Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Must See Roosevelt Island Video - RIOC Public Safety Director Jack McManus Discusses Issues With RIRA Public Safety Committee

RIOC PSD Director McManus and RIRA PSC Chair Nahem Prior To RIRA Meeting

Roosevelt Island Operating Corp (RIOC) Public Safety Director Jack McManus met with the Roosevelt Island Residents Association (RIRA) Public Safety Committee last night for a very interesting and productive 90 minute discussion.

Here's what happened. Following an introduction by RIRA Public Safety Chair Erin Feely-Nahem, Mr. McManus gave a brief introduction on his views regarding Public Safety on Roosevelt Island



followed by questions and answers from the audience.





If you are interested in Roosevelt Island Public Safety issues, I highly recommend watching the full 90 minutes.

In my view, whether you agree or disagree with Mr. McManus on any particular Roosevelt Island Public Safety issue, he should be congratulated for opening up a meaningful dialogue with the community.

30 comments :

AllMy Children said...

Great Guy that Jack!!!!

Frank Farance said...

Before you say Great Jack McManus, you should know that he's forcing the closure of M&D Deli due to PSD's inability to deal with noise issues (while the deli is closed), just like PSD was unable to deal with the noise problem at the August 10 loud party after midnight at Al Lewis Park.

The owner of M&D Deli has said they don't want the noise outside of their store (it hurts their business). The owner doesn't control the space outside their store. The owner said that PSD patrol cars would park in front of the store and watch the noise but not do anything. The owner has tried to clear out the noise while PSD was watching, but PSD officers would not come to his aid to clear out the noise (the owner was unsuccessful clearing out the noise himself, yet the PSD officer did nothing). Considering that PSD has video cameras pointing at the M&D Deli and video observable at the front desk of PSD headquarters, PSD was well aware of these issues, but chose to do nothing.

Here's a breakdown of the Noise Complaints at 579 Main Street: 21 complaints since June 20, and 20 of those 21 complaints are WHEN THE STORE IS CLOSED, and only ONE complaint in the year prior. So it looks like all the complaining started around June 20. What has happened recently? Jack McManus took over Public Safety. And Michael Lamonsoff (the attorney for Anthony Jones) is representing the two deli workers who were abused in the infamous Deli Videos.

Just like the August 10 incident (a loud after-midnight party that PSD did not clear), PSD would rather complain about the noise than think about how to do their job.

As we've all seen: PSD officers standing on the 575 steps watching the noise ten feet away. This is why I paid a compliment to one of the officers recently about clearing out the noise: that's the right way to approach the problem.

But with the M&D Deli complaints, this is a page taken out of Keith Guerra's playbook as he worked on multiple complaints against Eastwood Section 8 tenants to get them evicted: Mr. McManus is trying the same approach against M&D Deli.

Simply the problem has been Public Safety's failure to patrol properly, and it continues with Mr. McManus. NYPD doesn't have these kinds of problems. Here's a hypothetical between an NYPD officer and a bodega owner:

NYPD Officer: There is lots of noise outside your store. Do you know anything about this?

Bodega Owner: Yeah, they come and make noise. I don't want it, it's bad for business, I get less customers.

You can be sure NYPD would be clearing out that noise problem. But here? The PSD Director hasn't had that conversation with the merchant, the PSD Director has failed to have the area properly patrolled, and the PSD Director is forcing the closure of the business via numerous misleading complaints.

While Mr. McManus is very capable, its seems that other things are at work here, such as RIOC retaliating against a business (whose employees have hired the same attorney who is dealing with other PSD abuse litigation).

Really, it is believable that Mr. Manus doesn't know how to contact merchants to help solve the kinds of things that law enforcement does, e.g., clearing out noise problems on the public sidewalk? Of course not. (As pointed out, PSD has been having a problem with this aspect of patrolling, but they shouldn't blame the merchants for PSD's inaction or PSD's inability.)

YetAnotherRIer said...

"Before you say Great Jack McManus, you should know that he's forcing the closure of M&D Deli..."


Sorry, but he's got my support for this. The area in front of the deli is one of the hot spots for drug dealing etc.

Frank Farance said...

Certainly Mr. McManus knows that the merchant has no authority or training for law enforcement, so I don't understand why he wrote to David Kramer with the expectation that a merchant would attempt to perform law enforcement services.

OldRossie said...

