Sunday, September 10, 2006

September 10

Is this for real? One of the 14 men being transferred from Guantanamo from a (now not-so-) secret foreign prison, Majid Khan, graduated from Owings Mills High in 1999. Teacher: "he wasn't a jokester."

The man shot at Upscale Billiards on Pulaski Hwy was ID'd as Charles Spencer (or is it Spenser?) of Edgewood.

Rodricks: Employers aren't terribly jazzed about hiring ex-cons.

The officer who shot a man in the NW was shot himself four years ago; his badge deflected the bullet.

The Post has an excellent special report; Tuesday more than just Japanese girls' favorite school holiday.

So everyone over the age of 8 knows that Elmo is really a six-foot-tall black man named from Baltimore. Aren't you dying to know how Kevin Clash created the world's most beloved muppet? This was a story begging to be written. Thanks for the tipoff, Laura Vozzella!

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree with Rodricks on his stance with ex-cons needing jobs. But at the same time, its all he seems to talk about nowadays - its getting pretty annoying at this point.

Besides that, ever since the decline in blue collar jobs here, a lot of populations in baltimore have felt the pinch of no employment - something which I think all our politicians are accountable for. I know people who are well educated and experienced that can't find jobs either.

While there are criminals here - a sizeable portion which doesn't seem to be on the decline - there are just as many other impoverished people here that need the attention as well.

PS - The Washington Post report was pretty good, but is it any surprise that the only person mentioned by name in the 3rd district primary was Johnny Sarbanes? Gotta love the political pull of these political families (see: cardin, sarbanes, curran/o'malley, conaway).

Anonymous said...

Rodricks keeps talking about the need for businesses to 'give cons a chance'. Businesses don't exist to give anything. They exist to provide a service/produce a product at the lowest cost relative to quality. The cost of employing 'damaged goods' needs to be capable of being lower than the market rate for average workers. As long as I can have an average worker for $6.15, why would I hire a 'problem worker' for the same amount? Certainly not to please Mr. R.

I'd recommend suspending federal and state minimum wage laws in the low-employment sections of the inner city. I think I'd also ease zoning restrictions within those areas for firms which hire a certain number/percentage of 'problem people'.

Anonymous said...

The other thing is that in terms of regulation and taxation, while the State of Maryland is thought of as being pretty business-friendly, Baltimore City definitely is not. Regulators here are a disaster.

The only people who are interested in having businesses here are 1)old-timers who are stuck here, 2)drug-dealers, 3)people on the take taking in more grants than revenues, and 4)big business weasel deals like the downtown hotels and the sports teams- not nearly private sector, they're really instruments of government and could never make it without their inside deals.

For a self-reliant small business, this place is a nightmare.

Maurice Bradbury said...

Baltimore works for me (<- new shitty slogan?) as a self-employed person-- if you're a freelancer whose business doesn't depend on location so much, like you're into writing, illustration, web design, etc., then it's a great place to be because you can get go to NY, DC or Philadelphia for a day to do business, plus you get the advantages of urban living without the big-city price tag (aka cheap real estate).

Anonymous said...

Where I live right now, there are three developments taking place - the hampton inn right next to camden yards, the apartment complex down the street from it, and the hilton hotel across from the stadium.

If you head near the inner harbor along key highway, there's plenty of condos in development. Same goes for Fells Point - I was walking there yesterday, and who knows how many of those are being built?

I think that if you have the money to invest here, Baltimore is a wonderful place. Unfortunately, a lot of this is going towards housing for professionals. Simultaneously, baltimore does remain a blue collar town - where are the opportunities for people like them?

Government Contracts? No - Sheila Dixon, O'Malley, and others have been contributing contracts towards people aligned with them.

I think that until the lower to lower-middle class starts getting more opportunities to work (and concurrently, chances to invest into the community), it's going to be a lot harder to not only stop crime, but to also bring in the upper class population that this government is apparently so hell bent on attracting here.

Anonymous said...

And by the way S'y (Or Cy, as the case may be), I want in on self-employment. You must teach me!

Maurice Bradbury said...

