New Haven Independent

Posted by: Mr. Good Rights | December 24, 2009 8:53 AM

Living out stereotypes keeps many people ignorant and leaves others closed out of opportunities (jobs , an accessible grocery store, and a sense of community). Its sad seeing that individuals have a fence up to keep people out who aren't even there anymore. The project is a good idea that should be welcomed with out a fence segregating neighborhoods. I know for a fact people on the other side of the fence(Hamden) could learn a thing or two from those who appear as was stated in the article "in pain” I wonder if anyone for the fence ever volunteered to help anyone "in Pain" If your so worried about your peace and serenity what have you done to help the world or the community at large since its in your back yards just fenced away. Connections and relationships can be built that bring about collaborations and understanding. "Narrow thinking and narrow actions create paths for only the narrow minded to follow."

Posted by: V | December 24, 2009 9:36 AM

How are the liberals going to spin this? Are those Hamden residents racist suburbanites?

Posted by: Ben Berkowitz | December 24, 2009 10:10 AM

Paul,

How long is this fence and is it on private or public land?

They should fence both communities in together and make them play nice.

Posted by: Darnell | December 24, 2009 10:13 AM

V,

I try not to respond to anonymous posts, it seems a little useless. But I think your point needs to be addressed. I for one have not and do not see this as a racist issue. It is an issue that ALL Americans should be concerned about. Putting up a fence between towns restricting the free travel and free trade rights of American citizens is inherently and morally wrong, and probably is illegal. What would happen if East Haven, West Haven and North Haven did the same? Why can they send their homeless to New Haven, yet our residents can't travel to their towns?

Posted by: The Professor | December 24, 2009 10:17 AM

I don't think the problem here is racism, I think the problem is distrust. I've seen plenty of blacks and Hispanics who cross the street when they see a group of coethnics who they think appear threatening. It's not like the Campbells are racist against their fellow blacks. However, they don't trust the people living on the other side of the fence, and those people happen to be black.

This is a problem that will require extended cooperation and coordination to fix, and I'm not sure that running around threatening to sue is the best way to go about dealing with it. Hamden has every right to have that fence, so what we need to do is convince them that it's in their best interest to take it down. There will be significant development in the West Rock area, and especially on that side of the Rock, so it shouldn't be overwhelmingly difficult to make the case that Hamden would benefit from increased connectivity.

At the end of the day, the people who live in that part of Hamden have had some bad experiences with people coming over from New Haven, and those experiences have clearly come to color their perception of their would-be neighbors. The solution to this problem is not bluster and abrasiveness, it is negotiation and communication. I hope that our city's representatives will keep that in mind.

Posted by: Bob | December 24, 2009 10:21 AM

How is it that the people on the Hamden side remember clear as day what a nightmare the old brookside was, but alderman goldson and the author of this article seem to have forgotten. How dare those homeowners want to protectthemselves and their property from the element that's sure to return to the new and improved fancy looking brookside. If anything, they should tear down the fence and put up a foot thick concrete wall. At least the concrete will stop bullets

Posted by: Mike | December 24, 2009 10:37 AM

All I know is this is a really strange part of town that needs some attention. Anyone heading up to West Rock can see the boarded up units that seem to just be sitting vacant. I dont get what is going on around here.

Posted by: sad | December 24, 2009 10:47 AM

this article makes me sad.
for the residents of Hamden who live adjacent to the Brookside area to make the accusation that "It prevents all the riff-raff from coming around [because] people come from New Haven to sell drugs" makes me almost want to laugh and cry at the same time. the stereotyping by these gentlemen is so misinformed.

furthermore, if you have ever been to the brookside/wilmot/level/wayfarer area (that is, sadly, if you can find it since it's so "hidden" away), you instantly can see why stereotypes such as the one referenced above exist. the city of new haven has and continues to do a great injustice to the people who have lived in this area. allowing the fence to remain once this area is rebuilt/redeveloped will continue that injustice regardless of how beautiful and improved the area will be.

Posted by: jo | December 24, 2009 10:58 AM

Spin they will. I think this story really should have included the history.

I think the Campbells using the term riffraff (one word by the way) was unfortunate, because from context they mean criminals and the term riffraff has additional social class connotations that are inappropriate.

The history is incredibly important because that housing project was notorious.

A town doesn't put up a giant fence because they don't want to socialize with poor people. They do it out of desperation to stop a steady stream of crime, which in the past was incredibly violent, included guns and risked their children's safety.

We only get one life you know, and you don't risk your kids' safety at the request of some cuckolds: bleeding hearts at Yale who wouldn't last a day in those environments and tend to have a hard-wired insensitivity to crime victims; and the housing authority, and so-called activists engaged in BS art.

The people who made Wilmot a living nightmare years ago are not deserving of enablers eager to advocate for them. They should be called what they are based on the study of the detailed facts.

It was an incredibly dangerous place back in the day. Just driving up there was risking your life. It was like an outlaw town.

The good people who had to live in it but weren't part of it -- just ask them, they are the first to say it.

There was a local public TV documentary on that housing development where certain organizing residents who had hoped for a suburban life for their kids said it had been a failure.

I am a bit surprised to be honest that the city decided to redevelop a complex that was so far on buses to begin with. It is basically surburban.

This place had become so dangerous the New Haven city buses stopped going in, stopping instead at the bottom of the road, beause it is a deadend and drivers were being attacked.

Public housing houses poor people struggling to come up. It also houses criminals who have managed not to get kicked out who throw away every opportunity given to them.

Some people use services to dig out of poverty only to commit more crimes and start at the bottom again. I've seen records of people from Wilmot who have done this over and over and they are back in public housing, again and again, benefiting from all the enbling and rhetoric about being in pain and needing help when in fact they have demonstrated far more cynicism and dishonesty than that. Meanwhile, their children have grown up and started down the same road. Nothing solved.

We need to do a better job looking realistically at the population that needs and uses public housing. There are people who use the hand up and their kids end up in college and they save and buy a house. Then there are the criminals, yes, criminals, who use it as a revolving door crash pad and terrorize their neighbors, neighbors both in the project and adjacent to the project.

I think it has gotten better overall in New Haven, but just look at Hamilton Avenue project if you want a dose of reality.

And if you don't want a dose of reality, if you don't want to deal with reality, you are not working towards any kind of real solution, you are enbling crime and apologizing for it.

The idea that ALL criminals are driven to it to survive and it is SOLELY economically driven is just phoey. There is no doubt that there is a criminal culture here in New Haven driven at its core by people who are willfully fully committed to it. There is a criminal mentality among many who are involved in it and they are not going to stop no matter what you do for them.

Heck, half the murders a couple of years ago belonged on the BUSINESS pages because they were inter-gang and drug related. The drug trade is probably one of the top employers in this city. It should be listed with Yale New Haven Hospital, the schools and the city on that yearly list of biggest employers and biggest industries in New Haven. Play nicey-nice with that if you want and just get more of the same.

Posted by: jawbone | December 24, 2009 11:37 AM

The second photo is very effective. The sunlight is just right to convey the impression that this wall is made of plate steel.

Posted by: Jonathan Hopkins | December 24, 2009 1:34 PM

The Pine Rock neighborhood of Hamden is a cheaply and quickly built housing development. The construction and design of the housing is unimaginative and repeating. The streetscape is an embarrassment and the whole neighborhood should be demolished and the materials used elsewhere to build a good neighborhood.
The old Brookside and Rockview were even worse; they army barracks that warehoused poor people far from jobs. Housing should not be rebuilt there without significant changes to the surroundings. Public housing should quickly be abandoned as a viable way to house anybody. Low income working people need affordable housing in diverse neighborhoods. This can be accomplished by providing housing units above stores along main streets that have mass transit line, it can be done with ground level rental units in owner occupied homes, or in garage apartments. Warehousing people never works, it never has, it never will. Low income people need to be mixed in with middle class people to have something to aspire to and not loathe from a distance or the other side of a fence. In a place like Connecticut, that is made up of insanely small municipalities, this can only happen at a regional level.
I'm ashamed to live in the same county as most of the Hamden residents who commented for this article. They are an embarrassment to knowledge and deserve to have everything they have in life to be taken away.

Posted by: j | December 24, 2009 1:49 PM

If the East Rock section had their share of low income housing ( and I don't mean shove them all into Cedar hill section either) we wouldn't need projects.

Posted by: andrew garrow | December 24, 2009 4:55 PM

we grew up in one of those "cheaply and quickly" built houses just off woodin st. my dad and mom raised 4 of us on the hamden side. i had several black neighbors whom i went to helen st. and m.h. whalen jr. high with. the kids our age on the other side of the fence used to throw rocks and yell at us when we'd go over to my buddy's house on a dead end just around the corner, and let me tell you, theses kids were not just being young and stuipid, they were unsupervised, and in my opinion, feral.
the fence need to stay. johnathan hopkins should go live next to a housing project. maybe then his eliteism will soften.

Posted by: Honda | December 24, 2009 7:37 PM

Wow, what comments ignorant comments coming from Vincent and Herbert of whom I know very well. Guys let's not forget about where you came from, I remember when people use to call you both names and you know how much it hurt you both living in Newhallville.

I live and serve the people in this ward nd they are not what you would call them riff -raffs. By the way we have a lot of elderly people who cares about how they live and where they live and these are not bad people.

As far as you said that people jumped the fence and create problems, well it goes both ways and I don't hear you all mention that, remember you guys were so pretty bad people and you did some worse things and someone gave you a second chance in life so please give whom ever doing worng in your community (because it's not coming from mine because these are elderly and they can't jump the fence) a second chance.

As always I love you guys and give us credit we're making life for Hamden and our community much better place to live in by building beautiful new houses.

God Bless and Merry Christmas

Posted by: steve | December 24, 2009 10:52 PM

make it easy...new haven should donate the land from brookside & rockview to hamden with the condition that it not become open space. the area is so far from new haven, it belongs in hamden...just look at it on a map. wintergreen school is just up the hill on wooden st, and the major hamden shopping areas just the same distance down the hill. make it hamden's problem to solve. let's see what scott jackson can do with it.

Posted by: Blaze | December 24, 2009 11:19 PM

Mr. Goodrights,

Please, by all means teach us narrow minded people something about humility. When's the last time you donated your time, or had some of these people in "pain" over your house for dinner. I strongly suggest you try that first with your family! Of course, let us know how it goes. And, please be yourself, don't lock up valuables and let them play with your kids, we wouldn't want you to be narrow minded or stereotye anyone now would we!!! Good Luck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Ned | December 25, 2009 9:02 AM

"Good fences make good neighbors."

Posted by: what | December 25, 2009 9:08 AM

The Professor:

Long gone are the days where we have to "negotiate" for our rights. As Goldson says, those folks who live on the New Haven side have the constitutional right to freely travel throughout this country. Hamden does not have the right to fence them out, and I, for one, hope I never belong to a country that does bestow that right. Goldson is right, this is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Yale Law students, where are you?

Posted by: Bob Solomon | December 25, 2009 11:52 AM

One of the problems with setting public policy is that that too many people start with condemning beliefs ("How are liberals going to spin ths")instead of looking for solutions. The earlier efforts (many efforts) failed. We need to learn from those failures and work to develop a plan that will succeed. So, first, a little history. All history is impressionistic, but I'll try to stick to the facts.
1. There are five separate West Rock developments. While Rockview and Brookside both opened around 1952, they had different populations, different funding, and were intentionally physically separate. Rockview was federally funded low-income housing. When it opened, residents were required to sign a loyalty oath to the United States. Brookside was state-funded moderate income housing. There were tensions between Rockview and Brookside from the beginning. Rockview had a suburban, winding roads, no sidewalks design. Both developments had barracks style housing. The Housing Authority owned Rockview, but not Brookside. Only after foreclosure did HUD take Brookside and transfer it to the Housing Authority. Westville Manor started as a privately-owned development known as Oriental Masonic Gardens, which also went into foreclosure.
2. When the feds funded Rockview, their public statement was that the road to Hamden would be cut through when mandated by vehicular traffic, but there was a then-secret letter to Hamden stating that the road would not be cut through unless Hamden agreed. So, even before either Rockview or Brookside was built,there was a 25 foot grass strip between New Haven and Hamden. The fences came later. They were built by Hamden on public property.
3. HUD, by its own admission, underfunded the operating costs of public housing. It was allowed to deteriorate, then was eligible for medernization money. The most expensive modernization was used to make the housing look less like public housing, but not to change intrinsic problems.
4. Starting in the 1960's but especially in the 1980's, public housing in New Haven became increasingly racially and economically segregated. Children increasingly attended schools, especially in West Rock, in which the entire population came from the public housing developments.
5. Section 8 housing, which in theory fosters more choice and integration, has not succeeded in either regard, and Section 8 vouchers in New Haven are bunched together in low-income neighborhoods. Section 8 voucher holders have not tended to move to the suburbs.
6. Public housing units in New Haven have been reduced by more than 33% since 1999, but, compared to the suburbs, New Haven still has 75% of the dedicated public housing units. Hamden has none. (There is some congregate elderly housing.)
7. The proposed West Rock redevelopment is based on a mixed-use, mixed-income model. Without going on forever in this post, it has a much better chance of success than any past effort.
8. People is Hamden have a right to be secure in their homes. The Housing Authority has spent a lot of time and funds to improve security, and the result is that crime has been markedly decreased. The crime in West Rock goes both ways, and people have come through holes in the fence to victimize the elderly at Ribbicoff, the elderly development.
9. The redevelopment will be more successful if the road to Hamden is opened.

Peace to all. Working together, we can accomplish great things. The more we limit our solutions to predetermined ideology, the less likely we will succeed.

