New Haven Independent

Posted by: hannah baldwin | September 28, 2009 2:30 PM

As a parent ( my sons are thankfully past the teenage years), I question the need to identify these kids and to publish their addresses. Why would the story be any less interesting or informative if names were left out? In some ways, doing so may reinforce the wrong behavior: they become celebrities to their peers and the embarrassment they inflict on their parents only reinforces, for some of them, a feeling of worthlessness. Why not let the parents and cops handle it with the kids? For the rest of the community, isn't it enough for us to be informed that this sort of thing is going on and that the police are responding.

Posted by: nrns | September 28, 2009 2:54 PM

I am proud that our police department will step in when parents and kids can't "just say no" to underage drinking. Thanks for providing the tough love! We are so fortunate to have such a superb PD!

Posted by: lance | September 28, 2009 3:54 PM

i'm sure the fine folks at the independent became quite aroused when the opportunity arose to provide a link to an article containing the names and adresses of suburban white kids who ran afoul of the law.

Posted by: DGD | September 28, 2009 5:27 PM

Marcia,
Perhaps you should be spending your time asking if this policy actually accomplishes anything useful. Does it reduce underage drinking? does it reduce binge drinking? Does it keep kids who have been drinking out of cars? Does it teach kids to learn to drink responsibly as adults? Will it be implemented in an even-handed way? Does it engender respect for the police?
As a father of two boys (long past their teenage years) and as a former teenager myself, I suspect the answer to all the above questions is no.
I'm no fan of irresponsible drinking by anyone, young or old, but I am equally troubled by our penchant for criminalizing behaviors that might better be dealt with in other ways.
It's as if we've learned nothing about substance abuse and teenage behavior in the last 50 years.

Posted by: Jos Dudgeon | September 28, 2009 6:00 PM

Why shouldn't their names (and addresses) be listed? These "kids" are no longer minors and therefor should be treated the same as any other adult who breaks the law. Public shame is a centuries old tradition that does have its benefits - I assume, in this case, the primary beneficiaries of that shame are their irresponsible, absentee parents. That said, I have no feeling whatsoever for whether the drinking age should be 21, 20, 19 or 18 (Note: it was 21 in 1933, changed to 18 in 1972, 19 in 1982, 20 in 1983, and then back to 21 in 1985.) The issue here isn't where they live or what impact being arrested will have on their self esteem - it's simply a matter of what is legal and what isn't. Unfortunately for these "kids" they broke the law. Pretty stupid of them, regardless of the vehicle they chose for doing so. Kudos to the police, tsssssst's to them and their parents.

Posted by: j.pottenger | September 28, 2009 6:30 PM

I (for one) am glad that the names and addresses of adults involved have been included. It will help the rest of us parents keep track of houses (and individuals) our teenagers should be guided to avoid.

The recent events in East Haven, where the school backed down from its stated (albeit possibly misguided) policies, illustrate the strong community feelings on both sides of this difficult, and quite serious, problem. I hope that Branford copes with it more successfully.

Posted by: Norton Street | September 28, 2009 6:49 PM

Its very difficult for one man and one woman to raise kids, it really takes a community to successfully complete this task. Unfortunately, none of these kids live in communities, they all live out in the middle of nowhere on streets without sidewalks that aren't close enough to any civic places that they could walk if they wanted to. They live in environments built around the worship of automobiles that lack any useful places to congregate and be surrounded by spiritually uplifting spaces. These kids are dropped off at nursery schools when they're little because they're parents have to work a lot just to afford their meaningless lifestyle. Then they're enrolled in school and have to be driven around in a big yellow bus everyday just to sit in front of a boring teacher, then a television screen at home. When they begin to mature, they develop vast amounts of anxiety due to pressure from their parents to "succeed" even though they live in horribly depressing towns with nothing to do, relate to, learn from, or enjoy so when they get their license they drive to a friends house with all the other depressed kids and do excessive amounts of drugs and make stupid decisions about sex.
Congrats suburbia, you've delivered on your promise to provide the American dream by turning every child into a chauffeur-dependent, isolated, lonely, stressed, bored, fat and useless human-like being that are obsessed with celebrities, fashion, television, dumb trends and countless other pointless activities and things because they live in a no where environment, with nothing to do and no place to go surrounded by carbon copies of themselves who live in slight variations of the same house on the same street with the same stupid parents that continue the degradation of our society by continuing to invest in a lifestyle that corrodes centuries of American and human traditions that were built upon generation after generation in slowly and precisely built towns and cities. My hat is off to you.

Posted by: Rachel | September 28, 2009 6:50 PM

For too many years, alcohol abuse has harmed and killed our youth & young adults in many ways (auto accidents, date rape, fights, poor school performance). The people named in this article are all over 18 -- legal adults. They made decisions, knowing they were violating the law. A little shame is a healthy thing here. I'm really glad a worse outcome was averted. Hats off to Branford!

Posted by: Glenn | September 28, 2009 10:24 PM

Well said, Norton. Bravo!

Posted by: Tyler | September 29, 2009 10:40 AM

I 110% garuntee these kids do the same thing this weekend and get away with it as they do 99.9% of the timer

Posted by: Jeff Clark | September 29, 2009 12:43 PM

We could all move to Norton Street. Let's see - what would they be doing at night there?

