New Haven Independent

Posted by: streever | December 9, 2009 7:32 AM

I think Cutler's comment about "Joe Schmo" cops was way out of line.

I'm glad we're abolishing this practice. It's odd that something which is done no where else is described by the union leader as being no big deal.

Posted by: Unionconflict | December 9, 2009 8:59 AM

The fact that Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains are all in the same Union as the rank and file officers is a total conflict of interest ! Look at the executive board and tell me what incentive do they have to discipline an officer?

They won't discipline an officer because they know they also have to represent that same officer in the grievance process which will cost the Union Money. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house !

Posted by: Sunday | December 9, 2009 9:09 AM

Good job Gillespie, that practice has been out dated for years. The other Chief's were afraid to rock the boat. That's why you need a Chief with no ties to the department to do the right thing no matter how unpopular it is.

Posted by: William Kurtz | December 9, 2009 9:15 AM

Actually, given Mr. Cutler's recent experience with one of New Haven's finest, he's got a legitimate reason to be concerned about who he ends up with on his door. But that's still not a reason to keep this bizarre practice which seems wide open to all sorts of abuses.

Posted by: streever | December 9, 2009 9:49 AM

ah I wasn't thinking about that Kurtz: just blown away by the chutzpah :) good point

Posted by: Pedro | December 9, 2009 9:55 AM

I'm just as startled as Chief Lewis that such a practice was happening, and I'm glad to see it abolished. This is also a general example of how an outsider's perspective can frequently prove invaluable.

This was in place for 40 years, yet there was never enough pressure from within to reform this cronyist practice that protected club and bar owners over the general public.

New Haven isn't some unique and special butterfly, it's a medium sized city just like thousands of others in this country, and this practice was a local anachronism that needed to be tossed.

Posted by: Morris Cove | December 9, 2009 10:16 AM

I don't understand the whole 'hold down jobs' practice, why is this a conflict of interest? If for exapmle I owned a bar downtown, and I grew up with a certain cop, I couldn't hire him?, because he could hold jobs over a supervisors head? Can someone explain this.

Posted by: robn | December 9, 2009 11:06 AM

The jobs will still be there for cops who want them...its just that one person won't be able to dole the jobs out as favors.

Regarding the Joe Schmo comment, Mr Cutler fails to recognize that aside from some bad apples and the obvious gradation of knowledge and skill that exists in any profession, most offciers at NHPD work really hard and have far, far better training for crowd control than an average bouncer.

Posted by: JP | December 9, 2009 11:42 AM

There are two sides to this. Bar owners want to hire a cop who they know, who knows the regulars and how to handle common situations. On the other hand residence need the police to work for the public and not the bars. I really think the thing to do is to hire off duty cops from out side the district that way you get the best of both worlds.

Posted by: Ray Willis | December 9, 2009 11:50 AM

Morris Cove- My take on this is completely surface, I'm sure there's a lot of reasons why this practice is a conflict of interest. The way I see it, the cop is not a bouncer or a security guard. The cop is not an employee of the club. Cops always need to have the greater interest in mind as opposed to the interest of one private business. Having the same cop every week at the same bar makes the cop more concerned with that establishment, and opens the door for an inappropriate relationship to develop between that cop and that bar. I would imagine that when the cop isn't on duty and he's deciding which bar to drink at its probably going to be the one who gives him free drinks for taking care of them while on duty. The cop is being paid by you and me, not the bar. There needs to be nothing short of complete objectivity with cops at all times in all situations, the hold downs create an almost necessarily subjective situation. But thats just my take on it.

Posted by: robn | December 9, 2009 12:49 PM

RAY,

The bar owners are paying the cops for the service. Nevertheless, allowing businesses to choose a public servant for this any type of service is very susceptible to abuses of patronage, bribery, and extortion.

Posted by: Mister Jones | December 9, 2009 12:56 PM

The hold-down system presents an opportunity for corruption. I'm not saying it's corrupt, and there are benefits to familiarity, but it seems wrong to have a patronage system with assignments outside of the control of the Chief and department command.

Extra-duty is lucrative for cops, whether manholes or nightclubs. It's anomalous for lower ranking cops, or the union, to control deployment of police, even if they are paid by the private party. They are working in uniform, representing the city and the department. It would be different if they were off duty, unarmed and in street clothes working as bouncers but this is official duty. The extra money to be made has a potential impact on department hierarchy and command/control.