Posted by: James Lucas | December 25, 2009 2:27 PM

I don't expect people to know me, but i have to
say it's better to understand than be understood.
Ive lived two lifestyles in one lifetime. The main reason i understand people in pain because i was their at one time. Thats why i help people every week im at the basement of the church of st.PAULS on the corner of chapel and olive from
12 to 1pm. Where all kinds of miracles are happening. God is good to All
Peace James L.

Posted by: Leonidas | December 25, 2009 6:32 PM

The answer isn't a fence. Nor is the answer a lawsuit or casting blame on the residents of this Hamden neighborhood. These residents of Hamden have a right to want to protect their property.

The answer is making sure that only socially responsible people are allowed to live in the new Brookside. Brookside is in an area where the physical isolation could contribute to the passive acceptance (by the City of New Haven and it's various departments) of antisocial behavior. People who need public housing who have a history of causing trouble and behaving in an manner that exploits and terrorizes their neighbors should be placed in other less isolated projects where they can be better controlled.

If a policy such as this is followed it will reduce the fence to a useless eyesore that everyone will want to take down. It will also protect the new residents of Brookside who, like the residents Hamden, also have a right to live in an area free from crime and antisocial/abusive neighbors.

Posted by: The Professor | December 26, 2009 2:47 AM

What,

Would you or Mr. Goldson care to point to a provision in the Constitution that in any way can be construed as prohibiting Hamden from building a fence on its own territory? (NB: I'm not an attorney, so this should be taken as the opinion of someone who has studied the Constitution fairly extensively but does not have a law degree.) If New Haven wants to build a massive fence there's nothing stopping us; similarly, there's nothing stopping them. I'm sure that there are plenty of cities throughout this country that have physical barriers demarcating the town line, and they're fully within their rights to do that. There is absolutely nothing explicit in the Constitution that bars cities from building fences on their borders with other towns. And if you try to argue that the fence should be met with strict scrutiny under certain parts of the Bill of Rights (Equal Protection Clause maybe) because of the composition of the neighborhood, I respectfully point out that many attorneys and judges would probably say that the fence likely meets the legitimate governmental aims/least restrictive means test.

You also bring up the idea of a right to travel. While this right is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, I would agree that it is implicit. However, there's absolutely nothing preventing you from traveling over to that part of Hamden--just something preventing you from taking a more direct route. So, where do you draw the line here? Does the Government have to facilitate travel? Should the government be barred from building roads that aren't particularly efficient? There is nothing about the fence that fundamentally prevents people from travelling; rather, there is just an alternative set of arrangements that might make travel easier for some people. This certainly creates a suboptimal situation for some, but is far from unconstitutional.

I agree with you and Goldson that the fence needs to go, but unlike you and Goldson, I think that a more conciliatory approach to taking it down would be better. If you go to Hamden and start accusing them of violating the Constitution (which they probably are not) and start invoking Constitutional rights that don't necessarily exist or apply to this particular situation, you're going to piss them off and ruin a great opportunity to work constructively. However, if you go to them and point out how much the neighborhood has changed and how the planned development will continue to change the neighborhood for the better by bringing in families and businesses, you can create a situation where they see the benefit in creating more linkages between the two communities. I guarantee you, in this Federal judiciary, you're not going to find too many judges sympathetic to your Constitutional claims. But there are opportunities to work through community and political avenues, and those require some finesse--my mom always told me that you get more with honey and vinegar. I'd hate to see those opportunities spoiled just so someone can wage what I think is a losing jurisprudential battle.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | December 26, 2009 7:44 PM

Professor - You may want to revisit your constitutional law, since the Supreme Court has held that a municipality violates the Thirteenth Amendment when it erects barriers to separate people based on race. That's a question of fact, but there is evidence to that effect. Furthermore, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that the Connecticut Equal Protection clause is broader than the 14th Amendment. I do not advocate litigation, but I beleive that you have misstated the law.

Posted by: Darnell | December 26, 2009 8:45 PM

To The Professor;

I am not an attorney or constitutional expert, but I am familiar with some case law through my normal life travels.

The Right To Travel

"As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights."

Sometimes honey doesn't work. How long did slaves have to suffer inhuman treatment while people with good intentions suggested that "now is not the right time, be patient, one day the slave owners will change their ways".

I don't know if my suggestion that this fence could be illegal is correct, some lawyers will have to figure that one out. I do know, after moving to New Orleans after Katrina and speaking with folks who were denied the right to leave town over certain routes through adjoining towns, that this kind of scapegoating and denial of basic human, if not constitutional rights is wrong, and has to be fought every time it raises its ugly head.

So no, I will not be the nice guy who says to those residents out there that they should be patient while someone tramples their rights because in the past someone else who may look like them at some other time may or may not have committed some crime. I'll leave that to you and the Housing Authority.

Posted by: Hood Rebel | December 26, 2009 11:19 PM

We can't sue and point our fingers out of every perceived community problem. How about using experience, good common sense and good models to overcome past mistakes and bad decisions?

Solomon gave a great historical perspective. Adding to that, look at what was accomplished from the old Ashmun Street Housing Project and the old Quinnipiac. Drive down Foote or Webster St and compare that to back-in-the-day during the 80's when even black folks were scared to death of going anywhere near the Ashmun St Projects. Look at what's there now!

So part of the answer is clear-- build quality, mixed housing and set strict protocols and consequences about community expectations. Let folks (black,white, latino and all others) know (or help them to learn) that responsibility is indeed a part of successful community life regardless of where you live--EVEN IN THE HOOD!

Posted by: Gary Onofrio | December 27, 2009 12:01 AM

Not sure if the fence will ever be removed but I sure hope all this re-building and home ownership, replacing the old west rock is going to be the answer to all the past problems of this community.

I think once this area is rebuilt, and the neighborhood establishes itself and PROVES that it is a safe neighborhood (I.E. no gunshots), then I think Hamden would be able to safely remove this fence. This community needs to PROVE that it is changed for the better. You need to clean up YOUR bad past, not the Hamden residents.

My father did towing during the 80's and his routes were mainly west rock projects. Let me tell you, his life was threatened here. He drove through gun fire, and had to deal with some risky situations, all while trying to make a living and helping someone get their car started or towed. This was the most feared area. The comment about bus service being cancelled for some time here is true.

This was over 20 years ago and these memories still live. And there are many similar stories to be told if you mention west rock projects to someone.

Point is, this community needs to prove itself when rebuilt, by washing away these bad images. You prove to the surrounding community of Hamden that you will posses positive qualities, and the fence comes down.

FYI, Google "Street View" still has images of brookside from what looks to be this past summer before being torn down. For those of you who aren't familiar with the old brookside, check it out and see why this area is so notorious.

Posted by: terrapin | December 27, 2009 12:03 AM

As someone who has lived in Hamden all my life, I nearly wet my pants laughing at the notion that all the "riff-raff" live on the New Haven side of that fence. Can we move that fence to surround Hamden Plains Field (directly behind Church Street School), where all the local ... gather each afternoon to score drugs and get high?

Posted by: streever | December 27, 2009 6:44 PM

"It prevents all the riff-raff from coming around [because] people come from New Haven to sell drugs"

This comment struck me. Why are people from New Haven going to Hamden to sell drugs? Sounds to me like Hamden has it's own social problems it has to deal with.

Posted by: Jo | December 27, 2009 8:27 PM

It's interesting that the only bias, stereotyping or 'negativity' that this article 'allows' us to notice, in a way, is the supposed bias, stereotyping and negativity of anyone concerned about this fence coming down.

Wanting to see that conditions in the new community prove to be better than in the old community is reasonable.

Let's look at the elephant in the room that we aren't supposed to talk about: The smear implicit in the article itself on people who are concerned about safety, who aren't necessarily prejudiced, who aren't as a matter of fact divided along racial lines by the way, and who are not stereotyping.

The Elephant steps into the picture in the headline itself: "Will New Haven's Berlin Wall Fall?"

Really, that cold war relic that divided an unwilling population that had no desire to stop associating, no need to protect itself from the other? What were the neighbors in Hamden, Stalinists? Is that what Bass/MacMillan are saying?

Mr. Solomon suggests, oh, be positive, look for positive solutions. Agreed, but aren't those concerned about safety starting with some realism AND starting from a position of being forced to defend themselves against a smear directed right at them, that begins in the very headline?

Now Mr. Solomon is raising the issue of equal protection, which apparently could be won not on specific evidence of actual racism but purely by counting the number of black people on either side of the fence and finding a majority on one side. Even if the real reason it went up was that the crime was undeniably totally out of control.

Fair enough, but call it a legal argument Mr. Solomon - I think it is important to make that distinction, because now, those with specific fact-based, well founded concerns about safety, having been smeared as some kind of sadistic mini-Stalins by NHI, are now defending the accusation that they are racists too! All the while you and the NHI are dropping these bombs while urging everybody to work together, be more positive and look to solutions.

It sounds like they are being told they should be nice -- and many of them are -- and NHI and SOlomon can smear those who are scared, rightly scared, not based on fear of poor people, not based on stereotypes, but on the rock solid record, Mr. Solomon, Mr. Bass and Mr. Macmillan.

I appreciate Gary Onofrio's post, because it is true and it needs to be said.

It also bears disclosing that the police department didn't even want to go up there back then. Many of them say it was really dangerous for them going up there.

But racist, stalinist Hamden people need to learn to be more positive? Really? Is that the way to open a dialogue?

Granting that uncontrolled crime is why that fence went up, Mr. Solomon, et al, is the suggestion that the fearful residents on the other side are racists and stalinist-type thugs kind of an example of the kind of injustices these people have been enduring and trying to protect themselves from?

NHI and Solomon can still lobb insults and the fence can't stop that.

When are all of you going to stop abusing these people?

The idea that Hamden will be unwilling to take down this fence if that development proves itself to be safe and responsibly run is unfair. You, Mr. Solomon, NHI, et al don't know that.

If it ever happens, I say, accuse then, come back then with that evidence and I know I will take it more seriously as evidence of racism or "poorism" or whatever else you want to allege.

That approach would build a lot more trust than lobbing some nonsense that it is OK to sympathize with bus drivers, tow truck drivers, police and the city itself for abandoning that development in fear, but those neighbors in Hamden, how dare they give up on us? What racists!

New Haven failed miserably and the way to fix it is to do better, prove itself, not smear everyone in sight in order to intimidate them into accepting a medicority that caricatures progressive politics (Berlin wall? I mean is that propaganda or downright misinformation?)

I know for a fact the HAuth. has failed to properly evict felonious gun toting crack dealers because they didn't stay on top of their housing court cases. I know you were housing one in what was left of Brookside last I checked and you may still be.

I think in light of all this it is innapropriate to find this kind of arrogance in posts, and frankly yellow journalism on the part of the NHI when the approach should be respectful of the concerns of neighbors, factual, better researched story and posts and if anything, the housing authority should be in a mode to prove it can pull it off. The recent record, though still mixed, has been a big improvement, so I forsee some success.

I wish it were without the impertinant sense of entitlement to smear people with legitimate concerns who are not racist, not all white or black and not stalinist nutcases. It is an aggressive bullying strategy that essentially blackmails people who feel they will be labeled racist if they don't let something get shoved down their throats. Interesting that that kind of exploitation and injustice should be the first tool out of the bag for supposed progressives.

I hope a glimmer of civility was expressed in Mr. Solomon's suggestion that suing is not the only way. I also appreciated the factual record he laid down in the numbered paragraphs.

I say though, I think civil rights lawyers have lost a lot of creativity and dynamism in their thinking around here. This is tired stuff.

More importantly than that, is Mr. Solomon is not the Housing Authority's lawyer, he is its head (Chairman?) so the responsibility is to run the housing authority in the interests of it and all of us not to fight for its client's plan like an attorney, whose duties are narrowly tailored to the client. He has to look after the Housing Authority's interests more broadly than its attorney would, to include the community too.

That means being more careful about lobbing accusations of racism.

And for the NHI, it means watching the yellow, which in the case of this story is just streaming off the page.

Posted by: The Professor | December 27, 2009 9:07 PM

Mr. Goldson,

Comparing the inconvenience that residents of the West Rock area face (to be sure, a large inconvenience, but nothing amounting to life-or-death or the systematic denial of one's basic humanity) because of the fence to the life-threatening restrictions that faced residents of New Orleans in the days preceding and following Hurricane Katrina or to the extreme injustice of slavery is outrageous.

Not only are the stakes massively different--a longer bus commute versus life-or-death or the denial of one's humanity--but the examples you mention seem to refer to selective refusals to allow a person or class of people to travel, so there are huge differences in circumstances. For example, in the case of the Katrina evacuees, we were talking about a circumstance in which only certain people were prevented from taking certain roads at a certain time. That's not quite what's going on here.

I agree that the fence needs to go. But comparing it to slavery and systematic government complacency in the face of human suffering and death is ridiculous and does nothing to advance our shared goal of getting rid of that fence. We're not going to be able to litigate our way out of this, and the fact of the matter is that people in New Haven can't vote in Hamden, so that's not really a solution. It's going to come down to bargaining between the two cities, and ridiculous hyperbole hampers that bargaining more than it builds some sort of effective moral or legal argument.

If New Haven's representatives think that comparing governmental and community actors in Hamden and New Haven to the governmental actors that enabled slavery and post-Katrina suffering and death is a constructive and productive strategy, we're in for a boatload of trouble.

Posted by: Darnell | December 28, 2009 9:49 AM

Professor,

Your conclusion that we may not be able to litigate the remove of the fence may not be correct.

