Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Roosevelt Island Grand Larceny, Assault and Robery Incidents Reported In Last Few Days - RIOC Discusses Whether Safety Considerations Should Close Lighthouse Park Before Midnight and Put Up Entrance Gates

Roosevelt Island Public Safety incidents reported in the last few days include;

07/28/13 - 2137 - 580 Main St. - Robbery - PSD/NYPD responded. Report taken.

07/28/13 - 2245 - Assault - 686 Main St. -PSD/NYPD responded. Report taken.

07/29/13 - 0630 - Petit Larceny - PSD report taken. NYPD refused.

07/29/13 - 1000 - 688 Main St - Grand Larceny - PSD & NYPD responded - Report filed.

07/30/13 - 0420 - R/O 500 Main St - Assault/ Aided - PSD & NYPD responded - Refused Ems - Report filed.

07/30/13 - 0430 - 625 Main St - Attempted Grand Larceny - PSD responded - Refused NYPD - Report filed
I asked Roosevelt Island Operating Corp (RIOC) Interim Public Safety Department (PSD) Director Jack McManus for additional information regarding these incidents. Will update when more is known.

The Daily Roosevelt Island PSD incident reports are posted and archived on the sidebar of this page.

During the July 16 RIOC Real Estate Advisory Committee (audio webcast here) meeting, RIOC President Charlene Indelicato, Mr. McManus and RIOC Directors discussed the idea of instituting consistent closing hours for Roosevelt Island parks so that late night crowds do not congregate at Lighthouse Park

which currently stays open to midnight.

Also, discussed was the idea of placing gates at the entrances

Queens Side Entrance To Lighthouse Park

to Lighthouse Park

 Manhattan Side Entrance To Lighthouse Park

so that closing times can be enforced.

No decisions were made.

Here's the RIOC Real Estate Advisory Committee discussion of Roosevelt Island park hours of operation and the possible gating of Lighthouse Park.

What do you think? Should Lighthouse Park be closed earlier than midnight and gates placed at entrance?


YetAnotherRIer said...

Right, that's what we need here. More gates and fences. How about just patrolling that area a bit more after hours if it is indeed such a crime infested part of the island (which is news to me as somebody who runs around the island almost daily even very late at night).

billblass said...

When this island only had the wire buildings this crime wave never happend. We need to do better back ground checks of the new people moving into these new buildings

OldRossie said...

Locking up the park will just relocate them. Patrols and arrests will get them off the island.

mee said...

Gates? Please...
They can't even fix the little wood bridges to the lighthouse...

CheshireKitty said...

Agreed, Yet. Plus - there are myriad other areas to hang out in - the entire promenade - even if Lighthouse is closed off. As you say, patrolling is what's needed. Why do we rarely if ever see cops patrolling the promenade? Or at the parks? There should be at least 2 cops assigned to keeping these areas safe 24/7 - using a Segway if need be. If PSD is only going to have 6 cops working at any given time, then 2 should be assigned to patrolling the island, 2 on Main St, and 2 on vertical/building patrols.

Trevre Andrews said...

What a bunch of hacks. Instead of dealing with a problem they just want to lock it down so no one can use it. This is NYC people - the worst idea you could have here is to close things at night, that is the best time to visit some of these places. Imagine if they locked up central park dusk to dawn? They should open up southpoint park 24 hours like it used to be also, its a travesty that I face bars on my evening runs every night - what a waste of precious space. RIOC you suck.

billblass said...

Marshall law must be called by rioc

NotMyKid said...

Hey gang. I had a computer malfunction. Ok here's my opinion. Dont put gates. Put up signs clearly posted. This gives officers the authority to summons and make an arrest if need be. Lighthouse and the parking lot was always a problem. We made plenty of arrests. From drugs to lewdness to catching a prostitute. I did make a grand larceny arrest. A guy snooping around parked cars in the lot looking into open car Windows and doors.

OldRossie said...

Larceny reported again on the 31st at 524 main street, and again on the 1st at 888 main street.

RooseveltIslander said...

PSD Director McManus told me the 888 Main Street (Octagon) larceny was theft of a bicycle from rack outside the building

Frank Farance said...