How could anyone be against housing for professionals? (Believe me, you do not want to live next to amateurs.) Being a 'professional' to me means constantly building your skills, and keeping and maintaining good credit.

How can we be a blue-collar town with no blue-collar employers besides the Berger's cookie factory?

Everybody's self-employed in this world-- anybody could be fired or made obsolete at any time. You have to take charge of your own financial and life-skills education (and definitely your children's) no matter where you come from or live.

If you're a good plumber, electrician, chef, carpenter, mechanic, HVAC tech, whatever, there are still many great, safe neighborhoods to buy in. There are nothing-down mortgages and lots of housing stock, espeically if you're handy.

It's our pathetically underfunded schools that are keeping people from moving out of poverty.

Which reminds me: Wire Season 4 tonight!
Come on up to Evergreen and I'll make a cheese plate... you bring the Boh.

Anonymous said...

Good grief. There was another double homicide over here today. A double shooting on East 23rd Street in Barclay. Apparently the guy jumped out of a crowd.

More details when I get 'em.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't be against housing for professionals if they had to live with what we have to live with. My objection is that they get to live in a Baltimore where crime isn't really allowed. Which means that I get to live in the Baltimore where crime IS allowed.

I guess what I'm saying is that any level of crime which the Mayor decides is OK for me should be imposed on everyone. None of those professional people would tolerate living with what I'm stuck with. They'd all picket City Hall in a minute. The reason they don't picket it now is simply because it's substantially contained inside Baltimore B and they live in Baltimore A.

On the subject of blue-collar employers, why on earth should they locate here? I've contemplated producing a certain product here and decided that my life will be much simpler having it produced by stable, blue-collar people in a stable, blue-collar town in North Carolina.

No massive theft, no (or few) employee injury scams, no ridiculous building code standards. Most of the town down there is either not on drugs, or they're the kind of users who never give you reason to know it. Virtually no felons on the loose. And no herds of worthless, idle, ignorant YAAMs.

People down there generally manage to graduate with a HS degree connoting a functional knowledge of the English language and arithmetic. They won't be PhD's, but then again, who wants PhD.s?

Why on earth would anyone want to have anything to do with your dysfunctional YAAMs ? Baltimore City government seems to have in mind that it will pay them to come bother us, but only in Baltimore B. I don't want them, either, thank you.

I think you've hit on part of the problem, actually. You like the access to big-city amenities, but you do not seem to be willing to be fully subjected to the underside of Baltimore, other than on your own terms. For instance, you like the Farmer's Market. Well, that neighborhood has 10% of the city's criminals. Perhaps everyone shopping at the Market should have 10% of the crime forced upon them in their home neighborhoods. But what y'all have in mind is to stop in, enjoy the plus side, and then retreat to a secluded environment where the negatives cannot get to you.

Me? Bitter? What makes you say that?

Anonymous said...

• 2711 Jefferson Street STASH HOUSE
• 2713 Jefferson Street STASH HOUSE
• 2715 Jefferson Street STASH HOUSE
• 2719 Jefferson Street STASH HOUSE
• 2710 Orleans Street STASH HOUSE
• 2709 Orleans Street STASH HOUSE
• 2704 Orleans Street STASH HOUSE
• 411 N.Belnord STASH HOUSE
• 419 N.Belnord STASH HOUSE
• 420 N.Belnord STASH HOUSE
• FROM 9AM - 7PM

I will post this until O'Martin marches his A** down here and help us.. in this city sponsored AMSTERDAM ..right in the shadows of "JOHN HOP" the nations best??? The City That Bleeds

Anonymous said...

Hey, he makes me look reasonable.

Never woulda thunk it possible.

Suggestion: instead of focusing on property addresses, howzabout the perpetrators? Who are they?

Why not call the police while they are 'in the act'? Or, you can call the Organized Crime Unit and let them know about the site.

Anonymous said...

As for Mr. O'Malley's A**, it's spoken for. He's been busy sittin' on it since he came into office. I think it's surgically attached to the seat by now, so if he becomes Guv, they'll probably have to ship the chair to Annapolis with him in it.

Maurice Bradbury said...