The opportunity for corruption is that the guy who's locked into a particular club could be tempted to look the other way at illegal activity like drug use, prostitution or underage drinking, either because of friendliness with the owner/staff or because of financial self-interest. I'm not saying this happens, not accusing dedicated cops of this, but the system makes it easier to happen and less likely to be caught. If nothing else it looks bad.

Posted by: AgOr | December 9, 2009 1:28 PM

the jobs should be rotated

Posted by: Anon | December 9, 2009 2:45 PM

It's not that it took an outsider to notice it, it is that it took an outsider to push the union off of the insiders who noticed it and couldn't do anything about it. That is the scary, incredible thing about New Haven. That kind of thing is one of the hallmarks of corruption anywhere, the disempowerment of reasonable people.

It's exactly the same phenomenon that allowed mayor destefano to ludicrously declare after the Billy white arrest that there was no way to know because there were no official complaints about him when he had been front page news at times over the years because community outcry about him had been that loud at times. But, Destefano said, there was nothing in his file.

The city has been wanting to dismantle this system since before Lewis came. Before Lewis came, you were not even allowed to say that New Haven has a terrible crime rate.

Lewis came and said, my god, New Haven has a terrible crime rate, and suddenly people listened. It's pathetic, but I just loved it, I loved that new haven finally hired someone to say what they wouldn't LET anyone say without bashing them for it.

Rob Smuts wanted to end this extra duty hold down thing since before Lewis got here.

I was shocked when I learned about it, when I noticed a cop with two business cards, one for the PD and one for the club he was assigned to for years and which he eventually became an employee of, in management.

You know what I got when I dared mention that new haven has a lot of crime and what can we do to help it? A ticked off friend of chief ortiz's got in my face yelling that until I've had a gun in my face i had better shut up.

I didn't know if she was threatening me or was just totally irrational, albeit intimidating irrational. I opted for the latter, mostly

This city is nuts and isn't going to change.

Posted by: Funky Chicken | December 9, 2009 4:06 PM

This has been a practice for many years and the city put it on the table in the latest union contact and is based on a letter that BOA put out in July of 2008 (see the NHI story ) http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/07/aldermen_seek_t.php

Remember what happened to the community & then Chief Ortiz when they went to testify up in Hartford at the liquor commission in opposition of the Taurus Bar in Newhallville and two New Haven cops came in support of the Bar and guess who they worked for on hold down jobs? The Taurus! This is a necessary move

Posted by: lambshank | December 9, 2009 4:13 PM

lets not forget that the city takes 8% of what the cops make on extra duty. so when your taxes go up because you don't like this system, enjoy. when van dome(who hires 4-6 regular cops) can't find a cop to work, see what happens. i see more shootings and shankings (like sinergy) then ever before. good luck nightclub owners!

Posted by: DKR | December 9, 2009 5:18 PM

once again the city and it's so-called "intelligent staff members" are going to put the city and the public at risk for taking away "hold-downs". i have worked most of the bars/clubs for the past 11yrs and NEVER had an issue regarding "conflict of interest". i represented the city when i worked for said clubs, PERIOD..!!! all the bar/club owners want level headed mature cops working, not young gung-ho cops who only want to make arrests versus trying to mediate a situation. i know for a fact something "BIG" will happen again downtown without the "regular cops" working. and since we are in a union,.let the public know, since it is public information, that if the city takes away the "bar/club hold-downs" then they better take away ALL THE OTHER HOLD DOWNS AS WELL,..shaws, walmart, walgreens, tweed airport, apt foundation,..need i go on??? if this doen't happen i can guarantee a HUGE LAWSUIT for the city..!!!!!!

Posted by: JP | December 9, 2009 7:01 PM

DKR, all of the hold downs have been taken away no matter the location. I can tell you I once complain to an officer at the brass monkey about 30 motorcycles had parked on the sidewalk and the officer said "go F yourself be I work for the bar tonight". All so Lets not forget what happened at BAR. I dont think that would have happened had the officer not felt so compfortible.