What is PSD's authority in these situations? What cause would they have to clear the side walks in front of the deli, at ANY hour? I think they should, but they must be on the sidelines for a reason.

Frank Farance said...

OldRossie, when you read the law below (as per NYPD), you'll see how poor PSD enforcement has been. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that PSD go overboard into the Abuse Zone, I'm pointing out that PSD could have done it well without the abuse and without the arrests of people who were doing nothing illegal. (By the way, these are two of the three prongs of the policy/approach we've suggested in the RI Law Enforcement Committee.) You'll see below that the noise/etc. is covered by Disorderly Conduct, and you'll ask yourself: Why Isn't PSD Doing This? NYPD doesn't understand why PSD doesn't handle this.


But the McManus letter to Mr. Kramer expects that merchants should be handling law enforcement in public areas.


NY Penal Law 240.20 Disorderly conduct.

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:

1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or

2. He makes unreasonable noise; or

3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or

4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or

5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or

6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or

7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.



Disorderly conduct is a violation.

As you can see, this covers virtually all the concerns outside the deli, AND, as per #6, only law enforcement can demand the dispersal of disorderly people, NOT MERCHANTS.

OldRossie said...

Right, we discussed 240 in the past. I think I was complaining about this and PSD in the past, then I met McManus, and I've since been very positive. I may be contradicting myself from a while back, but here's my 2 cents (as if anyone cares): McManus might be taking the reasonable-man approach by suggesting to the deli that, if they wouldn't mind, closing at their prior 10pm schedule might help disperse the late crowd. I do NOT agree that he's suggesting the merchants handle law enforcement as you say - that's over stating it. That said, PSD should make an effort to disperse the crowd themselves - even doing this once might send a message.


I also want to point out that a lot of the crowd are teens, and I'm sure some of them have parents. Perhaps the community should be appealing to the parents as much as PSD. I'm not pointing fingers, just trying to look at the whole picture.

Frank Farance said...

OldRossie, agree on parenting, seen the son of RIRA Public Safety Committee Chair hanging out in front of the deli. :-)

The illogic of Mr. McManus is: complaints are at a time when the deli is closed, so closing earlier doesn't help. Is that arbitrary/capricious? Really, there is no logic to Mr. McManus' determination.

Your concern "I do NOT agree that he's suggesting the merchants handle law enforcement as you say - that's over stating it", however, is not an overstatement, it's just logic. Either (1) you believe the deli has control over a crowd on the public sidewalk such that you can force them to move/etc., or (2) you believe the deli does not have such control.

If you believe #1, then (as per 240.20) you believe the deli is acting as law enforcement because only law enforcement has the authority to make you move.

If you believe #2, then why punish the deli on something they have no control over, and is not within their store -- it is on a public sidewalk. And the proper law enforcement belongs to PSD, not the deli. So why punish the deli for the poor performance of PSD?

I've heard the deli's attorney has made a similar argument: law enforcement on the public sidewalk is not the merchant's responsibility, it belongs to PSD.

And let's get back to an earlier point: why not have NYPD officers here, who seem to know how to do this right?

I think Mr. McManus handled this very poorly, he really knows better. Ditto for David Kramer: Do you think any merchant would accept the idea that they are responsible for law enforcement on the public sidewalk? Of course not.

Smart people like Mr. McManus or Mr. Kramer don't make obvious flubs like this. That's why, back to an earlier point, it seems that RIOC was looking to intimidate a merchant, The McManus letter really wasn't about RIOC/PSD actually solving noise problems.

Frank Farance said...

PSDInformant: PSD Officers fabricated testimony. PSD officers were abusive. PSD isn't able to do their job (but NYPD is), right? PSD asks for a crowd to disperse, yet the people comply with your orders and you then arrest them, right? Abusive, right? Got it all here from your criminal complaints (officers were fabricating testimony).


Recently, I thanked one of the officers for doing the job right (clearing out the noise promptly, without a fuss). That's the way is should be done.



So now you blame the forced closing of M&D on PSD's inability to do its job.


The July 4 incident: you had the same party last year with the same results, including a fight breaking out in front of Trellis, yet you didn't blame Trellis for the fight. This year it was under McManus (who, in theory, has better credentials than Guerra), you got the same result.


And with the problems of the July 4 party, did PSD or McManus learn? No, they repeated the same problem on August 10.