So we close Lighthouse Park at night so that people walking/running around the Island are now diverted to a alleyway on the north side of the hospital? Like that is much safer? Honestly, RIOC never thinks through their ideas. The whole point of having resident board members is have RIOC decision-making that reflects Island knowledge.

To echo Mee's point ("They can't even fix the little wood bridges to the lighthouse"), just like Four Freedoms Park, RIOC can't even get the gates built right.

This all seems like an over-reaction to July 4th, which should have been handled differently (see my next post).

CheshireKitty said...

A tall chain-link fence that could also be electrified if needed could be erected across the S edge of the park with the rules and regulations thereupon prominently posted, as well as arc lights trained upon the gleaming fence. Then set lose a large howling hound to "patrol" the park at night.. Imagine the terrifying scene with the lighthouse looming above the yelping hound.. After that forget about the partiers - *no-one* would ever go near that park again.. day or night.

CheshireKitty said...

Yes, Frank: RIOC fencing off Lighthouse Park means RIOC-PSD has given up on maintaining security within that park in the aftermath of the 7/4 bbq-shooting. Yet security throughout RI is exactly what RIOC-PSD is paid to provide: PSD must keep RI parks, promenade, Main St, and hallways of WIRE buildings safe at all times. Fencing off Lighthouse Park means RIOC-PSD cannot come up with a better way to secure it.

As I wrote before, PSD human resources must be allocated to maximize patrol coverage - not at the current level that Frank has determined to be so inadequate. It will never be possible, nor is it desirable, for gates or fences to keep out park users, walkers, runners etc fenced off from RI's overall park-like island environment. What can be constructed is a patrol system that better addresses RI's security needs.

CheshireKitty said...

Mee: They still haven't fixed those little wooden bridges? Part of Lighthouse Park is still fenced off because those bridges are still out? That's outrageous! The summer will have come and gone and we won't have access to all of Lighthouse Park! How can that be? How difficult or complex a task can it be to fix those little wood bridges?!

mee said...

Yup still chained year after progress...the pier by the train is also falling apart and taped off. One whole year later.

CheshireKitty said...

What is with RIOC? At least they could fix the little wood bridges! The pier may be a bit more of a major job - but the bridges are just -- almost toy bridges! Why can't they finish fixing them?!

CheshireKitty said...

I'll never forget the time someone, who shall remain unnamed, took over all of Lighthouse Park on a *summer* weekend day for a wedding reception - denying the public the use of the park -for an entire day!! No amount of a bond/fee can ever replace an entire park being closed to the public on a summer weekend day for a wedding reception!! That is just plain wrong! Because of the ensuing outrage, RIOC never again permitted Lighthouse Park be closed for in its entirety for a private event such as a wedding reception... Park weddings/receptions are always nice - but not to the extent that entire public parks are closed off to accommodate them!! A similar benchmark should be applied to the bbq parties - if the numbers involved are going to be "taking over" the entire park for what is essentially a "private" party then the number of attendees should be limited. There should never be an affair or party that large permitted at Lighthouse Park such that the entire park is taken over and access to the park is effectively denied to the public.

billblass said...

Oh my what are we to do

CheshireKitty said...

Indeed Bill. The entire wedding party should have been smacked upside their heads with limp linguine noodles for doing that! And then made to swim over to Costco park using the dining china as life preservers and silverware as oars.. The especially hefty guests could have used the soup tureens as extra-large flotation devices.. This would have represented the liberation of Lighthouse Park from the greedy epithalamic interlopers!

Frank Farance said...

CK that "unnamed" wedding reception was mine and the park was closed only for a Saturday morning and afternoon. We were surprised by the community reaction because we planned this a half year in advance, we had asked RIOC for anything and everything we needed to do to make sure things went right, and RIOC never gave any hint this would be a problem.

Also, we paid for two *extra* PSD officers for 24-hour coverage to guard the tent the day before (so no one would mess with it), and then for two *extra* PSD officers during the event. According to RIOC, the event had to be closed because we were serving alcohol at the reception.

About six weeks after the wedding we suffered some RIOC union problems because RIOC (actually the union's shop steward) was claiming that the whole sprinkler/watering system in Lighthouse Park needed to be replaced because of our wedding reception. The concern sounded bogus (six weeks later? and after others used the park?). RIOC could not identify which sprinklers were broken. So we gave RIOC the phone number of the insurance carrier (the reason for RIOC's need for insurance at events is, sometimes, to handle fraudulent complaints originated by RIOC), and we heard nothing about it from RIOC since.