Hopefully there will not be a life threatening event on the other side of the fence, like some sort of fire or something, that prevents the residents from the apartments closest to the fence from escaping. Hopefully we will be lucky enough to avoid such a thing. Even if this is so, just because there is a difference in the circumstances (life vs. death) doesn't mean that this issue is not similar or should not be addressed. The Freedom Fighters of the civil rights movement were not in any immediate danger, but the actions by the communities and police to try to keep them off the buses and out of communities were nevertheless wrong and illegal.

The police that kept the Katrina "refugees" from crossing into their communities did not believe that they were going to cause the imminent death of those survivors, they just thought that they were protecting their communities.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Sorry, you are dead wrong on this issue. There should not be wiggle room for fence proponents. It should come down immediately. Freedom for all.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | December 28, 2009 10:37 AM

Professor -

you should review your constitutional law. the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a municipality that erects a barrier to separate populations based on race violates the Thirteenth Amendment. While that is a question of fact, there is evidence dating back to the original decisions. The Connecticut Supreme Court has held that the Connecticut equal protection provision is broader than the Fourtheenth amendment. finally, the best claim probably lies with a statutory Fair Housing complaint. The Justice Department has intervened in matters much less egregious than this.

Posted by: William Kurtz | December 28, 2009 10:55 AM

Mr. Goldson,

Does your version of "freedom for all" mean no fences anywhere? I'm not sure I'm completely clear about the difference between this fence, and any other fence separating one property from another--even granting the seemingly explicit reason for building it, it's definitely doesn't seem analogous to armed police refusing to allow Katrina refugees to cross an ordinarily open bridge.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | December 28, 2009 11:39 AM

Mr. Kurtz -

This difference is, as you put it, "the seeming explicit reason for building it," as well as the result. In the United States, we do not allow municipalites to build explicit barriers to prevent one group of people from using public streets or services available to other citizens. Gated communities are permitted on private land, but this is very different. This is not about reasonable police power, but quite explicitly about keeping one segment of the population from another. The fence, by the way, does not just block the road - it winds around the site. The effect is to prevent easy access to shopping for food, clothing, and other goods.

Posted by: Mary Flucker | December 28, 2009 11:47 AM

Excuse me everyone, no one need to point any fingers. It's been a long time since I heard that the West Rock or Westville whatever you want to call it, had any gun firing going on out there in that nighborhood.

Last Sunday I had the opportunity to go to the christmas party at the Micro Society School on Valley Street and I saw something that I didn't see in any other communities and that was a community working together surrounded by their State Representative, local government and the News Channel 8 traffic lady Desiree Fountaine they were all giving out so many gifts to the children.

I have heard of other communities with a lot of violence like Newhallville gun shots every night, boys hanging out on the corners and the stores are filled with people that are the lookouts. When I travelled down Valley Street I didn't see anyone hanging on any corners and I was amazed because I said in my mind that this community has to be working together.

Hamdem residents from what I saw the people have a lot of respect in leadership out there so don't throw any stones until you see whats going on for your self.

Posted by: Darnell | December 28, 2009 11:56 AM

William,

All of us are allowed, and of course have the right to put up fences around our properties if we choose so. Some municipalities try to control that process (ire, size, type, height, color, etc.). Sometimes, they may have to provide egress to certain entities, such as public utilities. I believe that all of those residents in Hamden have the right to put up fences around their private properties. What we are discussing here is not private property, but public land. Public land that you, the residents of West Rock, and I, through our taxes, contribute to. All person must have equal access to that public property. Egress should not be block. If it is, the right for free movement is denied. If the Hamden residents have access to that property/road, so should the New Haven residents, it is a right, it is morally correct, and it is the law. If the property is private property, then Hamden should not be using public funds to erect a fence just so as to keep one group of individuals and not another from accessing it.

Armed police vs. barbwired fences. In the end, it all accomplishes the same thing, free and unfettered movement of American citizens. (And by the way, no elderly or disabled residents can get over that fence, it looks at least 20 feet high).

Now again, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems pretty commonsense to me.

Posted by: robn | December 28, 2009 12:54 PM

BOB,

Do the 13th and 14th amendments even come into play if the reason for the barrier is crime stats and not race?

Posted by: The Professor | December 28, 2009 1:12 PM

Mr. Goldson,

The only life-threatening events that I can think of on that side of the fence that would be on par with Katrina would be a California-style wildfire or a flood. I don't foresee either of those in the future for Ribicoff Cottages.

Also, in case I haven't made this explicitly clear, I agree that the fence should be taken down, and that it should be taken down immediately. We are in complete agreement about that. The only source of our disagreement on this is that I think that we should try this crazy thing called "being nice" in order to accomplish our ultimate goal. I think that righteous anger has its time and place. But I also firmly believe that we should try to see if cooler heads will prevail before we run around making extreme comparisons like the ones you seem intent on making. And if you think then I'm "dead wrong" about the importance of trying to be nice first, so be it. I think I'm taking the less sociopathic position here.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | December 28, 2009 2:35 PM

ROBN - You are asking the right question. Under a disparate impact analysis, a plaintiff would have to show that the action adversely impacted a suspect class. Under fedral constitutional law, race is a suspect class; poverty is not. There is some Connecticut constitutional law implying that poverty may be a suspect class in Connecticut. In either event, Hamden would have the opportunity to prove that it had a non-discriminatory justification for taking the action it did. that's why I mentioned that the critical question of intent was a question of fact. My main point was that I believe The Professor misstated the law.

Professor - I know you were not replying to me, but I agree that litigation is not the best use of our energy. However, your post seems to assume that we have not tried the "being nice" part. Over the past 11 years, I have been part of three such efforts, with no success.

Posted by: anon | December 28, 2009 3:18 PM

There is clearly a lot of interest in this. If everyone posting here just called their state legislators, and asked their neighbors to do the same, the fence would be taken down.

Instead of complaining, be a part of the solution. It is much easier to post online, stay indoors, read mags, watch TV than it is to go out, engage neighbors and create change.

The government is powerless on its own.

Posted by: Jo | December 28, 2009 5:35 PM

Mr. Solomon, of course readers wouldn't know everything you have tried behind the scenes. I would certainly believe that efforts were made with Hamden and that they have been difficult.

(What Bass/MacMillan's excuse is, is beyond me. He is supposed to be a journalist and if you two talk, it'd be neat if you reminded him. Readers are going to get the idea that you are co-advocates with NHI)

Although public housing in New Haven has made great strides, until Chief Lewis took over at NHPD, the crime rates here were still through the roof.

Looking just at homicide rates, NH's were higher than every precinct, every single neighborhood in NYC except one, which equaled ours. This is in 2006 or 2007 and the only neighborhood in NYC that equaled New Haven's homicide rate was the neighborhood of East New York, that wasteland on the edge of Brooklyn most people visit only if they've had their cars towed in NYC. That's where they take them.

Like other smaller satellite cities outside NYC, the crime rates remain high while the large cities drop in the past decade. That New Haven was worse in the 80s and 90s seems to blind us to the fact that its still been too high.

I know long time residents of Valley Street who sold their house recently because of the gun fire.

The city and NHPD and even Yale used to spin NH crime stats hard, and the press universally passed on the spin, inexcusably in my opinion, but any Hamden official who cared to scratch the numbers a little, the numbers that ate at all reliable (such as homicide rates) could see the truth pretty readily.

So, maybe you can share with readers what your impression is of Hamden's position - what the obstacles are for Hamden, whether they are even trying to talk or ignoring attempts. It would be good to get a sense of the climate.

Places like Quinnipiac, recently rebuilt, seem to be working out really well. The mixed income model seems to work well.

Posted by: Darnell | December 28, 2009 6:03 PM

so⋅ci⋅o⋅path -– noun Psychiatry. a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

Professor;

So you are now resorting to name calling? Seems a little childish and sociopathic.

As Bob Solomon stated above, it has been 11 years and 3 "nice" attempts to get the fence down. How long do you expect folks to "be nice"?

I hope nice works, and I will not interfere with the Housing Authority's attempts at continuing to "be nice". In the meantime, I'll be the bad cop (or as you describe, a sociopath), and maybe my "badness" will move hamden closer towards the Nousing Authority position.

Posted by: Brian | December 28, 2009 6:34 PM

It sounds like New Haven wanted to push their poverty and crime problems into another town, and now a bunch of pampered New Havenites think Hamden should feel grateful to have had this drop into their lap.

Constutional issue? No. Unless you think that everyone should be able to travel across any piece of property at any time.

Nobody seems to care that a bunch of Hamden residents have had to put up with a neglected housing development and a MAJOR drug trafficking problem. Now you want them to take the fence down as some kind of social experiment to see whether someone gets robbed or killed.

Something tells me that this thread would look different if we were talking about Wooster Square or Orange Ave.

Posted by: Susan | December 28, 2009 6:42 PM

I believe the fence or something even nicer needs to remain. I grew up in Hamden within the area and have lived here for 42 years. There has been issues with Brookside/Rockview community as they would move any blockage and drive across grass areas to get onto Woodin Street. This is a hazard as cars speed down the hill and just inappropriate. I am not saying all those who live there steal, but I have noticed since being closed off and the relocations, the crime has dropped. I am not going to say all blacks (which is the ensenuation of people)in the projects rob as I have been robbed three times in 13 years and they were white. What is needed is a community center and place for young people to spend time and exert their energy in Hamden and New Haven.
Will New Haven pay for the upkeep of Woodin Street, pick up the carriages, and clean up the dumping that has been historic?
New Haven should work with CT Transit about transportation. I can't drive or walk across people's lawns to get where I want to faster. I don't believe this is keeping people out but just a strange stretch of property.
DISCUSSION WITH THOSE THAT LIVE IN THE AREA OF THE FENCE NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN AN OPEN FORUM WITH OFFICIALS ON BOTH SIDES.

Posted by: The Professor | December 28, 2009 8:59 PM

I didn't call anyone a sociopath, I said that being nice seemed less sociopathic than immediately flying off the handle and accusing people of trampling Constitutional rights and comparing people to officials who stood by as people died and to those who shielded slavery. I'd say that drawing an equivalency between a fence and the latter situations does seem to be in line with a lack of social conscience. Quantifying suffering is something that's pretty difficult to do, but I think that we can all agree that on the spectrum of good and evil, the fence falls far, far further away from absolute evil than depraved indifference to suffering and death and the abetting of slavery.

Mr. Solomon, I'm curious as to what the substance of prior efforts to get the fence taken down was. My understanding is that such efforts did not emphasize the idea that taking down the fence could be a mutually beneficial arrangement, an idea that seems significantly stronger in light of the recently approved redevelopment plans. Furthermore, to reiterate, in light of the coming development in the West Rock area, the landscape has changed, so to speak.

This is what my point has been all along--we don't need to make a Constitutional issue out of this (because we'll probably lose), especially considering that West Rock is in line for major redevelopment. We don't need to exaggerate the moral significance of this fence, because if we go making irresponsible comparisons, we risk turning off people who may be willing to negotiate with us. The entire face of West Rock is about to change significantly from what it was in the days when the fence was built, and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to calmly and rationally point that out to Hamden. If they decide that they want to be difficult and cause problems, then we reevaluate our strategy. But there's no reason to lock ourselves into a hostile course of action, especially not now that the game has changed with the planned redevelopment.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | December 28, 2009 9:09 PM

Brian - you seem to be making up new facts, not to mention reducing a complex constitutional question to a single word ("no"), but to deal with a single point, I lived on Chapel Street by Wooster Square and I do not recall any barriers preventing preventing people from traveling across town, 24 hours a day, sometimes at high speeds, sometimes throwing garbage out the window, sometimes walking on the sidewalk. I do not recall a fence around the park and, as best I could tell, people were allowed to use the sidewalks and streets around the park, also 24 hours a day. Public streets are kept open and if Wooster Square or East Rock or Westville or any other neighborhood were closed in or locked out, we would be having the same discussion.

Posted by: Norton Street | December 28, 2009 9:57 PM

Many if not most of the houses in the Pine Rock section of Hamden were built after Brookside and Rockview.

Brian,
Are you really going to try to compare this section of Hamden with Orange Street and Wooster Square-some of the finest buildings in this country and post WW2 vinyl sided sheds surrounded by asphalt? You can't be serious.

Public housing does not work in this country if it is not backed up by easy accessibility to jobs, recreation, and shopping. This area is pretty much the absolute worst place to locate a housing project. However, this plan is moving forward and the way to make it successful is to get involved, not attack it and than act surprised when it fails. Opening up streets is a no-brainer. Crime is a result of social isolation, lack of adequate jobs, lack of choice, cultural degradation, and marginalism. The poor do not do well when only around other poor people; there is nothing to aspire to. Poor people must be dispersed into the middle class and must be near wealthy people-for jobs as well as for social well-being. Over the last 50 years, we have unwisely separated people based on income in extremely elaborate ways, which has had a devastating effect on the lower classes of people. It also breeds monocultures in suburbia, which are the antithesis of democracy. Incomes had always been integrated successfully throughout history; it is only recently that we have segregated ourselves based on false ideas that come from real estate, marketing, developers and others who wish to make quick profits off the public while spending as little money as possible on the things that matter in human civilization, which is why hardly any new suburban developments have squares or parks and pleasant outdoor green space or ordered streets that don't get you lost, or pleasant locally owned businesses along tree lined main streets. Nothing we do in terms of design of our habitat makes any sense whatsoever. Time to stop being morons, and start demanding diverse, well-built, well-designed and safe neighborhoods for all.