Posted by: Robb Bart | December 9, 2009 7:21 PM

Holddowns, firstly I dont think alot of readers really know what that means, it means one police officer, of whom a establishment's management places its orders for police presence at their business. The business doesnt pick each cop that works at its doors, it picks one, and that one cop offers the position to other cops who would like to work extra duty. The hold down officer is usually one who is familiar with the establishment and knows the clientele it caters to and what the police presence should be. In a way doesnt this make sense, for short example, if 85% of your clientele is latin, wouldnt it be prudent to have spanish speaking officers to handle situations.Doesnt every business design its staff to accomodate the best needs of its clientele, why would you leave something as important as security to a random lottery pick.

The police are not paid for by the city, or your tax dollars, they are paid by the establishment at a rate that is almost 3 times what one security person would cost. The club is also legally resposibile for their conduct, or lack of proper services if their is a altercation and it is not handled properly ( I know from experience, I have been sued for such actions) The club pays cod by check that evening for services rendered. More times than not we dont know all the officers standing at our door, we only know that they came recommended by our "holddown officer"

Most police officers that you see standing in front of downtown clubs ( other than the 8 that are employed by the city as "bar detail") are hired paid and provided by downtown club owners.
They are hired to handle situations that arise at the establishments, but their first order is to work for the city, they give directions, handle problems with people that have car break-ins, traffic emergencies and even are often called off to other emergencies even though their hours are being paid for by the business they are supposed to protect.

Having owned a nightclub downtown for almost 14 years I have hired officers since its inception.
When I first opened the club, the city was a dark, surreal place, that wasnt very welcoming, and my main concern was to protect my customers walking from their cars to the club, I originally was going to hire armed security to patrol around the club, then Asst Chief McDonald suggested I use NHPD and I took his recommendation. I never knew what a hold down was, nor did I get a lesson in what a hold down was, and over the years the hold down officer changed, mainly because of being promoted or no longer wanting to do late night extra duty.
Noone really talks about what a hold down really is, they just generalize and they think that the club owners are hand picking officers to work based on some unknown standard, that is not the case.
As a club owner I hire and pay for NHPD to protect the interests of my business and my patrons, and to insure that my patrons leave as little impact on the area as possible when they are entering and exiting the area. That is why I hire a police presence.
I am not required by any such law to hire this presence, I do so because I feel it is important to have such a presence.
The change in the hold down practice while it may be positive in some instances in giving some officers an oppurtunity for jobs that they feel they didnt have a chance to get will result in a smaller police presence on the streets.
As a business owner I will continue to employ NHPD as a presence at my club, but no longer can I put 100% of my outdoor security in NHPD hands.I will have to hire less officers and more in-house security to make sure that the outside of the club is protected adequately. In-house security that is their nitely so they know the clubs operating procedures and can handle any lanquage barriers that may arise. Where as in the past I would put the outdoor safety and patrons entirely in the NHPD hands, this I can no longer do as a responsible businessman. We will continue to hire officers, and we will support those officers with in-house security positioned outside to ensure the continuity of safety around the club.
As much as I would like to be positive in this new ruling, I feel it will have a negative impact on the city by placing officers who may not have the most experience at crowd control in situations that could lead to greater dangers. The city really should be focusing its energy on more important issues such as the numerous unpatrolled, unsupervised parking facilities which are hot beds for criminal and mischevious activites.

Posted by: John Fitzpatrick | December 9, 2009 7:59 PM

This story ran in the Independent last July, and it demonstrates why the hold-downs are a conflict of interest:

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/07/preacher_wins_2.php

A street preacher attempted to express his beliefs in the public space of New Haven's sidewalks and was prevented from doing so by four police officers on hold-down jobs at bars and clubs. The officers denied the preacher his right to free speech, apparently to protect the interests of the establishments where they were working. The preacher sued, and the City settled for $25,000.

Posted by: citysavior | December 9, 2009 9:42 PM

There seems to be pros and cons to all the above arguments but not once did any one mention supervision. From what i hear from the officers in my neighborhood, if the supervisors check up on the officers 24/7 this mess would have been cleaned up long ago. I hope that when the bars stop hiring officers that my tax money doesn't go to supplement the down town bars.

Posted by: anon | December 9, 2009 11:20 PM

DKR mediate it????? please that's why you need to let your hold down go. if someone broke the law then do your job... stop crying lawsuits you work other hold downs other than bar jobs and you always will so please stop crying... 11 years being a cop and your very miserable!!! the city has won that hold downs are not a bargaining item and can chose what they want. just because the union was weak at the bargaining table don't cry and want others to lose out because you lost your bar!!!