A couple people had complained in letters to the WIRE. We were puzzled because we did everything RIOC asked us to do for the permit ... and RIOC had permitted similar kinds of spaces for movie shoots, so we didn't understand what went wrong.

Afterwards, my sense of the complaints originated from two things: (1) in the month prior to event, it rained every weekend, so that Saturday was the first sunny weekend day in a while, (2) RIOC could have better announced the closure in advance (something they have done better since with movie shoots, events, and such).

Oh and one more thing: in response to your comment "The entire wedding party should have been smacked upside their heads with limp linguine noodles", we refused to accept wedding gifts and suggested that guests make a similar donation to one of the Island's charities (such as the Catholic parish) or to one of several organizations that foster humane treatment of animals. Several thousands of dollars were donated.

As for permitting parks for private events, it happens often, including Capobianco, Octagon, and other parks. For example, a religious organization or a school has permitted out Capobianco field (seen them this year, last year too). And it happens in the City too, such as Bryant Park and major portions of Central Park.

The 2009 RI Reunion (of original Islanders) was at Southpoint (prior to FFP) and reserved the whole (undeveloped) space ... it was at RIOC's suggestion for better managing the large crowd. Ditto for the 2010 RI Reunion at Lighthouse Park: easier to manage the large crowd. Now of course, we needed to do lots of permit work and insurance work, but we did the proper permitting and, from a Public Safety perspective, both events were without incident. In other words, Permitting Done Right.

Regardless, I believe the July 4 event should have been permitted differently and the NYC Parks Rules gives guidance on what should be done.

Frank Farance said...

CK, there is a distinction between having an event, with all the prior planning, being up-front with the number of guests, getting insurance, paying for extra PSD help, being responsible for your guests, and following all the rules.

The July 4 party was none of that: no permit, no prior planning with RIOC, a large and unexpected number of people, no insurance, PSD was called *in reaction* to the party, unruly guests.

As for Bryant park, I've passed by many times with a private event (Fashion Week, etc.) where it was not possible. As for Capobianco Field, it was a private event ... you could not be on the field at the same time. Ditto for the school's use, and ditto for most sporting events ... you can't use Capobianco or Octagon if someone else has a permit ... no picnics in the corner of the park.

As for the 2009 and 2010 RI Reunion events being low-key, they had the same musicians and PA system as they did my wedding reception (I played in all three), and there was open alcohol at all three (a key point for RIOC permitting). Unlike my reception, the RI Reunions went on into the evening. And the RI Reunions did *not* let the public wander in, there were guest lists (which makes it private), which was absolutely necessary because of having alcohol.

As for the sprinklers, it was a union issue with the shop steward wanting more staff hired and he created the bogus sprinkler issue ... there were never any sprinklers identified as being broken.

In summary, there is a big difference between an event that involves lots of planning, permitting, security, and insurance ... and one that circumvents all that and gets out of control.

NotMyKid said...

Wasnt there another reception at south point park for a manhattan couple about 4-5 years ago?

What's the big deal?

Who cares. You did the right thing.

NotMyKid said...

All they need are signs posted that the parks close at whatever time. Typically NYC parks are one dawn to dusk. Some other ones close at midnight.
If you put up signs, it leaves discretion to take enforcement up to psd personell.

So hence, leave the people jogging alone, and make the ones inside leave. If they refuse, they can be subject to summons and or arrest.

Very simple idea.

Ratso123 said...

To Frank:
Too much outrage. Zogsport takes over the whole Island on weekends and the residents can't use the fields. I assume Zogsport pays and it is alright. Never a complaint. You are a resident of the Island and you apparently did it the right way, permits etc. It could be that you are a target for complaints because of your willingness to express your opinions, a lot of which I don't personally agree with. However, as an example, museums rent out space for events when they are opened. People can get married in the Temple of Dendur room at the MET, if they are willing to pay. Twenty something years ago it cost $10,000, just for the space on a Saturday afternoon. They put up a sign and tell people that that area is closed for the day. I don't know if they still do it but they used to. These complaints about your wedding sound unfounded to me.