Galt, don't forget the YWAMs and the YHAMs. Plenty of those too. What is wrong with your gender? Why can't You People get it together?

Anonymous said...

Well, yes, I suppose technically there also exists a hazard from Octagenarian Swedish-American Transgenders, but as a statistical proposition I'm a lot more concerned with YAAMs, unless I'm in Upper Fells, Pigtown, or maybe lower Hampden/Remington.

I think you're being more Politically Correct than correct. For the same reason, I'm fine with focusing homeland security on people with particular Islamic connections. I just don't see the present threat (to us) from Tibetan separatists.

Anonymous said...

what happened to the stash house on kenwood?

Anonymous said...

EMERGENCY CRIME MEETING CALLED

Stopping the violence, by any means necessary. That's what one city councilman is calling for, days after a police officer is shot.

It was your typical Sunday afternoon at Patterson Park in Southeast Baltimore. Locals walking their dogs, residents relaxing on a bench and taking in the sights. But lately, many of the people who come out after dark aren't out for noble reasons.

City Councilman Jim Kraft says of the community, "We had a series of burglaries, a good amount of prostitution and some drug dealing." Not to mention a police shooting.

Last Thursday, 27 year old Officer Robert Cirello was shot in the chest after confronting a suspect in the park. Fortunately, he was saved by his bullet-proof vest, but the fact that something of that magnitude happened in Councilman Kraft's district has put him on alert. Kraft says "What we have to do now is intensify that partnership between the police department and the people in the community." Kraft says he and other members of the community want to tackle the crime problem before it gets out of hand and he wants people to continue to come to the park and feel safe.

Kraft has invited Baltimore's top brass to a meeting to help come up with a plan to keep crime out of the park. The meeting will take place at the Patterson Park Recreation Center at 7 o'clock Monday night.

Maurice Bradbury said...

Fox really needs to figure out how to link stories.

Mr. Mephistopheles said...

Being the cynic that I am, I cannot help but wonder if the "emergency" meeting is for the benefit of the Democratic machine candidates that are facing reelection tomorrow (especially Del. Carolyn Krysiak). I've lived in this area for over a year now, and I can recall at least three or four shootings (one fatal) that have occurred in my neighborhood since I moved here- yet no "emergency" meetings were called then. Is it only an emergency when an officer is the victim?

Anonymous said...

Ahh... The waverly farmer's market. I do enjoy it regularly.

Seems like a nice neighborhood. I also like the thai place on york, the breakfast counter near the market, normal's books and records, and the Y (should go there more often).

After visiting waverly, I go back to my exclusive gated enclave near Patterson park where crime as been totally eliminated. I then put on some plaid pants and drink brandy and smoke cigars with my golfing buddies and laugh at all the suckers in the other neighborhoods who have imported all our criminals.

-H

John Galt said...

When last a cop was shot in Waverly a few months ago, no one batted an eyelash. No emergency meetings. No community meeting. In fact, it happened during a community meeting. Crime is the prime mover in this sorry 'hood.

Maurice Bradbury said...

A cop was shot during a community meeting in Waverly? Now you're making stuff up!

Anonymous said...

yeah, galt, that's a healthy well-directed attitude to have... scorn the people who visit waverly for the excellent farmer's market.

-H.

John Galt said...

The incident on Montpelier Street took place while community members were at a meeting at the Y. The police dept. was with us at the time. Swear.


And I'm not excoriating anyone for patronizing the Market. I'm just pointing out that the benefits attach to different people than the disbenefits. I don't think a responsible government permits materially differential crime incidence between Baltimore A and Baltimore B in the long run.

Anonymous said...

Well, if Baltimore A and Baltimore B have very different demographics, how can you expect that their crime rates will ever be brought down to the same level?

No one will argue that some increase in police won't bring about some decrease in crime. But how far can that really go beyond some boring first order linear effect?

In neighborhoods where you have ~10% of the adult population composed of ex-felons, what can you realistically expect?

The reality is that _ALL_ urban centers have rough areas. That's just the way it is.

-H.

Anonymous said...