Posted by: kamb | December 10, 2009 12:15 AM

WHY do bar owners even hire cops?!! THEY SHOULDNT NOW! If they cant have offices they want they should ALL BAN together and NOT HIRE!

The city is going to have to dispatch on-duty officers now to deal with disruptions at these bars. And then the city is going to have to hire officers on OVERTIME funded by taxpayers!

DID the city really think this through? I doubt it.

Posted by: Morris Cove | December 10, 2009 8:50 AM

Ray

Thanks for the insite, this whole thing is confusing. I guess it's a good thing to ban the hold downs if the practice is unheard of in diferent depatments as Lewis said, and it's been going on for 40 years.

Posted by: Im Here on the inside | December 10, 2009 9:12 AM

Just A few comments regarding MY opinions on some of these comments...To "Streever" maybe you should reseaerch a little before saying "done no where else" Just because a couple of chiefs west coast say it doesnt mean theyre right (k?) To "union conflict"..since when does the Exec. Board discipline an officer? surely you dont suggest that because a supervisor is on the board theydont know how to distinguish their duties? (C'mon buddy) To "Sunday" Out dated?(maybe we've just been ahead of our time all these years)

Posted by: im here on the inside | December 10, 2009 9:19 AM

Hi Im back...To "Kurtz" Bizarre? WOW strong word..if you think its truly "Bizarre" you should get out and see more of the world..and maybe you'll find a different word to describe "extra Duty Hold downs"..Oh more for "Sunday" "afraid to "rock the boat'?..why rock a boat thats in calm waters? duh..and finally.."pedro" very eloquent..but i think the word you were looking for was cronyism(cronyist not a word)anachronism? gotta look at how its used when looking at defin.

Posted by: JP | December 10, 2009 9:37 AM

Robb, dont you think without the hold down that when people are outside say landsdown and the music coming from gothem is louder then whats comeing from inside a non holddown officer may make you turn it down where as with the holddowns this never seems to happen?

Posted by: robn | December 10, 2009 10:01 AM

ROB BART,

Nice try with the scare tactic...imply less jobs for cops if they support the ban on hold downs. Well guess what...if you've got an unruly clientelle if a really big problem occurs requiring on-duty cops to be called in, you'll expose yourself to civil suits from victims involved and you'll invite city scrutiny that may end up in your being shut down.

The argument that some cops cannot handle crowd control is a weak one. The least experienced cops will likely have more training than a bouncer....and unlike a bouncer who is beholden to ownership they have the unrestrained motivation to call in for help if absolutely neccesary. Crowds know this and thats why they behave around cops.

Posted by: A.Tolnay | December 10, 2009 10:26 AM

just to clear up your speculation JP I have have asked the DJ and Staff (RoB is the owner not DJ) to turn the music down upon receiving a complaint numerous times and never had a problem with cooperation..if you feel that Gotham's Music is too loud for you to hear Landsdown's music then maybe you should head up a little further to Black Bear

Posted by: CP | December 10, 2009 10:48 AM

I have owned a couple of bars in New Haven in the last few years. During this time, I have had hundreds of nights where we've had an extra duty officer. I agree with Mr. Bart that we hire these officers in order to foster a safer environment for our patrons coming into and out of our business, to provide security for employees leaving at the end of their shift, and to uphold the law.

Over the course of these hundreds of nights, I have had many officers work the duty. Just as with any employee base, there were some that were better than others. The hold down officer, as it stands now, gives me the opportunity to say that a particular officer may not be the best fit for my business without having to go to his or her supervisor.

I'd be willing to bet that the list of officers that avail themselves for this type of late night extra duty may not change much. The places they cover, however, will more than likely rotate. Maybe thats good, maybe not. There should, however, be some measure of stability in assignments because familiarity with a location enhances both the officer's safety as well as that of my employees and patrons. Again, in the present scenario, the hold down officer can explain to the assigned officer what to look for, where the potential trouble spots are, what the expected crowd demographic may be and any other pertinent information. Random assignees will more than likely not have this information and be going into potentially dangerous situations.

Lets not abolish a program just because other cities don't do it. There has to be a better compromise than a random pool.