Posted by: Taxpayer | December 28, 2009 10:09 PM

Hey, Hamden town staff worked hard to secure the State grant award that built this fence! I say New Haven should fence off East Haven!

Posted by: Darnell | December 29, 2009 5:21 AM

Professor:

There you go again.

"immediately flying off the handle and accusing people of trampling Constitutional rights"

"does seem to be in line with a lack of social conscience" (Both statements in your last post)

You really can't help yourself, can you. In one sentence you claim you are not calling me a sociopath, and before the sentence is over you have again called me a sociopath. Can we have a serious debate without resorting to accusing our opposition of being "evil" and "demented" (a sociopath)? Why is it that someone with a different opinion than you has a psych disorder? Or is it just me?

Seems to me that this is the sort of argument that arises when the facts no longer support the position. But I guess I'm silly to think that someone afraid enough to not use their own name would do anything but resort to name calling.

Posted by: Brian | December 29, 2009 10:01 AM

Norton Street-

You seem to think that because Pine Rock is a suburban post-WWII neighborhood of working families, it should be the subject of some kind of social experiment to see what happens if we unleash an urban drug trade at its doorstep.

We know what happened. But you have such a casual disregard for the homeowners in this area that their concerns aren't legitimate in your mind.

I know Wooster Square has nice houses. I'm sure your precious impoverished strivers would love to mingle there. But you don't want a housing development there; you'd rather put it out in the woods near a suburb, and then blame the people who live there for not feeling grateful. Why don't you go tell them that it's okay if their houses are robbed or there's a dealer on the corner, because their houses are post-WWII homes (like just about every suburb in the country) not designed by famous architects.

There's absolutely no regard for the people who live in this section of Hamden. No wonder they put up the fence in the first place; New Haven built the project, then turned its back on whatever happened there. There are still dealers hanging out on the corner to this day.

Posted by: anon | December 29, 2009 10:57 AM

Jo, if you compare crime in cities using an "apples to apples" measure (metro to metro, by Census MSA definition of a "city"), New Haven is actually one of the safest cities in the United States.

At a neighborhood level, crime in New Haven's poor/low SES neighborhoods is typically no worse than crime in poor neighborhoods in other cities.

When you make statistical comparisons, please keep this in mind. Municipal boundaries vary tremendously due to historical variations and other factors. If you try to compare Hartford (14 square miles) to Wichita (140 square miles), you are comparing two completely different things.

That said, yes crime and other quality of life problems are a huge issue. Many New Haven residents do not feel comfortable leaving their homes or crossing their streets to go to nearby stores, churches, schools, community centers. That hurts retail sales, jobs, sense of community, health and many other things.

The most effective way to address this is to focus on quality of life issues in an overall sense, not just put more cops out on the street.

Posted by: Norton Street | December 29, 2009 11:04 AM

Brian,
New Haven built the project, then Hamden built houses around it. Also there is a housing project in Wooster Square, its called Farnam Court. The reason Wooster Square is still successful despite there being a housing project there is because it is such a well designed neighborhood that grew incrementally over time as a result of demand for it.
What I'm saying is that Pine Rock and Brookside/Rockiview suffer from the same disease, they simply have different symptoms. Brookside's symptoms are much more observable, while Pine Rock's problems are more internal. Housing following the second World War is awful in nearly every case; it's cheap, poorly laid out, inherently segregated, and not walkable for children or senior citizens.
The social experiment has already occurred; the federal government ordered millions of homes to be built following WW2, which resulted in mass produced housing for the poor-public housing-and mass produced housing for the middle class-the windy, disorienting suburbs that more than half the country lives in today. This experiment has proven to not work for poor people or for middle class people. The problems for poor people have been explained in the comments about this article (although, people have made it sound like most or all residents are problematic, when really its a very small fraction that do a lot of damage), but what hasn't been talked about is what suburban communities like Pine Rock do to children. Public housing in this country, deteriorated over generations, it was fine at first when there were jobs, but after industry was basically gone, the degradation began. A similar thing has happened in suburbia, first it provided much needed relief from cramped, dirty and noisy industrial cities, but after 50 years what we're left with are too many unnecessary roads that need constant upkeep, a road system that makes it nearly impossible to efficiently navigate on foot, which requires children to have people drive them around, which makes them dependent on others, we are left with a large portion of our incomes going toward maintaining multiple cars, we're left with ugly houses that all look the same, we're left with huge big box stores surrounded with massive parking lots that funnel money to distant corporations, while not reinvesting into the communities that supply their wealth, we're left with children who grow up in monocultures, etc. Both Brookside and Pine Rock need improvements and the only way to do this is by integrating, otherwise both communities will fail in the long run.

Posted by: Norton Street | December 29, 2009 11:31 AM

Also in Wooster Square the following could be called 'housing projects":
Columbus Mall on Wooster Street
Friendship Houses on Olive Street
Renaissance Square on Olive Street
The reason the core Wooster Square neighborhood hasn't been ruined by the building of a highway through it and numerous 'housing projects' is because it is an integrated neighborhood in terms of income, it is a neighborhood full of buildings that are worth caring about, the underlying infrastructure of street systems is good and there is a central public square that makes the neighborhood a place.
There are many problems in Wooster Square, but overall it is generally accepted that it is a successful neighborhood and the reasons have little do with how much affordable housing is located within it, its success has to do with the other things, which are actually trying to be recreated in the new Brookside/Rockview design.

If the fence remains, then New Haven should build a fence along the Hamden border and not allow suburban commuters in to get their pay checks then leave to spend it in other towns.

Posted by: robn | December 29, 2009 2:44 PM

Maybe both cities should do what was done with the Hooker School. Put in a gate and if people get out of line, permanently lock it....if people don't get out of line....well there you go.

Posted by: nfjanette | December 29, 2009 10:20 PM

The reason Wooster Square is still successful despite there being a housing project there is because it is such a well designed neighborhood that grew incrementally over time as a result of demand for it.

Still successful? In who's opinion? Aside from the gorgeous structures and wonderful park - in other words, appearances - I don't think that area is particularly safe compared to other areas such as Westville. Based upon what I've been told by multiple Italian-Americans, many families fled the area starting in the 60's exactly because of increasing crime most likely centered in various housing projects within easy walking distance of Wooster Square. Their exodus followed a path to Fair Haven Heights and East Haven. They made pilgrimages to attend church at St. Michael's and to eat in the restaurants located in "the old country" from which they fled. This is success?

Posted by: Norton Street | December 29, 2009 11:38 PM

NFJANETTE,
The reason I used Wooster Square as an example was because the commenter Brian tried to use it as an example of a place where the type of conditions that exist in West Rock/Pine Rock because of the public housing and single family housing relationship do not exist in Wooster Square because the city wouldn't allow similar types of developments. I pointed out that the reason the tensions-the type of tension that produces a fence-don't occur in Wooster Square are not because of a lack of similar elements, but other reasons. And actually not only would the elements that exist in West Rock and Pine Rock be able to occur in Wooster Square, they already do. The reason a fence is not needed in Wooster Square is because the neighborhood is integrated through logical and good design practices.
Brian was operating on the assumption that Wooster Square (and "Orange Ave") are nice neighborhoods, so I made the same assumption in my post. However, I accept that whether or not Wooster Square is a successful neighborhood is debatable. I personally feel that there is more evident to show how it is successful rather than unsuccessful, but that could go back and forth for a while. As far as bringing in Westville, I don't understand-why compare Westville,a 1920s era railcar suburb, with the Newtownship (what is today known as Wooster Square), which is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city? The other reason I brought up Wooster Square with West/Pine Rock was because it is an example of an integrated (by income, ethnicity, age, etc) neighborhood that because of its integration does not need a fence. This can be improved upon in the redevelopment of Brookside and Rockview if Hamden allows and helps the process.
Wooster Square is also an example of a place that has a substantially realized and pleasant public realm that adds to the private realms of many of the neighborhood's buildings interiors. A pleasant public realm is something that Brookside and Pine Rock lacked and continue to lack. A nice public realm is one where roads, sidewalks, parks, plazas and squares are safe, calm, walkable, ordered, pretty, defined and usable. Many suburbs have houses that have great private realms; they have plenty of bathrooms, big bedrooms, closets, storage, open kitchen and living rooms, etc. What they lack are nice public realms. A nice public realm is one major way to integrate communities; when roads, sidewalks and open spaces are used to connect and congregate people rather than separate or are non existent altogether, then people much more easily relate to those who are different from them, and that is democracy, that is America.

Posted by: Brian Tang | December 30, 2009 12:19 AM

huh. It's like the Berlin Wall, except the folks on one side could care less about the people on the other side.
Awkward...

Posted by: Jo | December 30, 2009 3:54 AM

PS, Anon, I think what you said here:

"At a neighborhood level, crime in New Haven's poor/low SES neighborhoods is typically no worse than crime in poor neighborhoods in other cities."

I think that is factually incorrect.

Posted by: anon | December 30, 2009 11:42 AM

Jo, look at the violent crime rates per 1,000 persons in New Haven neighborhoods and compare them to high-crime and low-income neighborhoods within other major cities. The data are all available online.

New Haven's 2006 violent crime rates per 1,000 persons range from 3-10 in neighborhoods such as East Shore, East Rock, Westville and Fair Haven Heights to between 16-24 in neighborhoods including Fair Haven, Dixwell, Newhallville, Hill, West River and Edgewood.

Be very careful with those denominators and definitions of neighborhoods, but a quick scan shows that Part I violent crime rates in other urban neighborhoods in the U.S. are often at least as high or higher than those New Haven figures. In fact, there are quite a few with crime rates over 100/1,000, which (if you assume there are few visitors/workers in the area, often not a valid assumption) translates into residents having a 1 in 10 chance of being a violent crime victim in any given year.

Posted by: Jose | December 30, 2009 11:56 AM

Anything goes in GUN WAVIN NEW HAVEN!!!

Posted by: Darnell | December 30, 2009 1:27 PM

Jose, leave that sort of stuff for the NHReg blog site.

Posted by: Jo | December 30, 2009 3:27 PM

Huh, the post just above my last is gone. The last was part of a two-parter. So much for that effort.

Anon: I am going to check the numbers right now and post back, but off the top of my head, what you are suggesting sounds like it would skew the overall sense city wide.

Plus, you don't have accurate Part 1 numbers for New Haven or any New Haven neighborhood because they don't exist. All you can do with any accuracy is use homicide rates. Even with audited rates, which New Haven hasn't produced in years, every criminologist in the country I know of will tell you the accuracy drops off considerably except for homicides.

I don't use them and I don't know any responsible criminologist who does except with loads of disclosures or shared knowledge of the flaws.

Plus isolating New Haven neighborhoods is part of the picture but in New Haven less so than other places due to various factors. We are more in it together in New Haven than many other cities, even though there is higher crime in some neighborhoods than others. What I mean is in any neighborhood you are more vulnerable to crime than might be the case in other cities.

My post that was taken down or did not post properly -- in it I asked what you meant by apples to apples and asked whether what you meant was comparing cities of the same size rather than NH-NY.

I didn't do that but could. I think that New Haven would not rate among the safest in any measure, but will look at it.

I compared New Haven homicide rates to NYC's, as a whole. New Haven's were much higher. Then I looked to see if any borough's rate in NYC was higher than or equal to New Haven --- none were.All had lower rates. Then looked to see if any neighborhood/precinct was equal or higher than new haven in homicides, only one neighborhood was. One neighborhood equaled, in all the boroughs, New Haven's. That was in East New York.

Of course, this was homicides per 1000 people -- in every analysis I did, it was homicides per 1000 population to get the rate.

Anyway, I will repost with more stat. explorations!

Posted by: Jo | December 30, 2009 5:15 PM

Hi, back again.
OK, should note that all the numbers I used were for 2006 when there were 24 homicides in New Haven, the highest in a while.

I did this not to exaggerate the results. I did it at the end of 2006 and I did it because we were all concerned about the amount of crime that year. It was a lot of work and I don't want to do it again for 2008 or 2009.

At the time there was a lot of pressure not to talk about it, which was wierd and still persists among many in New Haven (Although Chief Lewis's refreshing frankness helped cut through this pervasive cultural pressure to remain silent. I personally treat with suspicion those who disapprove of open discussion about this -- they often seem to have an agenda)

So at the time I decided to crunch the numbers to try to address naysayers who apparently didn't want neighbors getting together to talk about how we could best act to change things for the better.

it took a lot of time to crunch the New Haven/NY numbers so I'm not going to do that again.

In 2007 New Haven says there were 13 homicides.

But in 2008 New Haven said it was back up -- 22 homicides. NY's rates are even lower now than in 2006, but lots of smaller cities are dealing with increasing rates while the giant cities drop.

So 24 in 2006 has been the highest in a long time. But 2008 is close behind at 22.

I'll continue using 2006 numbers to stay consistent:

National homicide rates for agencies covering populations of 100-249K for Homicides(murder and nonnegligent homicide):

Rate was 7.7 homicides per 100K people in cities in the same size category as New Haven.

National homicide rates for agencies covering populations of 50K-99,999:

4.8 per 100,000 people.

New Haven's 2006 population was about 124,000.

New Haven's homicide rate for 2006 was 19 per 100,000 people. That is over twice the national average for cities within the same size category.

Agencies aren't cities, but this info I think is not supposed to include a subpart of a city. (Los Angeles for instance, which has several law enforcment agencies operating in what is common sense wise, 'the city')

To dig deeper in, you need to get more of the raw data, which is available, but not all online. For some you have to request it.