Frank Farance said...


Ratso123 said...

I think my point was that the complaints about Frank's wedding are a result of Frank's attitude and positions on a variety of issues. I also think that you proved it by this extremely long post or that you are just trolling.

CheshireKitty said...

No - it's possible to agree with Frank on some issues and disagree on others. Yes - it's an extremely long post, that is true. Am I trolling in the sense that I am trying to flame Frank? Not really. Frank should probably just drop the issue and his attempts to excuse his take-over of the park that day. It sounds like he is done anyway.

As I've said over and over, it's a small park on an island that has few parks. Residents resented its being taken over for his wedding reception. Would it have been different if it was someone other than Frank renting it ? That's a matter of conjecture. You seem to imply that the reception was just another example, proof if you will, of an ongoing issue with Frank's attitude. I just approach the fact of the wedding reception as an example of insensitivity, lack of consideration that the small park, practically the only substantial park on RI, actually is a precious space meant for everyone's enjoyment - and that it should never be *wholly taken over* for a private purpose such as a wedding reception or a bbq on a summer weekend day.

YetAnotherRIer said...

Now this is an interesting turn in events. Amazing how you blame the RIOC for everything. You couldn't even imagine (you, of all people) that shutting down an entire, popular, park will cause ire? But, yeah, as long as the RIOC told you all is good, all is good, right? Interesting...

Frank Farance said...

YetAnotherRIer, if you had actually permitted any event, you'd understand there was a process that one follows to permit space. Many Island spaces had been permitted out over the years, including whole parks on RI. In the 1990's, I used to do what Zog Sports does now: rent out the parks on Sundays for the Roosevelt Island Softball League. No complaints.

As for RIOC, I had not yet asked for a permit for an event involving alcohol, so they told me what to do (which I followed). Truly, in that sense, I was no different than any other entity (e.g., movie shoot, etc.) doing an unfamiliar permit. Really, what was unreasonable about expecting RIOC to tell me all the things I needed to do for the permit? If I were permitting an event at a different location, wouldn't I have the same expectations?

So, Yes, I was surprised, but I learned something: (1) Lighthouse Park was more popular than I had imagined, so (2) events like this require more advance notice (something RIOC learned, too). That's the honest truth.

But maybe Ratso is right in that there is the peanut gallery (like you) who always find something to complain about me.

NotMyKid said...

Lol Frank, I have to say it but your not the most popular to many people.

Eh, as for me.. I grown to accept you for you.

So yes, you will always be put under the spotlight. I don't think you did anything wrong though.

YetAnotherRIer said...

"But maybe Ratso is right in that there is the peanut gallery (like you) who always find something to complain about me."

Sounds familiar, right? You are doing the same when it comes to RIOC, RIRA, PSD, etc. etc.

Frank Farance said...

YetAnotherRIer, How Many Guitarists Does It Take To Change A Light Bulb? Answer: Five, one to do it, and four to watch and say "I Could Have Done That". That's you: can't tolerate someone saying or doing something intelligent and citing sources to share the information with others.

As for RIOC, RIRA, and PSD, simply I Calls 'Em As I Sees 'Em. Maybe you missed that I recognized that RIOC changed its notification policy for the better. Or maybe you missed that I chose PSD for security (when I could have hired my own private security for less). Why did I choose PSD? Because i thought it was a good neighborly thing to do. And ditto for the RI Reunions: PSD provided security (yet we could have provided our own). Or maybe you miss that I still participate in RIRA, plugging away, even though RIRA has its faults.

It's easy to get fall into the emotional/tribal arguments, as you frame them ... but that doesn't really help because it then becomes one tribe against another, and all about whose tribe is better. It's harder to stay focused upon one's aesthetic and advocate doing the Right Job, regardless of imperfect venues or collaborators.

However, I don't see you out in the community plugging away for constructive improvements. You sit behind your anonymous handle doing zip ... Guerra called that Keyboard Bravery, an apt term.

NotMyKid said...

i wish i can still help, too bad i am not an island resident. maybe one day i can hit the lotto and keep a place on the island. so many faults with rioc, rira and other sub units within the island. very few really know how to fix it without political clout.

i think for one. remove anyone on the rira psc committee that has had personal run ins with psd or any law enforcement unit, or their first line relative.

a backround check should be completed for every candidate to the PSC.