Posted by: Wicked Lester | December 10, 2009 12:02 PM

Anyone else notice that it's just the dance clubs that hire extra duty officers? What is it with dance music and potential violence in New Haven?

Posted by: Anon1 | December 10, 2009 12:07 PM

Maybe it can work almost the same as now.
The clubs can pay the city for extra police just like parades and other events do, and the NHPD brass decides whether they need extra duty/overtime cops to supplement regular duty cops on the beat those days, and assigns them, answerable to the sergeant on duty who should closely supervise them, just like any others.

What is wrong with that?

What's to stop a club from saying, our clientele is mostly spanish-speaking, so spanish speaking cops would be a help? We have a diverse force and a diverse community already. We do that city wide already.

A nightclub is no more a member of the community than a single resident and should get police services just like the rest of us do. Since they need extra policing, they can pay for it just like parades and other events do, underwriting the extra police the department puts on the job. They already pay for it, so that should be easy.

The policing of clubs and businesses should not be quasi-privitized - The NHPD brass should be assigning, and if that means some cops get extra-duty rates because the PD needs overtime cops to cover it, then so be it.

In the case of Crown, because it is a club scene, you have a whole street handed over to an extra-duty scheme that is not entirely under the chief's control because hold-downs are assigning.

I am surprised to learn that club owners cut a check to the cop right there. Who is the check made out to, the cop or NHPD or?

I thought they paid the PD, the PD distributed the pay to the cop, and city hall's cut to city hall. So is that who the check is made out to, the PD and the cop gives it to the PD?

It is not uncommon to hear stories of conflicts, suggesting that not all cops have the attitude that DKR suggests they do, ie, never forgetting who they work for.

I want policing in the city to be ASSIGNED and supervised by the normal chain of command in the normal, unmistakeable, unconfusing way.

I think they should be rotated because of the danger of loyalties to the club owners. It is too easy, too enticing. GOod cops could find themselves convincing themselves that they can serve two masters. And there are too many stories of exactly that happening.

I know another bar that was on the NHPD list with the Taurus that Ortiz was targeting. When neighbors to that bar complained about it, the cop who was 'friends' with that club would do nothing but act as apologist for the club in conversations about it.

It's too hard when you get to know the club owner really well, not to just cringe at the thought of reigning him in for neighbors you haven't bothered to get to know at all, who are not giving you free food or hold-down pay, and who you could care less about. Human nature.

My street would love to have a special cop on our payroll who knew all our friends, all our self-declared "trouble-makers" and who would protect us as our diplomatic emissary from complaints from the street next door when we get a little crazy on saturday night.

Posted by: Anon1 | December 10, 2009 12:26 PM

DKR, What especially struck me about what you said is that the clubs want mature officers who are not arrest-happy, who know how to mediate. And that the hold-downs make sure they get it.

That is the ideal- we all want that. It burns me that the clubs get to order up the cream of the crop, while I and the rest of New Haven, presumably should be happy with whoever we get, especially the dumbbell hotheads that you guys and your union, and the chief, won't get rid of no matter what. Nice to know that a little paycheck does in a minute what community organizations have to spend years clamoring for.

I will let my neighbors know we've been doing it all wrong. We need to get someone called a hold-down and tell him/her to assign the cool cops to our district.

Posted by: JP | December 10, 2009 12:38 PM

A.Tolnay so your saying that as an officer you think its ok that gothems music can beheard 2 blocks away. Sounds like you just proved the problem with hold-downs.

Posted by: CP | December 10, 2009 1:09 PM

Checks are made payable to the City of New Haven and handed to the officer with the supporting paperwork.

Posted by: lbcomment | December 10, 2009 1:42 PM

It seems to me that the Union and the Police Dept left out a very important 3rd party ... the Customers (Businesses) they would be serving.
To begin with, we are true advocates of the NHPD. In fairness, I must point out that the performance of each officer is not the same. Businesses do become comfortable with officers they can rely on for more than just showing up and/or standing around.
Two points to make (for now)...
1st.. Not every job extra duty job is an unplug (Off A) and plug in (Off B) function. They're jobs that require specific familiarity to perform the task. For example,if you have a large area to be covered, the officer will need to know exactly where they need to be ... if a problem occurs. A delay can cause serious problems if the officers arrival is not immediate. The main issue in this regard is that EACH new officer will have to be instructed as where these numerous areas are located. This function is alleviated with a recurring officer.
2nd.. What recourse does the Business have IF we are not pleased with the effectiveness of the officer. What happens if the city sends us an officer that didn't accommodate our needs.
I believe further discussions are required to review additional solutions for the needs of the public and business owners.