Nope. Whatever the recruitment rate may be at equilibrium, incarcerate just a few more than that and your 10% will begin to decline. Now, that's gonna mean a lotta incarceration, because recruitment effects are high here. Sorry, it's just how it goes. But that doesn't excuse improper arrests.

Anonymous said...

What are you talking about?

If you incarcerate _more_ of them, _more_ of them will be released and _more_ of them will be in the community as ex-felons.

Unless, of course, you intend to keep them in jail... forever.

What you're talking about is a decidedly non-steady-state situation, at best.

-H.

John Galt said...

Criminality is not a phenotype. It's a choice. However many make that choice, that's how many need to be in prison.

If recruitment were to replace 99% of the felons incarcerated, then every last one of those 99% should go go go.

That's why the makeup of your population matters. If your population is substantially accustomed to hoodlum conduct, then yes, most of them will need incarceration. I don't give a damn if they all go to jail, as long as it's contingent upon their conduct.

The proposition that not more than x percent of a population be incarcerated because it 'seems' excessive simply has no basis in law. It's a political and economic consideration, which makes for poor law.

Do you need to keep them in forever on a given charge? Nope. The characteristic feature of Baltimore criminals is that they strongly tend to reoffend, so that convicting them solely on the basis of their conduct will tend to keep them inside, provided you aggressively enforce and prosecute. What this means in practice is that people of criminal disposition will end up where they belong, which is justice.

The variable which most compellingly causes them to fall out of type appears to be the effect of aging. Old criminals seem to decide that they're over the hill for that type of 'work'.

What is not the case is that a homogeneous superset of the population is uniformly subject to a random inclination to criminal conduct and we all have the same chance of being imprisoned. It's more like the lottery: ya gotta be in it to win it. Raising little hoodlums will not bode well for their life trajectories, but the option of clean living is always there.

The biggest exception would be arrests for possession of drugs, the inclination to which somewhat more commonly cuts across types. That said, I never chose to use, so I've never faced charges for it.

Decisions matter. So do consequences. The directness of correlation between the two is determined by enforcement effort.

The idea that pristine people go to prison and are magically transformed into superpredators is a myth. What does occur is that convicts with a criminal inclination learn to be better criminals. People who make really bad choices for their behavioral type and quite unexpectedly end up in prison are those who don't return. They learn their lesson.

Anonymous said...

"...The proposition that not more than x percent of a population be incarcerated because it 'seems' excessive simply has no basis in law. It's a political and economic consideration, which makes for poor law..."

I don't argue against massive incarceration simply because it "seems excessive". In fact, I agree that some more rigorous incarceration should occur.

However, resources and political will-power are limited. You have to accept that. You are not going to change that, ever, "poor law" or not.

You raise the issue of "recruitment". That is very interesting. Recuitment, arguably, is affected by the density of offenders in a particular area. This is another argument for gentrification-- as neighborhoods reach a more reasonable distribution of wealth, you can expect ...

1) that the density of trouble-makers will decrease in the original neighborhood.

2) That some of these trouble-makers will move elsewhere, and (although you'll disagree) they won't all end up at the same destination. They will be in a lower felon-density situation, ergo less recruitment.

Anonymous said...

Gentrification is about income-filtering by increasing the minimum costs of living in a place. Rather than incurring increased costs to exclude the poor, but not necessarily ill-behaved, let us simply impose a forced relocation of behaviorally deficient people to, say, Guilford or Tuscany/Canterbury. Or Ruxton, for that matter. Now, since it's not necessarily about where you receive mail or sleep, we should probably also impose limitations on mobility outside Guilford, such as an ankle monitor.

Anonymous said...

You make it sound like gentrification filters (narrows) income distribution. That's not automatically the case. It broadens income distribution in places where acute poverty is the norm. Of course it can get carried away (eg dupont circle), but arguably its better to have a wide spectrum of income than a narrow one.

Anyways, gentrification of an old neighborhood is not something that can be directed or planned, if it could we would see a lot more of it. It involves a lot of factors.

Anonymous said...

Yep. The limiting factor, assuming the basic structural housing stock is rehabbable to upper-middle income needs, is policing.

This feels like deja vu.