YetAnotherRIer said...

"That's you: can't tolerate someone saying/doing something intelligent and citing sources to share the information with others."

I think by now you should know a lot better. I am not going to repeat myself again.

Frank Farance said...

YetAnotherRIer, yes you gripe about anyone who makes progress, not just me. Here's your second post on this blog on the topic of RI Post Office Saved, Good Job By Protesting Residents and Elected Officials" (see ""):

YetAnotherRIer: Yeah, those 4-6 people with signs definitely prevented the closure of the post office. Right.

Simply, you can't let others get credit for contributing to the community, whether registering complaints or accomplishing things. And it shows that it's not just me, it's You with this problem towards many people. Plenty examples of your behavior like above.

Isaac Humphrie said...

I think this is silly. Just put more patrol in the area. RIOC, sometime I don't understand your thinking process. Why do things have to be so complicated? It seems pretty simple to me....2 cops patrolling the parks and promenade. Unfortunately, crime is a fact of life in a big city. We have to come up with clever ways of combatting that without inconveniencing the masses. The all, or nothing approach is not the answer.

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, agree with conflicts of interest in RIRA PSC and RIRA itself, which is why I am forming a new committee that (I hope) will be unassailable in that regard. If you have suggestions, please post them (or E-mail Rick, who will forward to me). See separate comment on meeting announcement.

Frank Farance said...

Community Committee for Roosevelt Island Law Enforcement Issues, first meeting Wednesday August 7 at 8:15 PM in 555 Community Room

As mentioned in the latest WIRE, I am forming a committee of community volunteers (residents, merchants, organizations, etc.) to address law enforcement issues on Roosevelt Island. This would involve a broad spectrum of issues, including Public Safety, RIOC, NYPD, NY District
Attorney's Office, and other entities. Issue would include policy, procedures, incidents, and so on. I've already spoken to RIOC PSD Interim Director McManus and he is interested in hearing our views.

By necessity, this committee will not be a RIRA committee. With RIRA President Ellen Polivy's perspective that all motions require "ratification" by the Common Council, RIRA committees will be delayed in their responses and, possibly, prohibited in their responses. In my opinion, much of problem relates to a variety of conflicts of interests
(such as Ms. Polivy and Ms. Strong-Shinozaki, who have spent much effort protecting their husbands on the RIOC Board), special interests, and other interests (such as committee members and family having jobs at RIOC/PSD).

Really, the community deserves much better. At the last RIRA PSC meeting, the chair and her husband went overboard in flawed procedures, bias, and non-neutrality to advocate their own positions ... a nice display for newcomers on why this needs to be outside of RIRA.

Our first meeting will be Wednesday August 7, 2013 at 8:15 PM in the 555 Main (Island House) Community Room. I look forward to your participation in an environment that, hopefully, will be more productive. If you have suggestions for issues/etc., please contact me directly.

Lastly, I note that I still remain a member of the RIRA PSC and will continue to participate.

Frank Farance

NotMyKid said...

I think just doing a quick backround and psd inquiry is all that is really needed. Also the chairperson must disclose incidents and be forthright with incidents with themselves and immediate family members. Sign a disclosure agreement. I think that's the simplest way. They don't need to disclose the entire incident, just acknowledge an incident occured.

Trevre Andrews said...

Its so typical of this island and probably the reason why RIOC is so dysfunctional that you would bring up someone having a wedding in the park for 1 day 5 years ago when the real issue is how RIOC is needlessly restricts access to green space on the island. If you spent half the effort you do gossiping on the island about who did what on standing up to RIOC we would have half the problems we do.

Its simple - write RIOC and tell them we don't want restrictions on park hours including lighthouse, southpoint and the FDR memorial boondoggle. On top of that we would like the ridiculous fences taken down around all of the places (southpoint and the FDR thing) and while they are at it they can take down the god awful fence on the RI bridge.

NotMyKid said...

Truth is, you need park hours from a safety stand point.

You don't want lurkers and unwanted things going on late into the night.

Its too difficult to keep safe at all times. Of course its safer during the day.. plenty of witnesses. Very miniscule at night.

Perhaps a midnight closing time sounds fair?.