You frame it as: letting the PSD officers do their job. Let's see, is lying part of their job? That was undeniably so. And look at Mr. McManus, the head of your department. He's put together a pretty bogus report on M&D Deli. It's clear that PSD did NOT attempt to resolve the problem with the merchant, they just started filing noise complaint reports to "document" the problem (all of a sudden, there are 20+ reports when there was only one in the year prior?). For McManus, it's not about attempting to solve a problem, its about tripping up a merchant ... just as Guerra did to Section 8 tenants in Eastwood to force their eviction.


McManus didn't think after, say, the 5th noise complaint outside the deli "Hey I need to talk to those guys over at M&D and find out what's going on"? No that didn't happen because he was not intending to solve a problem with our quality of life, he was solving a financial/legal problem for RIOC, right?


Really, if McManus had a boss, he/she might be saying: you're not trying to improve the quality of life, you're just racking up complaints for the numbers ... how does that help this community and its quality of life?


And where's the RIOC Board in all of this? Mr. Shinozaki, you think this is great leadership for PSD? And Mr. Polivy, you think is great for real estate? It appears that you're just forcing out the old merchants, so the Mr. Kramer can have lots of empty stores, high rents (that make business not viable), and truly poor work on the store fronts:


BEFORE: walls in Eastwood, Island House, Westview were all DRAB GREY.


AFTER MAIN STREET REVITALIZATION: walls in Eastwood, Island House, Westview are given a fresh coat of paint. What color? DRAB GREY. No one would put up with Mr. Kramer's incompetence in Manhattan or Queens, right? But, Mr. Kramer doesn't worry because it's not his money paying for the improvements, it's our (RIOC's) money.



So yes, as we can see from McManus' letter, the real estate interests are closely tied to the Public Safety operations.


And merchants can see clearly from the McManus letter that it's really about real estate interests. You need to see how merchants react when they see a copy of the McManus letter.


The McManus letter is not an accidental mistake, with 20+ sudden noise complaint reports, it's a calculated strategy ... much harder to unwind in people's perceptions.

Nally said...

Could someone provide more info about the Pedophile they brought up in the meeting???
This is serious!!! You all have kids or grandkids. I am worry

PSDInformant said...

I have no clue what incidents you're talking about. I don't listen much when you go on and on and on like a maniac.

This is what I've gathered from this. You and the island hated the director two directors ago. You hated Guerra, and now you're already banging on this McManus who I don't know from a hole in the wall. Seems to me that you are the problem.

You can't tell me that three directors in a row which have increasingly better resumes all are clueless, right? right? right?

You sound ridiculous with that. Just stop. Try to be constructive.

CheshireKitty said...

The July 4th incident - a non-fatal shooting which occurred outside the deli BY CHANCE - is somehow blamed on the deli business. Meanwhile, PSD, with McManus personally in charge that night, failed to peacefully disperse the crowd. PSD then *blames* the shooting on the deli's "mythical, incredibly powerful baleful influence". PSDInformant: This is so way out of line as to not even be funny. The merchant in question - the deli owner - is the essence of conservative, propriety, law-abiding, small businessman. The guy will never ever even think of doing anything illegal. Yet RIOC-PSD pins the blame for this incident on *him* of all people! It's convenient for RIOC-PSD to do so, since the deli workers, who were unjustly arrested for no reason whatsoever previously by PSD, have filed law suits vs RIOC. So you see how one section of RIOC is helpful to the other: PSD fabricates or let's say "documents" meticulously noise complaints, even goes ahead and blames the merchant for a shooting incident (LOL) which is really absurd, all in an effort to build up a "case" against the poor guy, who really, is a conservative, small businessman who just wants to have his store! The whole thing is so preposterous as to be emblematic of RIOC incompetence, mis-handling of situations!


PSD has to control the streets, period! If they can't control the streets, then McManus must go. It isn't rocket science to get kids to move along. The reason McManus is ordering his men to do nothing whenever they see youths gathering outside the deli is because McManus/RIOC-PSD *want* these noise complaints to occur - they may even be fabricating complaints for all we know. RIOC *needs* these complaints - for its "case" against the deli! The more complaints that are generated, the happier is RIOC, since it brings it one step closer to shutting down the deli, its adversary in court. You see, *that's* the way justice is handled by RIOC, PSDInformant: If you can't win in Court (& I can guarantee you RIOC cannot win in Court) then you smash the adversary with legal-real-estate technicalities and fabricated "complaints" - since PSD could have cleared the street in each case but didn't.


