Selective Enforcement Turns Blind Eye to Union Ave. where Loitering Abounds
In his budget presentation before city council, Police Commissioner Patrick Carroll prioritized enforcement of loitering at the train station as one of the NRPD’s goals for 2010. Carroll stated that No Loitering signs have been put in place in advance of enforcement. Loitering has been a quality of life issue along the Union Ave. corridor for decades. Multiple community groups requested Commissioner Carroll to enforce loitering code violations and were told loitering laws are un-enforceable. Loitering is a major factor in the deterioration of the quality of life and blight in the West End of New Rochelle. The fact that loitering has been targeted at the train station proves the existence of two New Rochelle’s. Loitering complaints made by the wealthy power-brokers taking the train to New York City on a daily basis receives prioritized response while loitering complaints degrading quality of life for the average Joe’s receives the City Hall Shuffle for decades. The City instituted a Day Laborer Pick-Up Site on Union Ave. which is severely underutilized while scores of people seeking employment line both sides of the street loitering. They block sidewalks, litter, urinate and disrupt traffic while negotiating with prospective employers. Why can’t the City put up No Loitering signs along Union Ave.? Why is loitering enforceable at the train station and not on Union Ave. where it would have the most benefit? At the end of the day this boils down to selective enforcement which has plagued New Rochelle for many years.
Another great example of selective enforcement is the City’s decision not to recoup thousands of dollar$ in illegal STAR tax benefits reaped by the Civil Service Commissioner. If it were a senior citizen on a fixed income who cheated on their school taxes you can bet the City would prosecute to the full extent of the law.
Addressing loitering @ train station is a good idea
It is illegal to restrict people from public sidewalks and streets, yet you advise that the NRPD break the law and violate the civil liberties of a certain group of individuals RATHER THAN work pro-actively to address the security and safety concerns of the general public in and around the train-station facility [which btw is a semi-public area partially owned by the city and partially by metro-north]. Targeting loitering along Union Ave requires a police force that operates outside of the law, abuses authority and power, and engages in discriminatory practices and racial profiling. . . . NOT a good idea at all.
Perhaps You Can Explain
What is the fundamental difference that makes addressing the safety and security concerns for the public around the train station different than the safety and security concerns of people who walk certain public streets . Both locales deserve the same quality of life and safety regardless of incomes or ethnicity . My civil rights ARE impeded when I can’t walk down a public street without having to negotiate my way through groups who lack respect for others and property . When people don’t feel safe or are intimidated by groups , the city needs to act , no matter if it’s the train station or Union Ave or Main St , or wherever . Besides , if it is partially owned bt Metro North let the commuters you so love demand more police presence from Metro North police . My tax dollars don’t need to go to protecting another jurisdiction . Maybe if they add two dollars to every ticket they can afford to pay for their own protection . Let’s see you walk through the west end , they’d probably eat you because it would be clear you don’t belong .
Union Ave
The police presence on Union Ave is overwhelming already. Every night, the NRPD fines many cars for parking violations that are really a nuisance (parking to far from curb or tinted glass windows). We have a ridiculous alternate side of the street parking even though our streets are not cleaned. We even have alternate side of the street parking from 11AM to 12:30PM. Why? Every day police harass men and women who stand on Union Ave simply because of the color of their skin. Does this happen on Quaker Ridge Ave or Pinebrook? Do cops focus on the tremendous drug selling on the north end with kids? The many beer parties with underage HS kids who drive drunk from one party to another? The many folks whose dogs poop all over the property of Ward School because their dogs can’t make it to their playground on Ward Acres? Are they fined? We live in two cities. The have’s and have nots? Those that look like Noam Bramson and those that don’t!!!!!!!
Some thoughts
The loitering issue is a concern that has been expressed by many – residents living around union ave as well as business owners, shoppers, other new rochelle residents and visitors – and their complaints are the driving force behind the strong police presence and frequent activity. The dirty conditions of the sidewalks and streets stem from ‘loiterers’ no doubt, and that offers a perfect opportunity for the police to legally and legitmately take action against those individual(s). Perhaps raising the issue with the district councilman can yield more definitive info? or action by the city to remedy it to a degree?
The problem is not comparable to most othr nr community issues. It does however parallel loitering issues in other towns like mamaroneck, mount kisco and port chester. Within westchester, diversity is limited, and the haves and have nots are clearly divided along racial/ethnic lines and location of residence. New rochelle is the exception to the rule, with significant diversity throught. The ‘haves’ are not removed to one area while the have nots remain in another. The wealthiest parts of the city, both in terms of incomes and real estate values, are found in the midsection and southernmost sections. Many of the have nots include fixed-income senior citizens in addition to the those in subsidized housing. And have-nots unfortunately encompass hard working lower middle class and middle class individuals + families with above average household incomes that fail to cover the high cost of living in the area. I don’t think any effort exists to cater to the ‘wealthy 1st, all others 2nd’ however I do see how the idyllic settings in which many residents live can create mis-perceptions. Again, stronger community involvement +dialogue with local councilmen can help answer many of these questions as well as create a more informed population.
response to factchecker
You are correct in many respects and Mr. St Paul does do what he can, but in the end many of the issues that concern westenders or southenders are derailed or muted by the majority in City Council (Beechwood garage snafu for example). It just takes longer to get things done in the west end, pot holes, lights, snow-removal etc. I don’t see it so much as mis-perceptions, but more in line with daily reality unfortunately for those of us who live and work here.