Taking down all the fences and having 24/7 free for all is dangerous and reckless. I made numerous arrests, some very good drug arrests at lighthouse park. Of course they were smoking dope or drinking, which gave me PC to stop them since I don't remember any closings signs posted off hand.

Trevre Andrews said...

24/7 free for all - you mean like central park? They say its closed form 1 to 6 am but even then I have never had a problem being in the park during those hours.

In case you hadn't noticed there are plenty of people in both parks late at night all the time. I run through both parks just about every night often times past midnight. If you think its important to fight a drug war on the island go for it - I think it is a pointless effort and its not really hurting anyone except the users. I would be more worried about assaults and from what i see in the PSD reports there haven't been any of those in the parks (let me know if that is not the case the clarity of reporting by PSD on incident type and location leave something to be desired). If people choose to go in the park late at night is should be their choice, we don't need you baby sitting us and telling us when we can and can't be there.

Late night is often the best time to be in the park for a city that never sleeps. Its great for night photos, cooling down, and hanging out and talking with friends. You should try it some time.

OldRossie said...

I agree with what your saying - freedom to move around the parks at any hour is a nice thing to have. However, the crimes that HAVE recently occurred have reportedly been committed by off-islanders. Our parks are a reason for people to come to the island. If making them off limits at night means fewer late night off-islanders, and consequently fewer crimes (anywhere on the island), it makes sense. I'm willing to give up the freedom of a midnight park run if it means my building is less likely to be burglarized.

I like that people come to the island and enjoy the space. Anyone coming at/after midnight is MORE LIKELY to be up to no good.

Also, saying that drugs only hurt the users is incredibly wrong. We don't need drugged out people walking (or driving) around the island, and we don't want them around our kids.

Trevre Andrews said...

Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security.

NotMyKid said...

Wow. I love to bike, hike and love going to parks and especially fish off of lighthouse park as much as you or anyone else but going to a park is not a right, its a privilege.

The land is not your private land.

OldRossie said...

The (complete) quote fits perfectly! Ben Franklin was arguing that states defend themselves freely and not rely on the British monarchy. He acknowledged the imminent and long term security threats. Thanks for the reinforcement!

"In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Whether he could, as he supposes, “if his Hands had been properly strengthened, have put the Province into such a Posture of Defence, as might have prevented the present Mischiefs,” seems to us uncertain; since late Experience in our neighbouring Colony of Virginia (which had every Advantage for that Purpose that could be desired) shows clearly, that it is next to impossible to guard effectually an extended Frontier, settled by scattered single Families at two or three Miles Distance, so as to secure them from the insiduous Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers: But thus much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him; and if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them."

Trevre Andrews said...

And its not yours to take away from others.

Trevre Andrews said...

maybe you haven't read the latest stats on the drug war lately - its not working and in fact it is discriminating against minorities. There have never been as far as I am aware any incidents of drug use on the island which harmed the general public. Correct me if I am wrong.

Trevre Andrews said...

If you think the park is dangerous at night you don't have to go there, that doesn't give you the right to tell other people they can't go there nor is it an efficient use of island funds to now have someone that has to go open and close the gate everyday.

OldRossie said...

No more Franklin?
You're misinterpreting me - I don't want these things ON THE ISLAND. If it involves the parks (note July 4th, group moving from the park onto Main street results in a shooting on Main street), then lets address the parks. I actually suggested more patrols, though I'm not against locking it up.

And lets not go the "efficient use of island funds" route. I pay taxes - I'd rather that money go toward proactive public safety than having to spend more money if the NEXT time they rob an apartment in Manhattan park, it happens to be mine; or the next time someone is pistol whipped in front of gristedes, it happens to be me; or the next time someone is shot on main street, it happens to be me... or my wife, or my kid...

all of these thing happened this summer - hence the discussion.

Frank Farance said...

I was under the impression that I was more oblique than Ben Franklin. Apparently that isn't so. :-)

CheshireKitty said...

Wouldn't it be relatively cheap/easy to put the park under video surveillance - with signs posted that it is under surveillance? I don't see that as an infringement of liberty. I agree with Trevre on letting people use the park at all hours, as long as the uses are lawful. Peace officers should also patrol the parks, promenade etc 24/7.

Trevre Andrews said...