I think a while back I had a map that showed the location of each of New Haven's 2006 homicides, which definitely gave a way to talk more about different neighborhoods in New Haven. I remember that roughly half of them were in the Beaver Hills neighborhood because the Beaver Hills residents called meetings to work on a vision for the future in response to the number of them.

We could drill down to the neighborhoods with a lot more work, especially making sure the population numbers work out right.

There are a few really important things to keep in mind though. The FBI really discourages crime ranking of cities for bunches or reasons. It is only one tool.

Second, Of paramount imporantance is that people who feel there is a lot of crime in New Haven are too often shouted down. Some of that naysaying is by genuinely optimistic people who are guileless and just feel good here. Most of it is coming from groups and entities with real agendas who think misinformation is a fair way to deal with those around them and a fair way to advocate for what they want politically. It is bullying, coarse and destructive, but what can you do?

So compiling these numbers was one way to deal with, not just propaganda, but real misinformation -- you know, the thing Pres. Bush was accused of issuing. Bad stuff. I felt in early 2007 that it was necessary to do this and that the public deserves access to the info to reflect on it as one part of the picture.

Finally New Haven is small and tight. In many respects any one set of statistics would not show some things. Several interesting sets of statistics still might not fully reveal some things. New Haven crime is not as isolated as in many other places - it touches every area of the city geographically and, interestingly, institutionally. It is really kind of fascinating I think.

I find articles like this and the usual crime discussions in New Haven very discouraging.

My perception from the statements of Goldson (absurdly calling a historical record that is about as established and notorious as any in New Haven "rumor" and "innuendo") the yellow headline, the accusations of racism, the insertion of civil rights language into that brew of propaganda and misinformation is that New Haven's way of addressing problems is tired, disingenuous, lacking in creativity and dynamism and incredibly disrespectful of individual rights, which perhaps is the most tragic part.

New Haven favors approaches to solving problems that too often go beyond the specs of dirt that political action requires to get things done -- my firm opinion.

I feel players often get away with it without much damage to their "good guy" images, which I find breathtaking.

Further, New Haveners often say they think the way New Haven solves problems and does politics is exactly like absolutely every other place in America. Among those with this view are very educated people and that reveals how ostensibly worldly people can provincialize themselves, and a place, especially when they wield a great deal of power and influence.

That's a nice way of saying that the corridors of power are tiny clubby places where merit, ideas and dialogue are never guaranteed entrance.

There isn't a political move in New Haven, from a fence to a post, that isn't tainted by it.

Posted by: robn | December 30, 2009 5:45 PM

ANON,

In 2008, the rate of violent crime in the US was 4.5 per 1000 persons.(a pretty constant downward trend since 1989.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_01.html

In 2008, the rate of violent crime in the US cities inside of metropolitan areas was 4.9 per 1000 persons.
In 2008, the rate of violent crime in the US cities outside of metropolitan areas was 3.9 per 1000 persons.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_02.html

Unless I'm reading these stats wrong, this is what I'm finding for CT towns and cities....

New Haven
In 2006 (last year of full state available stats) the rate of violent crime in New Haven was 17.1 per 1000 persons. (the bulk being robbery and aggravated assault)
http://www.dir.ct.gov/dps/ucr/data/2006/New%20Haven%202006.pdf

Bridgeport
In 2006 (last year of full state available stats) the rate of violent crime in Bridgeport was 10.5 per 1000 persons. (the bulk being robbery and aggravated assault)
http://www.dir.ct.gov/dps/ucr/data/2006/Bridgeport%202006.pdf

Hartford
In 2006 (last year of full state available stats) the rate of violent crime in Hartford was 12.2 per 1000 persons. (the bulk being robbery and aggravated assault)
http://www.dir.ct.gov/dps/ucr/data/2006/Hartford%202006.pdf

Hamden
In 2006 (last year of full state available stats) the rate of violent crime in Hamden was 1.7 per 1000 persons.
http://www.dir.ct.gov/dps/ucr/data/2006/Hamden%202006.pdf

East Haven
In 2006 (last year of full state available stats) the rate of violent crime in East Haven was 1.2 per 1000 persons.
http://www.dir.ct.gov/dps/ucr/data/2006/East%20Haven%202006.pdf

That was as fine grained information as I could find. Where are you getting your New Haven neighborhood crime stats?

Posted by: robn | December 30, 2009 6:00 PM

JO,

The comparisons to NYC aren't so good because NYC is 65X more populous. The statistics of profoundly smaller cities like New Haven will be more profoundly affected by crime spikes (to exaggerate, if in a historically peaceful city with a population of ten, two people have a gunfight and kill each other, the murder rate will have jumped from zero to 200 per 1000 persons.)

Comparable city size data is interesting though. I'd be very interested in seeing your source for the comparable city data. How about some links?

Posted by: jo | December 30, 2009 6:52 PM

Final PS,
Anon, assuming the same thing shakes out for homicides as for Part 1 crimes and that westville, edgewood -- the outlying neighborhoods -- are safer than many other cities overall as you say - I think that is a legitimate point.

What does that say about the experience of residents in the city -- to stay out of areas except those on the borders of the city?

Also, what is your experience of institutions, private and public in New Haven? How has criminal activity penetrated them? That's an important one for me too and one statistics don't seem to tell us much about. When I say penetrated, I mean how much is it tolerated, enabled, promoted, protected, utilized in some way or occurring in these institutions? How many residents are victimized by repeat offenders currently actively being used by some local institution for some purpose or another?

Another important quality to the crime here for me has been how much of it involves victims who do not know the perpetrator -- random -- how much criminal intent inserts itself into the life of people minding their own business.

Which other cities have a crime corridor running right up the middle of the city and what difference does that make to all the neighborhoods? Are the safest neighborhoods at the periphery or at the heart of the city and what difference does that make to residents experiences?

I guess anecdotal info rounds out half the picture.

*****But MOST IMPORTANTLY, Neighboring towns are wary because New Haveners are still too much a lawless bunch of jerks. More than they are. Until we take a good long hard look in the mirror and decide to stop being that, neighboring towns are going to be wary. It's not rocket science. We can sue, we can sue for our right to be that in language that makes us out to be victims. Or we can shame Hamden into taking a crime risk by smearing the town in the press. [euphemistically called 'negotiating' (and the same way city residents are shamed into being mugging victims)] *****

Posted by: Darnell | December 30, 2009 7:41 PM

Jo:

I thought I was done but I guess not. Oh how you distort the record and then accuse me of doing so.

Your comments:

1."absurdly calling a historical record that is about as established and notorious as any in New Haven "rumor" and "innuendo"

I did not at anytime suggest that in the past there wasn't major problems at Brookside. What I suggested that those problems are in fact in the past, and those people, mainly elderly, should not be punished for the crimes of the past residents from that neighborhood. Any discussion that crime continues today in Hamden as a result of Brookside residents needs to be proven through actual facts and records, as I suggested in the article. Do you have those facts? If so, please share, if not, it is only "rumor" and innuendo".

2. "the accusations of racism".

Not once did I suggest or mention race as a factor in this issue. If you think I did so, please site where I did. In fact, clearly this is not an issue of racism, since the mayor of Hamden, and the majority of residents in that area are of the same race as the Hamden residents. This attempt to race the race card, and then accuse me of doing so, is not new, I have faced it before, so I'm not surprised that you would now attempt to do so, I just surprised it took so long.

3. "the insertion of civil rights language into that brew of propaganda and misinformation"

Of course I and other posters inserted civil rights language, it is clearly a civil rights issue. Containing, or detaining poor people in a fenced off area, limiting these people ability to freely travel on public roads, while other people have free access, outside of the criminal justice system, is a civil rights issue. You may not agree, but the law says it is so.

Please explain to me what you see as "propaganda and misinformation". Again, your argument would carry more weight with facts.

4. this is "New Haven's way of addressing problems is tired, disingenuous, lacking in creativity and dynamism and incredibly disrespectful of individual rights".

What is incredibly disrespectful of individual rights is the erection of that fence. That IS the most tragic part.

Posted by: Norton Street | December 30, 2009 9:24 PM

JO,
It is rarely appropriate to compare New York City and New Haven. Conditions in these two places are so vastly different that comparing something like crime rates is completely ridiculous because one is the most influential metropolis in the world and the other is a tiny New England city.
Here is a chart of the historic crime rates in more compatible cities:
http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs142.snc3/16955_1202067006920_1085910074_30506689_818145_n.jpg
Here is the 1990-2007 New Haven crime rate:
http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs155.snc1/5780_1127779389776_1085910074_30334992_5785016_n.jpg
In the first chart, New Haven has the second highest violent crime rate of the listed cities. Since this time, crime has dropped by about 60%. In recent years, homicides have been unusually high (which is mostly a result of chance more so than intent, i.e. not aiming the gun, distance, bad aim, etc), so using just homicides is a bad choice because if anything the unusually high homicides have skewed New Haven's crime rate to appear worse than it actually is. If we look at other crimes besides gun violence, we can observe that those numbers have dropped by at least 50% usually by 60% and sometimes more. These are the types of crimes-muggings, theft, burglary-that affect everyday citizens and hardworking people the most.
Now, it may sound like I'm dismissing homicides and shootings as irrelevant, but rather I think it is important to look at who the perpetrators and victims of shootings are. When we do look at the statistics, it immediately becomes clear that the people most directly effected by this are felons, people on probation or parole and/or individuals who have arrest records. This does not mean that the average citizen is never negatively effected by a shooting, just that the effects are mostly psychological.
Crime is too high in New Haven; crime is too high in most places in this country. Many if not most suburbs, for example, experience higher crime rates today, then their urban counterparts experienced at mid 20th century when suburbia was just becoming heavily populated with people who were leaving urban areas. This speaks to a cultural degradation that has occurred; and to address this it takes a unified national effort. A fence dividing a small section of a small neighborhood in a small city in a small state from another small neighborhood in a small town in the same state may be seen as a successful short term solution for one neighborhood, but it is, in the long term and judged at a larger scale, a negative condition that prevents the actual problems from being addressed.

Posted by: Norton Street | December 30, 2009 9:32 PM

One error with my previous post:
New Haven didn't have the second highest crime rate for comparable cities. In 1990, when New Haven's crime rate peaked, it was the 4th highest out of 13 other comparable places, when the rates for 9 additional comparable cities were not available, which means that we can infer that New Haven's peak violent crime rate is higher than the average rate for comparable cities in 1990.

Posted by: streever | December 31, 2009 10:24 AM

Jo, you seem convinced to go with your bias, but the facts as posted clearly contradict your assertions--I hope that you understand that your numbers are incorrect, even if you still earnestly believe that New Haven's crime level is too high.

Too many people have posted too many intelligent counters to your assertion for me to post a redux. Happy new year all!

Posted by: Bob Solomon | December 31, 2009 12:07 PM

Nothing Jo posted is evidence of her originall point, that crime was higher in public housing, particularly in the West Rock developments. Several posters talked about the drug trade, with no facts or specifics. In fact, both Rockview and Brookside have been demolished, and population has been minimal for several years.

Posted by: jo | December 31, 2009 9:59 PM

Robn,

The precinct level numbers I did for New York were from 2006 and I did not save them, but they were taken off the web and I think they were in PDF format. They were from NYPD. NYPD's numbers are at least audited, and in any case, were for homicides only, which tend to be the most accurate whether from an agency that submits audited reports to UCR or not. The biggest problem with doing NY is I had to compute the rate on my own and getting the population numbers for the precincts was hard. How I solved that I can not remember. I'm sorry.

The attempt to compare to smaller cities the size of New Haven -- I did that the other day. That was a quick take off UCR data and I can produce that link. It is at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_16.html

Norton Street's numbers in the links he provided don't contradict mine at all, so I really don't know what he means by presenting them that way. His charts contain Boston and Wash DC, yet he calls them more comparable cities. Not sure what element he is referring to. Nothing in his charts contradicts New Haven's homicide rates.

The UCR data I linked to compares way more cities, cities that are vastly different in many, many ways, but are in the same population ranges. So it is a rougher picture.

UCR does dig deeper in same ways -- for instance, it has comparisons for homicide clearance rates in counties of the same size, but broken out further as to whether they are isolated geographically or crowded next to other populous counties, that sort of thing.

This is not some super-precise number, but the suggestion that comparing to NY was somehow not good enough led me to grab the number for cities in a certain population size range.

To get the most detailed information, you have to get the raw data UCR uses to compile the reports. You can't get New Haven's raw data from the UCR people because if a city submits bogus numbers to UCR, they will be kicked out of the program, so New Haven hasn't submitted reports in years. New Haven can't submit them -- New Haven can't vouch for its numbers.

The homicide rate for New Haven was 19 per 100,000 people, period, according to best numbers for population for new haven at that time from the census bureau. Take it or leave it. I myself said in my post that we should be cautious about comparing, that it is one tool only. I say take it or leave it not so much in response to your post, Robn but to the others, who are shouting me down more than engaging me in any dialogue.

AS to some of the other posts that have responded to mine:

****Norton Street: "It is rarely appropriate to compare New York City and New Haven."

I have absolutely no idea what that is supposed to mean. NY to New Haven comparisons are relevant to me. I have lived in both cities and I was surprised when I moved here that there was so much crime for me. I had become used to being a little less worried about it because of NY. I had been lulled into a greater sense of security from NY, stupidly assuming that most cities had calmed down as NY had, so it is very relevant to me. I feel that way and I live in New Haven. I am relevant. I am somebody. Maybe NY stats are not appropriate for you and are not relevant for you.

Also, as has already been established, none of us knows New Haven's crime rates outside of homicides, so your detailed comments and arguments derived from those supposed numbers New Haven circulated publicly, while totally admitting that they are unreliable, are just that -- unreliable.