It's all too absurd, but also, very sad that RIOC ended up stooping to such lengths vs a really a small, hard-working businessman. RIOC, Indelicato, McManus - all overplayed their hand. I certainly hope that no matter what, the deli owner and the deli workers pursue their case - with all the additional ramifications of intimidation, and as we now see, the cases where the PSOs just stand around and do not try to control the street, so that the noise complaints will just roll in the PSD... the more noise complaints, sez RIOC, the merrier!

OldRossie said...

Agreed.

NotMyKid said...

The only thing I pretty much agree with you on is that you can't blame the deli on the shooting.

NotMyKid said...

A two star nypd chief is sooooo clueless and a computer programmer is the real genius here!

The answer man!

Maybe a messiah!

RooseveltIslander said...

I think the general community consensus is that PSD Director McManus and the PSD Officers handled the July 4 incident very well. In fact, Mr. McManus was congratulated for it during his meeting at the RIRA Public Safety Committee meeting.



Below is video of that discussion.

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/1511951

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid: again with your flawed argument (Appeal To Authority), you still can't explain the applicability of the provisions of the Nuisance Abatement Law to the M&D Deli. For a cop, you sound like one of those clueless people who don't like something and say "There Should Be A Law Against That". Still you're no better than the photographer: You Saw Something, But Can't Explain Why.

NotMyKid said...

I did. Read my other posts loud mouth

Your a good guy when you put your personal feelings aside. So stop attacking me and perhaps say hmmm.. this might be possible.

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, hey Mr. Loud Mouth, just checked your posts in the past 2 days, none of them have that kind of application of provisions to M&D Deli. Why not just answer the question?

Frank Farance said...

Rick, untrue, you're just pushing a rewrite of history, PSD did this poorly. According to YOUR post: there were 200-300 people (this party should have been shut down sooner, PSD let it get out of control), and there were crows roaming about and someone got shot -- which you're calling a success.


This July 4 party was a repeat of last year ... so PSD should have been better prepared. Ditto for August 10 party. Really Rick, you're just doing Happy Talk without a critical eye.

NotMyKid said...

What do you want me to answer? I can't prove the privisiob as it must be drafted to a judge. Not my call.

I only stated a possible provision. You know the police have no sole decision and must be brought to court for approvsl or denial.

So stop the nonsense to which you know the answer to yourself.

Its not in my place to say md is 100% at fault or is actually committing a nuisance abatable offense.

As a cop I'm the middle man.

CheshireKitty said...

I don't think a shooting plus the gunman never being apprehended is handling an incident very well.


Can McManus explain how the gunman successfully got away - even though McManus and his people were right there?


How was that possible, especially since the only possible exit points are monitored, and in fact, the RI bridge was even shut down that night In hopes of apprehending the gunman.


But nothing worked - PSD came up empty-handed, the gunman got away.


I don't call that successful. I call that a fail.


The gunman might have gone on a shooting spree for all the help we got from PSD. Not only could PSD not stop the shooting, they couldn't capture the shooter even though McManus and his people were all there.


Rick, I'm sorry but that's a monumental fail.


I watched the "love-fest" tape, wherein the PSC "parent figures" of RI disgustingly give a pass to rather nervously squirming McManus on his 7/4 lack of success, in fact total fail with regard to the shooting and apprehending the shooter.


As a sidelight: I remember that night (7/4/13) vividly. I remember wondering where the shooter might be - on the island or off, lurking somewhere, or successfully getting away, maybe the shooter swam away. Rick - we're talking about a 2 mile long spit of land in the middle of the E. River! With limited access, which is guarded. If McManus/PSD couldn't manage to capture a gun-wielding criminal running around under those *ideal* conditions (the guy literally had nowhere to run and no way to escape) then I'm sorry but McManus/PSD failed.


PS: Folks: To this day, the gunman was never apprehended. Not good.

NotMyKid said...

Of course he cannot. I don't even see md deli up on the civil calendar. Prove there is actual litigation.

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, what I'm asking for is simply your connecting the provisions of the law to the actions in M&D Deli. As an analogy, if you were applying Harassment (240.26), you'd be talking about how one or more of three provisions apply:


240.26 Harassment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with
intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other
person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts
which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no
legitimate purpose.