Posted by: A.Tolnay | December 10, 2009 3:23 PM

JP seriously you keep mentioning Gotham like its the only club that plays loud music??? seriously??? Every club that caters to a dance crowd plays loud music ... again, if downtown is too loud then make sure your out of it by 10pm..its like a TV show you dont like .(change the channel)theres my solution for YOU)..and dont presume you understand ANYTHING about my thuoghts "as an officer") I believe "WE" as officers have a pretty good understanding of downtown. and for the record..your "loud Music" issue will still be there with or without holdowns.

Posted by: streever | December 10, 2009 3:23 PM

im here on the inside:

Maybe you could give us an example of somewhere which does allow this practice? I have done research. I have been unable to find anywhere.

And for the record, Chief Lewis has been chief of three very large police forces, including his west coast assignment. I believe that he has some understanding of how this typically works, as all of his assignments have been college towns somewhat similar to New Haven.

You can't dismiss him as just some "west coast" guy who doesn't have a wide experience. You may be on the inside in New Haven, but collectively these men have been "on the inside" all over the country.

If you know of other cities where this practice is allowed, please type them out.

Posted by: DKR | December 10, 2009 5:30 PM

dear annon

first of all you have no idea what a police officer does day in and day out,..95% of the calls we go on,..DO NOT require or mandate an arrest. therefore with a little common sense, wisdom, and life experiences,..we can mediate said situations we are called to. our job is all about discretion, unless it's a serious felony or drug arrest, domestic issues or if the complainant insists on the arrest. sounds like "COMMUNITY POLICING" to me...!!! i stand behind what i say,..if one job goes,..THEY ALL GO,..!!! it's about being fair and democratic...funny,,isn't that what this country was built on?? so,..mr annon,..when you are denied the opportunity to work ovetime at your job,..but its; given to someone else instead,..give me a call..!!!! until you walk in my shoes or that of another brother/sister officer,.please get your facts straight first..

Posted by: Robb Bart | December 10, 2009 7:24 PM

JP your like a broken record, you always have something negative to say about Gotham, but can you at least learn how to spell it, you would think since its such a point of interest in your mind you would at least know how to spell it, just look out your window and you can see it in gold letters all over the building. But regardless, my comment was merely to try and clarify what exactly a hold down was to an uninformed public not to banter with you or others that seem to think they know how to operate nightclubs or police services better than those currently doing so. Bottom line is their are no more holddowns and like everything else we will adjust our operating procedures accordingly.

Posted by: JP | December 10, 2009 10:13 PM

ROBB, Actually I think you’ve done some good work over there in the last year and I know you hire a lot of extra duty officers so I think things have gotten better but as far as being a broken record get off the parking lot thing if you stopped catering to thugs then they wouldn’t be in the parking lot.

A.Tolnay you are correct other clubs are to loud as well my point is simply that rather then fix the problem you are taking the side of the guy that signs the checks rather then enforcing the law and maybe if you were going to get paid either way you wouldn’t worry about losing the hold down and you would enforce the noise ordinance.

Posted by: Uncle Egg | December 11, 2009 12:30 PM

I'm stunned that this was going on in the first place, and completely dumbfounded that anyone thinks this is a good idea. My guess is bar owners and cops lie behind certain screen names.

Even if nobody was taking advantage of this arrangement (which requires a titanic leap of faith), the mere perception of corruption ought to be enough to shut down the practice for good.

My wife is in the business and I know firsthand about some of the shady things that go on: open drug sales, back-room gambling, prostitution, illegal liquor and cigarette sales, drinking-age violations, health code violations, etc.

Many of these things happen at places that are considered respectable. Even when the owner isn't directly supporting these activities, there's a strong temptation to "look the other way."

If the owner gets to choose a "house cop" and shower him or her with money, you can bet that cop will think twice about doing anything that the might endanger that relationship.