****Streever: "Jo, you seem convinced to go with your bias, but the facts as posted clearly contradict your assertions--I hope that you understand that your numbers are incorrect, even if you still earnestly believe that New Haven's crime level is too high.

Too many people have posted too many intelligent counters to your assertion for me to post a redux. Happy new year all!"

My hope for you, streever, in the new year is that you learn to evaluate facts for yourself instead of operating blindly using this sense of how intelligent people sound. I am searching for the post that establishes that my numbers were wrong and can't find it, only your claim that it is so.

As to bias, I don't know what you are referring to except my opinions about these issues.

"Bias" connotes unreasoned opinion, "opinion" doesn't connote that. It's just a smear. Show me the error in my numbers. Show me the error in my reasoning. Don't smear people. Especially don't smear people while coming off like a nice guy. Obviously I put reasoning into my efforts in these posts, so I think your post is just a pot shot.

When you say someone's numbers are false, you have to show how. No one has even said that besides you, and you haven't demonstrated a thing. The rate of homicides in New Haven for 2006 was 19 per 100K based on best data available - Census and the 24 homicides reported by NHPD. I computed that number with a calculator several times -- did I get it wrong?

As I explained, homicide rates tend to be most reliable and as I also explained, that is the only reason I used them, and in the context, (which I also already explained) of using that particular statistic for the limited purpose for which I thought it was useful and no more.

If you know of a homicide they kept off the books you should come forward. Census data isn't perfect, but its the best I could find. I worry about how the Yale population is factored into the census population number for New Haven but haven't found that out yet.

*****Darnell, there would be NO ISSUE here at all if residents of that project had NOT violated the rights of their neighbors IN that project AND in Hamden -- let's get real. That matters. Every single one of those victims is Somebody. They matter at least as much as the perpetrators and conditions that created the mess. Respect for individual rights starts there, that is the seed. The fence was a consequence of that seminal violation of individual rights, and community rights. That violation is the seminal one. And the individual is the fundamental unit of this democracy.

Expecting Hamden to own the shadow violation of rights when New Haven won't even admit the primary violation of rights is appalling. A fence isn't a gun in your mouth. A fence is not living in terror. A fence is not watching your kids every minute because the family in the unit next door is running a drive-through crack operation. Especially when Hamden did not run the housing authority, did not run New Haven's PD or city hall.

Hamden's sin is not building enough public housing of its own. Hamden's sin is letting New Haven, Waterbury, Meriden, Bridgeport, Hartford feed the state's poor, rehabilitate the state's drug addicts, try to guide the state's convicts to a better life.

So yeah, you bet it's tired rhetoric.

I want the fence to come down but I am not frightened to acknowledge that the fence went up because the crime was out of control, not because of a hatred of poor people or black people. Who was it who said that the sign of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing thoughts in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to think?

For what it is worth, as to the small number of seniors who remained in Brookside, your assumption that none of them are 1. a past resident of the project and 2. not engaged in crack dealing as a senior is false. Bob Solomon has the court case numbers. He knows exactly who I am talking about. Ask him. If he doesn't tell you, post back here and I will send them to you.

Whether there is a current threat is a question as there has been no repeat, whether the charges were trumped up, even though the arrestee pleaded guilty right away and was convicted is a question, whether PD was really after another family member is a question, but this notion that harmless seniors who had nothing to do with the past crime in rockview and if so were young when they were involved in it is an assumption that can't be made.

*** Bob Solomon, your response really takes the cake. You bait me so as to mob me. Unbelievable. You know that there is nowhere in any of my posts a statement by me that crime in public housing is higher. But you not only say that, you say it is my main point. That particular project was notorious, you know it, everyone knows it. If you want to join a discussion, please, feel free.

If you want to keep amazing yourself that you can run New Haven so easily by employing the methods of a five year old, be my guest. But that was just plain unintelligent.

Your response was just the kind of stuff that makes my flesh creep about new haven.

It is inaccurate, it is unfair, it is baiting and meant to bait. It is the kind of tactic that causes a 'discussion' to no longer be one, to lose relevance, inspiration, creativity and hope of rising to insight or finding truth. it drags it down. It proves my point.

I earnestly believe that the crime problem in new haven is eclipsed by new haven's low regard for the truth.

You can't find the truth if you don't look for it. And you don't look for it by calling someone something they are not in just the way that gets people and their ideas mobbed.

What are you going to do about that?: You know that there is nowhere in any of my posts a statement by me that crime in public housing is higher.

New Haven reportedly has a crime corridor and I believe that is true. I believe the PD on it. The cops know it from experience and the numbers though I would never use them as verifiable statistics are good enough to establish that I would think. My experience as a resident is consistent with it too. That corridor is not a corridor of public housing units.

You know that I not only never said it, you also know it was not my main point. It was not my point at all, it was not a contingent point, a subordinate point. It was in no way my point. And you know that.

What are you going to do about that?

What do you want to be remembered for, being a decent strategist who stood up for the ends justifying the means? Is that all?
PS to Darnell:

You misread my post. You are referring to my paragraph below and it is a list of criticisms. The first one was a criticism of your statement about rumors, the second criticism was about the headline written about the NHI and so on. The whole paragraph wasn't about your statements, the first line was:

"My perception from the statements of Goldson (absurdly calling a historical record that is about as established and notorious as any in New Haven "rumor" and "innuendo") the yellow headline, the accusations of racism, the insertion of civil rights language into that brew of propaganda and misinformation is that New Haven's way of addressing problems is tired, disingenuous, lacking in creativity and dynamism and incredibly disrespectful of individual rights, which perhaps is the most tragic part."

Posted by: Norton Street | January 1, 2010 1:53 PM

JO,
I believe New Haven's population numbers no longer include Yalies, although they did at some point in the mid 20th century.

The chart of comparable cities I posted were all northeastern industrial cities with extremely similar conditions within them and they had very similar rises and falls in the 20th century that lead to peak crime rates around 1990.
One reason New York is not comparable to New Haven in terms of crime is because many of New York's 'safe neighborhoods' are much larger than New Haven's in terms of square mileage. For instance, someone living in middle of the Upper East Side is not going to be affected by a homicide at the edge of Harlem because the sheer number of blocks is too great. However, someone living in the middle of Westville may very well be affected by a homicide on the edge of the West River neighborhood because the distance is much less.
New Haven used to have the highest number of US patents per capita around the turn of the 20th century; immigrants and migrants flocked to the city for opportunity. At the turn of the 21st cenutry, New Haven's crime was high, the population hit rock bottom, Yale, a private company, that once owned a handfull of buildings know comtrolled about a quarter of the city, and by any measure New Haven was a post industrial American city on its knees. What happened? There are many reasons things changed so drastically; a large portion of the problems stem from the conditions that occur in West Rock and Pine Rock. The federal government, after World War 2, ordered the construction of millions of housing units to provide housing for veterans coming home and for people who were still living in decaying urban housing. Brookside and Pine Rock were both from this era of government sponsored mass construction. Low income families were warehouses in barrack style lowrise buildings, and middle class people were warehoused in sprawling single family houses that were built over woodland. This artificial separation, coupled with lack of easy accessibility to and an abundance of jobs lead to the problems that existed between the two communities. A fence is quite possibly the laziest, most short-sighted, ineffective (people still cross the fence) and embarrassing display of problem solving that I've ever seen aside from the thought that we could simply warehouse people based on income and that everything would be fine. I'm not sure there is any doubt that the fence was put up because of crime, what seems to be the issue is that the fence is still up and when hundreds of millions of dollars are being put into building a new community, Hamden's stance seems to be to wait until construction is done, then wait many years to see how if its successful (what standard they'll use is unknown), then maybe take the fence down. What needs to happen is that Hamden needs to be actively involved in the success of the new development starting today, if not to make the lives of the future residents better, than for their own long term interests.
Also keep in mind that Brookside and Rockview were built prior to the Pine Rock neighborhood.
Also, using only homicide rates is ineffective at communicating the lack of safety towards people in the Pine Rock neighborhood.
Let's say that there was a rape at 2am a block from my house. I would feel awful for the victim, even though I did not know the person and I would hope that the person is able to recover from it. Now, I am not worried about getting raped even though I frequently walk on my street, multiple times a day. I am not worried because, 1. I do not fit the demographic of the victim, nor do I fit the demographic of the city-wide demographic of rape victims, and 2. I am rarely if ever outside walking at 2am. This can also be applied to shooting incidents. There was a shooting a block from my house this year, but it does not prevent me from frequenting that corner multiple times a day because 1. I did not know the victim, 2. I do not stand at that corner at that time of night, 3. I do not fit the demographic of the victim, and 4. I do not fit the city-wide demographic for shooting victims. However, there are reasons to be careful, observant and alert while anywhere, possibly more so in a place like New Haven. I just don't see the justification for, what I perceive as, acts of lunacy based on the level of exaggerated fearfulness that you and many other people have when it comes to interpretations of crime rates.
I do know people who have been killed and wounded in this city-I think it would be difficult to find a young person who went to this city's public schools that doesn't know at least one person-but I do not use this as a reason to build a 15 foot fence around my house and my neighbor's houses; I do, however, use it as a reason for why we need to do a better job addressing the problems and enacting better solutions to the problems. This is why I am against this fence, because I, along with many others, realize it is preventing a good solution for being realized, not being a good solution itself.

Posted by: Jo | January 1, 2010 5:04 PM

Norton, I know NYC better than you think. Almost every neighborhood in NY has lower homicide rates. I didn't crunch numbers except for homicide rates because as I've said probably three or four times (I don't know why this isn't getting through) New Haven's numbers except for homicides are so skewed that they only serve for rough impressions. It is nuts crunching them to get percentages.

You keep misreading my use of them and keep ignoring the fact I relayed that in New Haven I have been subjected to lots of crime and in NY I wasn't, and I lived in various neighborhoods in NY and here.

I SEE your point about the city being smaller geographically, and made that point myself several times. If NY had really bad pockets, I wouldn't have used it as a good example, and yhour point would have more relevance, but NY doesn't.

I know I don't fit the demographic of most shooting victims in New Haven, that wasn't my point for using homicide rates.

As for lunacy of drumming up baseless fears -- that's an assumption. The assumption is that I am saying there is more crime because I fear there is whithout having experienced more crime or having any evidence there is more crime. If you've managed to avoid it, good for you. I hope you aren't in the verge of suggesting I am a lunatic because I've experienced crime here.

The fact is I have both experienced far more crime here and the numbers show there is more crime here. What else do I need to make the point?

If it were just a little bit more, I wouldn't be speaking out so hard on it, it is a lot more.

And not only a lot more than in NY for me, but everywhere else I have ever lived in my life. Of course that is relevant. Why does New Haven so vehemently downplay its crime level?

You call that lunacy, and all I can say is that's typical New Haven, shouting down everyone who just tells the truth.

Hamden may wait a few years no matter what New Haven does, including suing, who knows. It wouldn't be the worst crime. Better if they can tour some of the improved projects in New Haven to see how they are and act on it now, but they may not do that.

As head of the housing authority, Bob Solomon has excellent and enhanced access to information about the crime that was in Rockview etc., including where many of those involved live now. His agency is in charge of reviewing each applicant and he knows exactly what the supposed criminal makeup is of every one of his tenants in this city.

The point I have been making from the beginning is that calling Hamden racist, or some kind of stalinist Berlin wall builders appears to be Bob Solomon's and NHI's ideas, respectively, as to how to get Hamden to do what it wants. I think it is a smear campaign.

At the same time, I think Solomon, who has all those crime histories for the old project, is pretty blase about New Haven's failure and the behavior of some of those tenants in the Westville project.

Posted by: Darnell | January 1, 2010 5:55 PM

Jo:

You have made many accusations, known of which have been backed up by facts yet.

You state that I am accusing the Hamden folks of having "a hatred of poor people or black people." Where, again, have I made that accusation.

"A fence isn't a gun in your mouth...A fence is not watching your kids every minute because the family in the unit next door is running a drive through crack operation." You claim that seniors currently living at Brookside are dealing drugs. PLEASE provide FACTS, not UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS.

In my previus post, I asked you to back up with facts your previous unfounded and unproven accusations, which you failed to do. Now you come with more of the same, without even attempting to justify the previous post.

Just a reminder of the previous post.

1."absurdly calling a historical record that is about as established and notorious as any in New Haven "rumor" and "innuendo"

I did not at anytime suggest that in the past there wasn't major problems at Brookside. What I suggested that those problems are in fact in the past, and those people, mainly elderly, should not be punished for the crimes of the past residents from that neighborhood. Any discussion that crime continues today in Hamden as a result of Brookside residents needs to be proven through actual facts and records, as I suggested in the article. Do you have those facts? If so, please share, if not, it is only "rumor" and innuendo".

2. "the accusations of racism".

Not once did I suggest or mention race as a factor in this issue. If you think I did so, please site where I did. In fact, clearly this is not an issue of racism, since the mayor of Hamden, and the majority of residents in that area are of the same race as the Hamden residents. This attempt to race the race card, and then accuse me of doing so, is not new, I have faced it before, so I'm not surprised that you would now attempt to do so, I just surprised it took so long.

3. "the insertion of civil rights language into that brew of propaganda and misinformation"

Of course I and other posters inserted civil rights language, it is clearly a civil rights issue. Containing, or detaining poor people in a fenced off area, limiting these people ability to freely travel on public roads, while other people have free access, outside of the criminal justice system, is a civil rights issue. You may not agree, but the law says it is so.

Please explain to me what you see as "propaganda and misinformation". Again, your argument would carry more weight with facts.