So there is criminal activity on the island, at night, and in one case before the crime was committed they were in the park - therefore we should close the parks at night? There is plenty of criminal activity (read drug use if you really consider that an important crime) on the promenade and also during the day so why don't we close that as well? How about we require everyone to get a permit before they walk around the island or enter the park for just a small fee. Pretty soon the only things enjoying the parks will be the grass and the birds.

NotMyKid said...

It's not. Absolutely right. It's neither yours. It's the governments.

If you want your very own park, look for land in upstate somewhere. Trust me, I am looking for a great deal myself to have my own getaway from NYC.

That's the only way YOU and I can make our own rules. Until then, it's the governments job to keep us safe and make the rules.
You want to use the park? Ok. You can. When it's open.

Nothing good comes out of sitting in a park at 2am. There really is no purpose honestly.

Your hoopla about infringements sounds great until god forbid something happens to you or a loved one. Then it's "where was the police, where was the government to help me".

You cannot have a "it won't happen to me" attitude. I'm sure plenty of rape, robbery and murder victims never woke up that morning thinking today was their day to be a victim.

As I said before. I love recreation myself but a park is a privilege not a right.

NotMyKid said...

The technology is not really that good for night shots. It is also very expensive to install and wire up IR/night cameras. I installed 2 outside my home and it was already hitting about a grand. Low end IR cameras also. Not commercial grade with excellent resolution for today's standard.

Trevre Andrews said...

The government is here to protect us. Yeah you just keep on believing that.

NotMyKid said...

Ooooooooook. I'm no fan of the current climate of "NSA spying" but the general reasoning is yes it's the govt responsibility to sensibly protect its citizens. Some things work, some don't.

CheshireKitty said...

That's too bad. You mean all the surveillance cameras you see all around really don't work too well at night? That's when they're most needed - at night.

CheshireKitty said...

Not: These days we live in a 24/7 society. People may work varying shifts. There may very well be a valid reason for going into a park after hours - plenty of them, not connected with crime. The City can't stop people from going into Central Park at all hours - yet you do not hear of a crime wave in Central Park. Patrols/cameras etc could keep Lighthouse park safe at all hours. A fence cutting across the island at the foot of Lighthouse Park - horrible.

NotMyKid said...

This is where you are not exactly correct. Perhaps there is not a crime wave but crime exists very much so in central park.

I pulled up the last 28 day crime reports for the 22pct aka central park precinct.

3- rapes
13- grand larcenies
15- petit larcenies
6- misdemeanor assaults
1- misdemeanor sex crime.

That's the past 28 days alone.
Year to date:
0-murder thank god
4- rapes
4- robberies
3-felony assaults
5- burglaries
41- grand larcenies
0- GLA
60- petit larcenies
6- misdemeanor sex crimes.

So, I'm not sure what you consider a crime wave but just because the news does not broadcast all incidents in central park does not mean crimes don't happen.

NotMyKid said...

Furthermore the rapes occurred during the hours of 11pm-330am. This is not an uncommon time frame and this is in a nutshell the normal time. Daytime or evening hours are a very rare occurrence.

NotMyKid said...

The cameras PSD have a pretty good but at night, no camera is perfect.

CheshireKitty said...

No - we do not hear about the crime in Central Park. Thank you for looking this up. I still think fences would ruin Lighthouse Park and I agree with Trevre on the fences at Southpoint Park - should be removed. RI is special because the green spaces flow along without interruption or fences. As I said in another comment, even if Lighthouse Park is fenced, the unlawful activity will just move on to another green/park-like space. Why should Lighthouse Park be fenced off just to exclude the law-breakers, when that will also exclude the majority of users, who do not break the law.

NotMyKid said...

I don't agree with a fence for lighthouse park at all. Signs which enable enforcement is sufficient along with a warning sign and a sign which included crime prevention tips.

As for south point, well a fence is must due to some sensitive areas down there. Especially the UN which is maybe a couple hundred feet away. Impossibly to monitor that large area with just cameras and limited patrol perssonell.

I think actually that RIOC/psd should post metal signs with crime tips by each bus stop. Maybe this can enhance awareness to the passengers waiting. Maybe these tips can help later on as they read it a hundred times and know what to look for. As well as the number to psd.