So you have the Nuisance Abatement Law, which is what you tell us about applying in your forced closings. You have the text of the law, tell us how those provisions apply to M&D Deli. For example, one of those provisions concerns prostitution, which doesn't occur in M&D deli, so that provision doesn't apply. Another provision of that law concerns obscene performances, but that doesn't apply to M&D Deli. And so on. So there are some provisions you believe apply. We await your insight on how the Nuisance Abatement Law applies.

OldRossie said...

NotMyKid: just so we're on the same page, I want Frank to explicitly state what he's been eluding to from the beginning. Show some conviction.

CheshireKitty said...

Well, yeah. Nor any of the other stuff that goes on that is not under the control of the deli owner.


For example: What if someone decided to go on a 1 tub of butter a day diet, just to see what would happen to their blood vessels and cholesterol level. After a month, they get their blood tested and of course their cholesterol has risen to dangerous level. In fact, they get a heart attack and drop dead. Do we turn around and blame the guy who sold the consumer 1 container of butter on a daily basis? No way! It is actually up to the consumer to inform themselves about the danger of hyper consumption of fatty cholesterol-rich foods such as butter and the possible fatal consequences of consuming a pound of butter a day.


Didn't the sage say: Everything in moderation? When consumers over consume anything - be it butter, or red meat, or ice cream, or any number of items that can have deleterious effects if consumed in excess, do we blame the store owner? We certainly do not. All of these food items are perfectly legal, perfectly OK if consumed in moderation, as most people will consume them. A store owner cannot be blamed if a portion of the population consumes cholesterol-laden foods in excess, leading to cardiovascular and other diseases.


Just so, the deli owner cannot be blamed if people are gathering - for whatever reason - outside his store. Perhaps the groups prefer to rest on the stairs by his store, or find the area a handy vantage point from which to survey cars/buses rolling down Main St as well as sports activity at Capobianco Field. No-one really knows why groups gather at that spot. The deli owner has nothing to do with these gatherings - and should not be blamed for the gatherings, the 7/4 party and shooting, in any way, shape, or form, or in the veiled, indirect, oblique manner as McManus suggests.


McManus is just plain wrong to tie the deli owner - a hardworking small businessman - to any of the groups that may gather in front of his store, or to the 7/4 shooting. That is really a calumnious attack by McManus and his superiors at RIOC.

NotMyKid said...

Umm... genius. .. that provision does not apply.

So what are you talking about?

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, this is where you're evasive in, supposedly, an area you know something about. Of course, there's no prostitution, obscene performances, etc., which is why those provisions don't apply. But you claim there is at least one provision of the Nuisance Abatement Law that does apply to M&D Deli, so which one is it.


Honestly, the fact that I've asked you several times means you don't really have knowledge in this area. I know, tomorrow there will be a post from you because you're panicked that you've pretended to know something, so you need to ask you buddies what I'm asking in these posts. Not the first time you pretended to know about police work.


So you main claim to fame is you got to operate a padlock and affix it to a door to an establishment, but you don't know what that law is about: you say M&D could be shutdown according to the Nuisance Abatement Law, but with all your phony police bluster, you didn't count on a simple question revealing that you don't know much.


Don't worry, you don't need to answer the question anymore.

Frank Farance said...

OldRossie, the deli that told me it was about litigation related to the Deli Videos. I've seen the criminal complaints. And other things are possible, too. Easily one can imagine the Deli Videos coming up in a lot of cases against RIOC, even if neither M&D nor any of its staff is a party to the litigation (which is why you won't find it search court cases). If you wanted to show a continuing pattern of PSD abuse and fabrication of testimony, wouldn't you be calling some of the deli staff and other victims as witnesses? That video and criminal complaints are pretty damning for RIOC/PSD. The IG seems to think the Deli Videos carried weight.

Also, real estate is a factor. H-R has been using a variety of tactics to get rid of merchants, such as the Boy Scouts, the accountants (tripled the rents), the stationery store, and others. It's not just M&D.


So McManus is just using the same technique against to pick against weak merchants that Guerra used against weak Section 8 tenants to help UA evict them and get more market rate tenants.

NotMyKid said...

I already wrote section 240.35, which I pasted for uou in another post can possibly be construed to be possible.

You are a professional propaganda artist.

Your arguing something that was already shown to you. Why on earth is it so hard? Chapter 7 of the nyc admin law particularly the nusiance abatement rules and laws.