4. this is "New Haven's way of addressing problems is tired, disingenuous, lacking in creativity and dynamism and incredibly disrespectful of individual rights".

PLEASE stop posting with these rumors, PLEASE provide facts.

Posted by: JO | January 1, 2010 7:15 PM

To Norton Street and Anon re crime data:

The crime data you got from state sources is not UCR. One of them uses ucr in the url. That is just a generic use that probably refers to the fact that it is the same crime categories/format. It's an adjective.

The UCR is a federal publication.

The state's tables are made up of reports from both towns that do and do not submit to UCR/FBI. Of those that don't, it is because they can't. Their numbers are not accurate enough to submit.

Even audited numbers are inherently inaccurate, mostly in descending order of the seriousness of the crime.

Homicide rates are considered the most accurate.

Criminologists will tell you this, cops will tell you this. NHPD cops will tell you this. People in the state who never tell you this are news reporters.

PERF criticized NHPD for this, and much of it had to do with understaffing. Chief Lewis was at first shocked by it but understood once he looked at that.

Unlike in some states, Connecticut requires law enforcement agencies to submit to UCR/FBI (federal - not the same as reporting to the state)

New Haven apparently submits its crime reports to the state but wouldn't dare submit those reports to the feds because as I said over and over those reports are almost garbage. They don't meet the minimum standards. New Haven can not legally send those in -- is this sinking in?

The reason this isn't clear and why a reader has to harp on it over and over in this posting area is because the newspapers in this state have done a horrible job with it. They just parrot the yearly report out of NHPD uncritically and look with suspicion at anyone who thinks they should make a disclosure or a qualification a part of every story that includes the stats. They'd rather do that than hunker down and study best practices. They don't seem to think it matters.

Posted by: The Professor | January 2, 2010 12:39 AM

Mr. Goldson,

I find it a bit funny that your last reply had absolutely nothing to do with the facts involved here, or even the different strategies that we espouse, yet you criticize me for not sticking to substance. I also find it remarkable that the man who compared me to the passive enablers of slavery and who compared Hamden officials to those who actively contributed to increased suffering and death in New Orleans is now positioning himself as the champion of fact-based rational discourse.

I want to clarify here--I never said that you're a sociopath. I basically said that the position you were advocating was somewhat sociopathic. Think of it this way--if a kid at Yale drinks himself into the hospital, he did something stupid. But that doesn't mean that he's a stupid person. I see the gradations in the world, so in most cases (including this one) I won't judge anyone solely on the basis of one stand that they take on one issue. However, I'm going to "call them like I see them," and your comparisons of the fence to slavery and to depraved indifference to human suffering were completely inappropriate and would probably be remarkably offensive to anyone who lost a loved on in New Orleans. The comparisons lacked a sense of perspective and a distorted sense of conscience, as they implied that slavery is the moral equivalent of the fence.

I'd also like to clarify further and make the reasons for my criticism of the statements and comparisons completely explicit. I'm not inherently troubled by these statements. People say outrageous things all the time, and that's especially true on these quasi-anonymous online message boards. I could really care less. But the problem that I had with these statements is that comparisons of the fence to slavery and to depraved indifference to human suffering were being advanced by an elected official as justification for a particular course of action on the part of public servants. Not only that, but the comparisons are so over the top--keep in mind again that the statements imply that Hamden is doing something morally equivalent to stripping people of their basic humanity or directly contributing to needless death and suffering--that they actually run the very real risk of permanently crippling efforts to get that fence taken down. So my attacks on your comparisons, Mr. Goldson, were not personal attacks on you, and I apologize if you took them as such. They were, however, spirited attacks on your justification for an irresponsible course of action.

So yes, I used the term "sociopathic." I did not, however, use it to describe you; rather, I used it to describe your preferred strategy. I think that we're in a situation where we'll lose if we litigate and we can't really appeal to a higher level of government for help, so we have to negotiate with Hamden. For what it's worth, I also think that a strategy of accusing Hamden of violating civil rights and comparing the city's actions to slavery at a time when we need to be negotiating with Hamden defies common sense, but that doesn't mean that I think those who advocate the strategy are devoid of common sense.

Finally, I want to again emphasize that we both want the same thing here. We just have a huge disagreement about how to go about getting it. Unfortunately, as you said earlier, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I'm concerned that the strategy that you advocate will take us down that road.

Posted by: robn | January 2, 2010 10:18 AM

I think this might be an NIH record for the number of posts approaching or exceeding the word count of the original article.

Posted by: Norton Street | January 2, 2010 2:23 PM

JO,
I don't see how one can compare crime rates in New York City to those in New Haven, I don't think I ever will.

The lack of accuracy for New Haven's recent crime statistics is universally understood, but I do not know of a decent sized police department that has recently been able to skew a 60% drop in crime from peak levels in the early 1990's to today, which New Haven has. I just don't think that type of manipulation is possible.
All crimes are not reported, but nearly all reported crimes are recorded. The only way I know of that departments can skew numbers in by moving them around-meaning that the total crimes remains the same, but individual categories shift. Generally the crimes that are not reported are coming from people who do not wish to involve police, which implies that they themselves are involved in crime. Most working people who are contributing members to society report crimes if they are victims. That is relevant because the people we are talking about in context with this fence are working people, so the crime statistics represent crimes against people like them.
I was not old enough to remember what New Haven was like at peak crime levels, I only can remember what this city was like after the federal raids that jailed the city's top members of the drug gangs, which happened between 1992 and 1994. However, my older brothers assure me that things were much different-meaning much more dangerous in the early 90s than they are today. I think anyone who was around then and still around now will back that up.
What were some of the factors that made crime drop so dramatically?
People began investing in city neighborhoods and the downtown. The restaurants that New Haven is now known for did not exist in the early 90s, downtown was a deserted scene. After the drug gangs were removed, people felt safer and so there was activity brought to the city that had largely been absent since the 70s. Essentially New Haven had been bordered (or fenced) off from surrounding towns beginning in the late 60s, but in the late 90s, that began to change and positive things began happening in the city.
This same opportunity has come up in West Rock and Pine Rock. We can either keep the fence and see things not change, or we can open the border and allow Hamden to become active in the rejuvenation, which I feel is a much better solution.
I'd love to just sit back and watch problems go away, but in this period of our history we don't have that luxury. We have to be active in the things that matter, we have to participate if we want things done correctly. If people in the Hamden neighborhood don't want to have to work for the things they want then they can build a time machine.

Posted by: Jo | January 2, 2010 4:15 PM

Sheesh Darnell, I already did this:

Your number 1. I answered that, I said if MacMillan didn't distinguish between past and present when HE quoted you saying what you said about rumor and innuendo, you need to take it up with him. He wrote the story -- Except for the mostly senior housing, the places are torn down, so what are we taking about?

Your number 2 and 3. I already posted that I was not referring to you. Read my posts, all of them, the other ones. It is all in the posts. My response regarding race is explained, it was a response to Bob Solomon's exposition on the law. In another post I explain in detail the origins of my concern about propaganda/misinformation.

There are a lot of long posts up here including mine, especially mine, but if you want to know what those are about, read all my earlier posts. This is the second time I've answered your complaint about me and you proceed as if I haven't or won't.

You said:
"You claim that seniors currently living at Brookside are dealing drugs. PLEASE provide FACTS, not UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS."

I never said that, what I said is that a senior there was convicted of that, a felony drug charge, as a senior, not when she was a youth but it was a while ago. It should have gotten her kicked out of public housing, but she wasn't.

You are an alderman and can call up the info from PD in an instant -- it was a conviction, there is nothing nonpublic about it. For all I know there are more than one. I happen to know of that one.

As I said as well, ask Bob Solomon. He is well aware of it. If he refuses to disclose to you the names of felons living in public housing, what do you care? If you cared, you would have had the info in your hands overnight and wouldn't be denying it and smearing me as a rumor monger on this website.

Maybe they think she was falsely accused by police, even though she pleaded guilty, not exactly far fetched. Maybe that is why they keep subsidizing her and her family. Or maybe they just failed to evict her.

Here's an idea, here's a real New Haven way out of your problem: Why don't you run the convict/s names up to the pardons board monday morning, get the record/s erased pronto, get it/them taken out of the court database and then you can have your cake and eat it too. You can keep calling me a liar on this web site and PROVE I'm one by having had all record of the felony erased.

I ought to charge for political consulting.

It is pretty clear to me that you have no interest in my posting the name and case number on this website. So I don't know why you are egging me on to do it.

Posted by: Jo | January 2, 2010 4:46 PM

OK, I stand somewhat corrected, MacMillan did distinguish that you, Darnell, were referring to the current public housing out in Westville on the Hamden border (see cut and paste below) It wasn't clear to me if he asked you to respond to complaints about the old projects of current crime:

'Goldson also took issue with Hamden neighbors’ depiction of West Rockers as criminals.

“Right now the people of West Rock are elderly. That’s all who are out there at this point,” Goldson noted. “If someone can show me statistics that crime is happening in Hamden because of Brookside, maybe they have an argument for more police protection. To characterize a group of people based on conjecture and innuendo and rumors is unfair.”'

Posted by: Darnell | January 2, 2010 7:01 PM

Robn, clever, and funny also.

Jo, not trying to egg you on. I like to deal with facts, and I do not like people mis-characterizing my comments. I don't want you to post people names on the net, especially if the mistake that the person made was a time ago and they have reformed themselves. Redemption is important, saints are made from sinners, except for you, of course. You, I'm sure, have never made any mistakes in your life.

Posted by: jo | January 2, 2010 7:50 PM

Can we broaden this discussion a little by putting the fence aside for a minute? (And the nasty political attack that NHI and other brain-dead liberals utilized to launch publicity about this fence?)

A lot of people have the heebie-jeebies about this redevelopment for a few reasons. 1. it is a giant project. 2. it is isolated on the suburban outskirts. 3. it already failed once and one of the elements of the failure that people asserted was its isolation. 4. It seems to go against those who have thought that integration of subsidized tenants throughout a city would be a better way to go. (Apparently that didn't work very well) 5. The mixed income/low income owner plan may not fly like it did at Quinnipiac, which has so many assets connected to its location/community context it sold itself.

On the other hand, 1.concentration has some assets -- programs are more accessible - computer labs, drug intervention, possibly Head Start, etc might be on site, right?

2. It's the closest we may ever come to getting Hamden to share some of the public housing burden, as it is right on the border.

I still have the heebie-jeebies though -- it is so big and it is so isolated. I can't fathom how new haven is going to pull this off so that it has a safe and successful community.

I also do not know how this makes any progress towards eliminating the belief that public housing is supposed to be lived in for 60 years or more by multiple generations of the same family. That kind of stagnation deprives lots of people use of a stint in public housing when they need it. (because the unit is occupied by a family that has stagnated for generations. This in a country that as no other on this planet still has the greatest opportunity for upward mobility -- there is no excuse for creating and allowing a culture of stagnation like that)

I believe in affordable housing, but since we don't consider housing a right here in America, I don't think a family should hog a unit for more than one generation without the slightest cringe or pinch of conscience.

We don't even allow deduction of rent on our taxes in this country. So no, seeing a family skating along in public housing for three, four generations in a row says everything I need to know about their character and a culture isolated from every other that helped to form that character.

Lets look at Monterey Place: What caused crime to decrease when it replaced what was there before? If indeed it decreased as the city says?

Was it just that the architecture was done well, lending respect, dignity or was there more? Was there different screening for tenants? Is it mixed income (I don't know)? Are there programs in place on site that weren't there before?

I believe in good architecture. There is nothing more degrading than living in a dump. But what was the whole recipe for success for Monterrey?

Honestly, I have to wonder if everyone at the city and the housing authority has their fingers crossed on this redevelopment in Westville.

Posted by: William Kurtz | January 3, 2010 9:27 AM

With all respect for your passion and your sincerity, Mr. Goldson, I think you're characterizing 'Jo' and 'the Professor' a little unfairly. This situation is one of those where binary thinking (black/white; right/wrong) may not be that useful. Yes, a fence between neighborhoods may be unneighborly and unseemly in the early 21st century, but at the same time, the people who live over there had legitimate reasons for wanting it not that long ago. Crime was a real, concrete concern, not an irrational fear. While I was in grad school at SCSU, I drove New Haven school buses for a while and it was well-known that Brookside was a sketchy area. I myself had a window shot out there while there were students still on the bus. If I lived in Pine Rock, I would probably be wary of resurgent public housing there, too. That anxiety might turn out to be groundless--and it might be groundless now, given that the area's mostly elderly housing, but you can't sue it away or make it disappear by calling it a civil-rights violation. I think some solution that recognizes the very real concerns of all the people involved would go a long way towards resolving this problem. Perhaps the courts shouldn't be the first solution.

Posted by: Norton Street | January 3, 2010 1:56 PM

JO,
I pretty much completely agree with everything you've said in your most recent post.
Our country should be working towards having almost no public housing at all, except for certain cases. The reality is, is that this project is happening, I wish it weren't, but it is and its time to get involved, not throw our hands up. I have been extremely critical of this project; if you've seen my posts in other articles about this, my opposition to this would be clear. There is not waterfront like in Q Terrace, there is no established Main Street nearby like in Monterey Place, there is no connected grid of streets, there is barely anything for the housing project to build from. However, there is opportunity in this project and Hamden should take advantage of that by seeing how they can get involved in the process in ways that benefits them the most. Can lots be left open in the plan for private investments? Will there be open store fronts for small business people who may walk to work from Hamden? Will there be places to shop and eat? If Hamden encourages the opening of the boarder, and perhaps even asks for more connections, then the plan for this development changes drastically. If there is a sizable group of middle class people who are willing to invest time, money, and presence in this development then, in turn, there would be space, buildings, lots, homes, etc planned for this demographic.