Posted by: Jay | September 29, 2009 12:48 PM

Leave it to Norton Street to come up with some ridiculous reason that cars are to blame for underage drinking. Kids do this regardless of the setting they are in. I'm sure many of the people posing on this forum did the same thing at that age. Why do we no longer let teenagers act like teenagers? Educate them not to drink and drive and to be responsible but don't expect them to never make a mistake or always be mature.

Posted by: I Love Branford | September 29, 2009 1:18 PM

Norton St. Are you kidding me? That is quite a rant. I guess all the children in your City walk to school, don't watch TV, don't drink or do drugs, don't have sex, and aren't fat. Their parents don't wish for them to have a better chance to suceed than they had. And everyone who lives in this wonderful City is smarter and a better American, all because they don't live in the suburbs. No Thanks! I'll take my chances here with friends and family (sorry I mean carbon copies).

Posted by: Norton Street | September 29, 2009 6:11 PM

Why does my critique of suburbia come with the assumption that this means the city is wonderful?
2009 New Haven has too much crime, too many impoverished people, too few jobs, too small a middle class, and many other issues. Our entire country is experiencing large problems. Our public realms in America, our civic buildings, our built environment is unpleasant all around. Sure New Haven used to be one of the best places to live in the country, but since 1920 it has been going down hill, along with society. We have become obsessed with making money to buy "stuff", instead of what we used to do which was enrich culture through meaningful human relationships which were easily fostered in great public places. The same public places that are either absent or completely mutilated today.
Rearranging suburbia in a way that encourages transportation options and mixed income communities while repopulating our cities with motivated middle class citizens is a way to return to a more meaningful and productive existence. Because currently, all we due is further separate ourselves from each other and make problems worse.
While New Haven is still a great place and still allows for a local lifestlye, many of suburbia's ideals have infiltrated the local city life. Our roads are widened for high speed individual cars and dense, diverse buildings are demolished to make way for giant super stores that people drive to. Suburbia's and the city's problems are one in the same, because they are very much interconnected, the suburbs rely on the city and the city accommodates for the suburban populations who don't live in the city.

Posted by: grob103 | September 30, 2009 12:23 AM

Hannah
specious argument.
If your sister/brother was killed by one of these adults as a result of this illegal drug intake would you have the same indignant outrage.. 'The lady doth protest too much, methinks".
These are adults, young and quite stupid, but still cognizant of the illegality. How did you expect these little drunks to return home? walk??

why read this article and complain?
Wrong is wrong.

Posted by: steve ross, human | September 30, 2009 9:20 AM

Norton Street,

I often wonder when I'll see your manifesto in print.

While I find your arguments compelling and your passion admirable, I often question your absolutist positions. Your disdain toward suburbia borders on misanthropy and is, in the very least, insulting to the thousands of people who don't conform to your denigrating characterization of what a "suburban lifestyle" is.

This may be somewhat nihilistic, but one could easily look at your idea of utopic urbanism as just another inefficient box that cages the human animal. What's the difference between an Attican city-state, an anarchist commune, or a mall when its habitants are happy there? Or say that they're happy there even when they aren't?

This is a sort of philosophical horseplay, sure, but I don't think you're going to win any converts by belittling anyone.

Posted by: Norton Street | September 30, 2009 5:51 PM

Steve Ross,
Studies show that the majority of Americans want to live in "small towns", when the other choices are "the suburbs", "the city", and "the rural". Connecticut used to be only small towns, large towns and rural living. After about 1940, suburbs began sprouting up and their destructiveness was enormous and unexpected. Destructive to the small towns that they grew out of, destructive to the big towns they leached from, destructive to the farm land and forests they were built over, destructive to the families who break their backs to pay for the living arrangement and destructive to the dependent, isolated children that are bred there. I argue for a return to the 3 logical, human scaled environments of the town, the city and the rural. The suburb is often relabeled by real estate people as small towns, when they aren't at all.
People also mislabel New Haven as a city, when really its more of a large centralized town (or at least used to be).
The only things I advocate for are social progression, reflection and interaction, which really doesn't happen that often anymore. Due mostly to our separated physical environment, which then causes people to become mentally and spiritually separated. Isolation does horrible things to humans, we are a social creature, dependent on meaningful interactions. We've desperately tries to simulate interaction with the internet, advancements in phones, and other digital communication devices, but its not good enough. We have to design our physical world to easily allow for these interactions, and that really only happens in towns and cities, not the suburbs.
Commenters often misrepresent my posts by claiming I want everyone to live in giant brick housing towers in dense cities, when really these types of developments were designed and built after the time period that I often romanticize.

Suburbs:
http://www.stolaf.edu/courses/2003sem2/Environmental_Studies/399/Projects/Greller_Project/Images/new-neighborhood-street.jpg

http://images02.olx.com/ui/1/92/35/6478735_1.jpg

suburban shopping:
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/filmnotes/images/missionvalley.jpg

town shopping:
http://www.preservationnation.org/assets/photos-images/travel-sites/travel/dozen-distinctive-destinations/Franklin-TN-Great-American-Main-Street-cr-Williamson-County-CVB_mr.jpg

town living:
http://www.chitowndining.com/www.chitowndining.com/images/large/lincoln-park-neighborhood-590x385.jpg

Posted by: robert Reynolds | October 1, 2009 7:42 PM

norton street,
You know so much about everything!
de sterren!!!!!
How did you get so smart? What are you reading. I want some too. Your views now have their own spot on the periodic table of DUHNESS.