpark.asp#regulations
I'm supposing that means firearms too.

Posted by: strangerthanfiction | July 2, 2007 1:51 AM

Armed citizen patrols are a threat to public safety. Period. If black folks in the Hill section, for instance, decided to form armed vigilante patrols, do you think city officials would just try to talk them out of carrying firearms? Of course not. Such armed patrols would be shut down pronto by the police and city officials. This double standard is disturbing as is the way using firearms is being leveraged to hold public policy hostage. This should be non-negotiable with all groups in the city.

Posted by: on whalley | July 2, 2007 8:21 AM

Ned,
Thanks for the link. I'll have to compare the "rules" to real city and state legislation. I love the inconsistency with the law areound here. East Rocks "rules" say no weapons but West Rock doesnt say anything about it. Also East Rocks "rules" dont mention mountain biking but I've been chased out of there for biking even though CT law states only the BLUE trails are off limits to bikes. Sleeping Giant bans all bikes from all trails. I've had hour long arguments with the park patrol there only to hit a wall when the interpretation of the law comes down to they have a uniform and a badge. I dont. Never mind the Laurel bike club who gets to ride there on Sundays. Theyre obviously more special than you or I.

Is a little consistency really too much to ask for?

Also what the permit application for the city says is worthless once the state permit has been aquired. Otherwise inter-town travel with a firearm wouldnt be possible due to the varying degrees of ridiculousness and inconsistency. The city permit is only temporary until the holder replaces it with the state permit. New Haven, Hamden and Colchester can demand and say whatever they want in their local permit applications but it doesnt mean anything to the state.

Then there's the matter of real park boundaries and borders. Are the roads through there considered park land or just the trails? What about the State street side and how far in? There is private property up there, can the home owner not be armed because his property is inside the greater park surveyed area? Can the "rule" for East Rock be used as precident for West Rock and vice versa? It's a pretty big mess thats going to blow up in the city's face sooner or later.

The lack of a clear and consistent law tells me that these are all "preferred policies" and when push comes to shove the outcome will be determined case by case. People need to be careful about what are true laws and what are just policies. Before you know w'll all be bending over backwards because we "think" its the law. Kind of like vaccinations and school access. There is no law for that. Never was but everyone thinks there is. Just vague policies backed up by authoritarian threats. That doesnt equal law.

Anyway, thanks for the link Ned. I'll look into it and some to my own conclusion to challenge it or not.

Posted by: anon | July 2, 2007 10:19 AM

These comments are sickening, especially the ad hominem attacks on Smuts (btw, I assume "my mgmt team" is whoever works for him in City Hall). The guy has had this job for what, three months?? And he somehow inherits 100% of the blame (assuming blame is appropriate) for overtime, PERF, going over budget...give me a break. And to accuse him of being a "lackluster perform[er]" who minimizes, evades, blows off, etc., citizen concerns is ridiculous. Do a search on this website and see how many times he has been quoted taking concerns seriously. Even here in these comments he just mentioned a concrete policy (recruiting locals through community help, like cedarhillresident) that he's been working on the whole time.

And performance? How about all the flooding that happened in Morris Cove right after he was appointed, and which apparently has been going on for years. There was just an article on how suddenly all of that is getting fixed. Please.

The thing that angers me the most is that many of you seem to have no problem calling for more cops, more community policing, etc., then b*tching when the dept. goes over budget, and when the budget grows. THESE THINGS TAKE MONEY!!! Unlike public schools, where we can debate about money until blue in the face, it is uncontroversial that better policing requires more officers, more training, higher salaries, etc. People here ridicule the mayor when he points out that the budget outside of policing has actually shrunk, then cry about how the police department is hopeless. Community policing -- which they are trying to reimplement!! -- doesn't rebuild overnight. And it sure doesn't happen for free.

The reason I felt the need to post all of this personal stuff is because this Smuts seems to be one of the few administrators in this City who is talented, hardworking, and actually cares. Yet the wolves turn on him at the drop of a hat. He may have gotten his job through political loyalty to the mayor, but so what? He actually seems goo dat it. At the very least, give him a few more months before deciding that he's a failure and running the police dept. into the ground. What happens if all you succeed in driving the young, smart, driven, etc. away? And the residents don't have the political will to increase salaries to attract whatever saviors you seem to have in mind? For that matter, who do you snipers think would be a better Chief? Better mayor? Better in Smuts's job? Where are your alternatives? Maybe stop and think for a second why there's no serious challenge to the mayor. Ok, I have to stop now. I really wish I could swear on this website. Some of you commenters deserve more than an earful.

Posted by: Rob Smuts | July 2, 2007 11:05 PM

I appreciate the comments, both positive and negative. To clarify - I meant "my management team" because that's where I live.