Also, while a large portion of the country experienced generational upward mobility beginning in mid 20th century, many black migrants and Puerto Rican immigrants who were unable to establish stability in places like New Haven due to the fast deindustrialization of the country beginning soon after these two groups moved into Northeastern cities have experienced generational downward mobility. Even black families who arrived in New Haven in the 30s and 40s and got decent manufacturing jobs, owned homes in New Haven and had enough money to 'move up' in the 50s were unable to do so because racists prevented them from buying homes in suburban communities. So, many families were stuck in neighborhoods that would soon lose most of their businesses and services to the suburbs. Alternatively, many of the families that have now experienced generational upward mobility through suburbia represent an entitlement culture that produces children who grow up with multiple cars, large homes, lots of food, etc and expect the same or better for themselves, without ever feeling the need to experience what their past generations did in order to stabilize their family.
As for Monetery Place, it is one of the lowest crime areas in the city, it rivals Westville and East Rock. The Elm Have projects (that Monterey Place replaced) were one of the highest crime areas in the northeast in the late 80s and even after the demolition of the high-rises continued to experience the highest crime levels in the city. The architecture of Monetery Place is reflective of traditional New England town architecture that looks normal and not like an experiment, but the big difference is the site planning-what were before one way streets and parking lots are now a series of gridded tree lined, connected streets. There is also more usable and defined open green space, the density is lower, the total number of housing units is lower, the screening process is more extensive and restrictive, there are market rate houses, which creates a mixed income atmosphere even though much of the housing is subsidized, and I am unsure about any new programs.

Here are some images of the old Elm Haven:
plan from the 30s:
http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs122.snc3/16955_1204949478980_1085910074_30514124_269836_n.jpg
model from the 30s:
http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs122.snc3/16955_1204949518981_1085910074_30514125_1356538_n.jpg
http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs122.snc3/16955_1204949558982_1085910074_30514126_632317_n.jpg
http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs122.snc3/16955_1204949598983_1085910074_30514127_7504682_n.jpg
http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs122.snc3/16955_1204949598983_1085910074_30514127_7504682_n.jpg
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs142.snc3/16955_1204949638984_1085910074_30514128_1708401_n.jpg
http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs142.snc3/16955_1204949318976_1085910074_30514120_7340304_n.jpg
http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs142.snc3/16955_1204949358977_1085910074_30514121_6609799_n.jpg
http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs142.snc3/16955_1204949398978_1085910074_30514122_4759633_n.jpg
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs142.snc3/16955_1204949438979_1085910074_30514123_3971358_n.jpg
This is from the 60s or 70s after the high-rises were built:
http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs122.snc3/16955_1204949238974_1085910074_30514118_2960925_n.jpg
http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs122.snc3/16955_1204949278975_1085910074_30514119_7259847_n.jpg
These are from the 80s and 90s:
http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs142.snc3/16955_1204949198973_1085910074_30514117_2091087_n.jpg
http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs122.snc3/16955_1204949758987_1085910074_30514130_3809011_n.jpg

Posted by: Jo | January 3, 2010 1:56 PM

Thanks William Kurtz.

Darnell, I don't appreciate the pot shot you just took at me suggesting I am throwing stones from a glass house. My criticism is that we are throwing stones at Hamden from a glass house because we can't admit what we did, which is worse than what Hamden did.

REgarding characterizing felonious acts as "mistakes." A shot through a school bus, not to mention when kids are on it, for example, is only rather euphemistically referred to as a "mistake." It is serious, dangerous, terrifying, the ultimate destructive behavior for individuals, lives, communities. Don't be an apologist for that while railing on Hamden for its inexcusable civil rights violations.

Is not shooting out a school bus window an inexcusable civil and human rights violation? Are you starting to understand my disgust at our state of denial and enabling of law breaking?

As to posting the case number, of course you don't want me to -- it doesn't support your position, but it is easy to get for anyone who wants to spend a couple of days digging it up. You and Bob Solomon could get it in five minutes. By definition, you have it in your hands already.

As to reform, well, she hasn't been busted in the last few years. Her family though isn't exactly enhancing the civil life of New Haven.

If she had been evicted when she was supposed to be, she and her scourge of family members clogging the courts here in New Haven to this day may have followed her to a more tolerant town to move to. Maybe that isn't the most ideal solution, but there is only so much you can do when a family of multiple generations just don't get it. We do more than most places for people in need. Frankly, I don't know a more tolerant town, to the point of self-destructive.

Their leaving would have saved a lot of their neighors and other new haven people and businesses and court services a lot of grief, destruction and expense. Instead, we keep subsidizing their corrosive activities.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | January 3, 2010 4:14 PM

Dear Jo -

I do not believe in referring to people who disagree with me as "brain dead," as you do.
I do not believe in disclosing private information, as you urge.
I do not believe in setting public policy based on vague, anecdotal rumors, as you suggest.

I will admit that I got a good laugh at you complaining about a "pot-shot" from Darnell, given your own language - "brain-dead," "five-year old," "unintelligent," "Makes my flesh creep." Really - you should read your own stuff.

Posted by: Jo | January 3, 2010 4:52 PM

....

So-called progressive stances on crime in New Haven, which, without the thin fig leaf of euphemisms for harmless mistakes like felonies, would be a naked act of advocating crime as lifestyle, versus, Hamdon's crime of a fence, is exactly why conservatives like Cruz, the state's victim advocate, get to use their platform to rail like a nutcase for the death penalty, for closing down open government and for creating the tyranny of the victim in the criminal courts. These are favors of Cruz's (and Rell's) I DON'T WANT as a crime victim myself. I can thank her as much as what she is reacting to from progressives for the complete joke of it.

So yeah, the politics is dumbed down and dishonest and thinking people don't appreciate it.

SECOND: That conviction is not "private," it is absolutely public record, it is in fact public. There is nothing more public than a conviction.

Public interest additionally attaches to it because she is housed in public housing. How well the law that bans felonies like hers in public housing is a matter the public has the right to review and great interest in reviewing. Especially because in her case it didn't work.

As housing chairman, you have almost instant access to the info, if you don't already know exactly who I am talking about (there are not that many residents up there) and by harping on it as a "rumor," you are deliberately deceiving the public in your post.

That you are calling it "private," makes you an advocate for secret government, because courts are open, for starters.

This conservatism you are displaying is interesting.

Hide facts from the public, call public records private -- what are you going to advocate for next Mr. Solomon, a star chamber? Maybe you should get with Cruz on that. She'd love it.

I originally didn't post the case numbers out of discretion. I am now not posting it because, even though it is public and Bass or anyone else can post it, and it certainly is in the public interest in a discussion of claims about crime in West Rock, I am concerned you are fishing for a lawsuit based on the opinions I've expressed about the conviction.

I know you know about it, so your deceiving, baiting assertion that it is vague rumor is intimidating to me. I think you are trying to get me to take the bait and post the case numbers.
...

Posted by: Jo | January 3, 2010 5:30 PM

Let's just cut to the chase, Darnell and Bob Solomon:

Is Brookside housing anyone with a felony conviction, yes or no?

Is Brookside housing anyone with misdemanor conviction? yes or no.

We can talk later about what it means or whether it should matter. Please just answer the question simply, we can discuss it later. We have the right to know.

Posted by: Darnell | January 3, 2010 7:34 PM

Jo:
...

Jo - "My criticism is that we are throwing stones at Hamden from a glass house because we can't admit what we did."

I think everyone who has posted here, including me, have stipulated to the fact that a time ago crime was out of control at Brookside. So, please get off the high horse. If you want to live in the past, so be it. The folks out in Brookside should not have to suffer for the sins of the past residents.

Jo - "REgarding characterizing felonious acts as "mistakes." A shot through a school bus, not to mention when kids are on it, for example, is only rather euphemistically referred to as a "mistake." It is serious, dangerous, terrifying, the ultimate destructive behavior for individuals, lives, communities. Don't be an apologist for that while railing on Hamden for its inexcusable civil rights violations."

Wow, can we exaggerate the situation any more than that. Are you trying to insinuate that one "supposed" act of vandalism defines the entire experience in Brookside. Are we supposed to believe this claim that shots were fired through a busload of students. Well again, I don't. Provide a police report, EVIDENCE. You know good and well that I said that one person making one mistake should not be punished for the rest of their life. Of course anyone wielding guns or committing violent crimes on others should not be included in this class, but that isn't what you were referring to when I responded. In the matter of fact, you never really specified what the "supposed" criminal act was. It is all so mysterious. But of course, it serves your purpose, the mystery of a nameless and faceless individual throwing around unspecific accusations.

By the way, my aunt recently informed me that my family was one of the first black families to move out to Brookside, from Ansonia after the big flood. She said that the folks in Brookside looked down on the folks at Rockview, because Brookside was privately owned and managed with HUD subsidies, while Rockview was Housing Authority managed. That was about sixty years ago. Two things come to mind when I think of this:

1. Times and circumstances change, what was in the past doesn't define what will be in the future. Should my family be marked by the Brookside of 10 years ago?

2. Some things, particularly attitudes, never change. I'm only slightly surprised that the Brookside folks didn't build a fence to keep out the Rockview residents.

What is so frustrating is that at one time, My family belonged to the elite class that wanted to fence folks out, yuck.

Posted by: Tommy | January 3, 2010 9:11 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKCCy9pKpR4&feature=related

A music video of Brookside

Posted by: Bob Solomon | January 4, 2010 8:26 AM

Jo - It is a violation of the Privacy Act to disclose any information about any public housing resident. ... You do not have the right to know personal information from Housing Authority files. As both Darnell and I have stated, there are no residents at Brookside or Rockview. In fact, there is no Brookside or Rockview, since both have been demolished. I understand that you will keep up the rhetoric, with insults and demands, but life goes on. My first post in this interminable thread was an attempt to move beyond that. ...

Posted by: Jo | January 4, 2010 3:43 PM

Bob, you can confirm whether there are felony convictions or not, and I'll bet you have HUD reporting requirements, without releasing names.

You certainly do not have the right to suggest those who happen to know are liars, rumor mongers and so on when they are not and you know they are not. Call it Ribicoff - Ribicoff cottages are gone and no seniors are there?

Time for you to review your constitutional law too, isn't it.

And whether it is OK to misrepresent the crime statistics as to your residents - it isn't in the privacy act that you can go about doing that, is it.

You're the rhetorician who doesn't care about the truth of it.

I also tried to move the discussion somewhere beyond a heated debate, but our motives for doing that were different, weren't they. I've just been trying to get at the truth and point out an unfairness, your motive is to get out of real discourse or debate. And NHI is happy to assist you with it.

The public is under no obligation to refrain from pointing out that you are housing people with criminal records.

You both indirectly confirmed it AND accused the messenger of making it up in your posts.

Rhetoric over truth - that was my "original point," in case you still don't see that.

Posted by: Jo | January 5, 2010 8:07 PM

Paul Bass is forcing me to debate with one hand tied behind my back because of censorship of my posts.

...

Bass, you are out of line. You have a lot of nerve posting this on your left column as a "today's debates." it's not a debate, it is a scandalous manipulation.

[Editor's note: We have been removing many parts of comments that personally attack people on this thread. We don't want that on this site. If you'd like to discuss why certain comments were removed, please email us, or provide a real email address when you post. You have included phony addresses, so our efforts to contact you have failed. Parts of comments posted by several different readers, on all sides of this issue, have been redacted on this thread. The debate's great. The issue's great. Some of the comments have gotten too personal and nasty. We make no apologies for removing those comments. If you want to take out your personal hatred of people or groups of people through comments on news articles, go to the web sites of the Register or Advocate or Courant. They publish those comments without screening them. Our policy is different. We're trying to have a civil debate.]

Posted by: Adam | January 7, 2010 8:51 AM

For a look at the early history of the West Rock fence, check out my recent post on http://www.walkbikect.com/.

Posted by: Gary Onofrio | January 7, 2010 2:00 PM

Interesting, those articles go way back. Where did you find them?

Posted by: Adam | January 7, 2010 4:46 PM

In researching West Rock's history, I was fortunate to find a thick file of newspaper clippings from the 1950s and 1960s in one of the Housing Authority's file storage rooms.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen | January 8, 2010 7:38 PM

I find that I must comment on Brookside in the late 50's. I moved to Brookside when I was seven years old I am now 62. My family yes I said family were happy to be moving out to the country from the city. We called it the counry then. My father and mother both worked as did many parents at that time did. Just about all the families then were two parent working class people. To name a few you Had Billy White family living there yes Billy White New Haven Det.. You had many New Haven police officers living there at that time Vinney Morton, Burt Gifford, New Haven police officers. See at that time you needed to have a job when you moved to Brookside. Brookside was the working class people. Rockview was different you didn't need a job to live there and it wa alot of single parents. Brookside was a mixed community then and believe it or not we all got along,it was nice to grow up there. When I graduated yes graduated from high school in 1965 thats when we saw the change in who was moving in. When you lived in Brookside back then you went to school. High school, college or something that involved higher education. Coming from working parents that was what you were suppose to do back then. A lot of the old familes started to move out when a lot of single parents started to move in and a different air came about the projects. My parents moved out in 1966 as like a lot of the old timers, they all bought their own homes. I just had to react to all the comments that people were writing who never lived in the project who know nothing about a real mixed (black and white) community. If you put working class together you won't have any problems and if there are problems the community can handle their own. It was nice growing up in Brookside from ages 7-17.