Posted by: DKR | December 11, 2009 3:41 PM

what everyone (the public) fails to recognize,...is that the term "hold-down" is defined by the cop you see at shaw's, walgreen's, tweed airport, the apt foundation, the flee market,..shall i continue?? therefore one would think there would be the same "temptations" for any "coruption" or favoritism as you all have put it, for these "hold-downs" as well. keep that in mind mr and mrs john q public the next you see your regular cop at one of these "other" "hold-downs"

Posted by: Robb Bart | December 11, 2009 8:58 PM

I really should shut up, but reading some of your comments just boggle my mind.

JP, if you want to hold me accountable for thug behavior because you think they come to my club ( which we dont cater to thugs) and I take their money, then you need to hold parking lots accountable for them for the same reason, anything less is a double standard and shows that you just have contempt for the clubs, mine in particular.

Uncle Egg, If I wanted to break the law, sell illegal cigarettes,back room gambling or any other "mob movie" fantasies that you might have with "mafia payoff scenes in brown bags" why would I hire multiple police officers, would be easier just not hire!! Why make the big payoff every night? I dont know what kind of business you were in, but its ceratinly not the New Haven nightclub business. I have multiple licenses to sell everything I sell including one to sell bottled water after 2 am.( yes their is such a license) And by the way, "your guess" and my fact is that my name is clearly printed above my comments whereas yours is not!

I dont know any cops that would risk their badge for any club, nor do I know any club owners personally that would ask them to do that. Plain and simple if a club owner does something wrong, then they have to pay the price through fines like anyone else, and if that means getting arrested, then that has happened to.

I really wish that people here would quote fact, not fiction or imagination. It gets tiring responding to inuendo and immagination. Please get your facts straight before accusing business people and police officers for indiscretions.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | December 11, 2009 9:15 PM

I was reading that some cites don't allow this due to the fact that when it comes to a arrest and
the arrest turns out to be false the city is hit with the lawsuit,Not the bar ownner.That why you hire a bonded securtiy company so if anyting happens they are held libel.

Posted by: streever | December 13, 2009 10:03 AM

"I really wish that people here would quote fact, not fiction or imagination. It gets tiring responding to inuendo and immagination. Please get your facts straight before accusing business people and police officers for indiscretions."

Truth.

Facts instead of endless accusation & speculation please--it is tiring to read paranoid ramblings on a regular basis, divorced from any objective reality.

Posted by: Eric | December 14, 2009 11:04 AM

children put down their video games, adults look up from their cell phones, and all learn the lost art of PATIENCE as the sign reveals itself in it's own time. People who had been running, or stressed, can take a moment to sip coffee or water, because as long as the sign is changing, the trains haven't left.

This sign should NOT be taken from the public; perhaps a donation box placed at it's base for maintenance and upkeep would allow travelers and members of the public to donate money; a ticket price increase would anger far more people than who want the sign to remain, and I don't think that's the solution.

Mechanical ANYTHING is going the way of the dodo- but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing. Watches, CARS, clocks, signs, switches, even computers once operated mainly by mechanical switches and movement. What we're losing here is a feeling of reliability, history, appreciation for US ingenuity, and a sense of permanence in a time of fleeting interactions. People are passionate about this sign because it's an old friend; they've developed a relationship with the mechanical wonder and mystery. "why hasn't it evolved?" BECAUSE IT STILL WORKS!

The voting machine analogy is spot-on! There's nothing to "hack" or "sabotage" with a mechanical sign! The auditory cue that lets people know the sign is changing is really wonderful, and I think if it changes to LED, that will be the part most people miss.

Posted by: JD | December 15, 2009 9:13 PM

I think the clubs should stick to their choice of officers, because half the officers looking for extra duty jobs don't want to be bothered by all the club scene drama anyway, most of them hate even working bar detail. As far as Walmart, Shaw's, Walgreen's, etc., I think they should be given out just like a U.I., AT&T, or Walsh construction jobs. Face it, extra duty can be scarce sometimes, especially for supervisors because they're at the bottom of the totem pole. And there's nothing saying that a hold down officer can't get any other of the extra duty jobs offered if he/she signs up for them, so why should other officers and supervisors not have more jobs available to them. If one of the businesses feels that the officer doing extra duty there at that time is not doing his/her job properly, then that business owner can always file a complaint against the officer.