Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

A Letter To The Editor From Tim Spies

In response to Michael Weisner Letter to the Editor of December 3rd (“Neighborhood spruce-ups meaningless without safety”,) I offer the following:

Neighborhood cleanups and the visual attractiveness of homes do, indeed, lower the incidence of crime. Well-maintained properties are not as likely to attract criminals, as they communicate to them that the residents care about their properties and those of their neighbors, and that they also are more alert to the presence of persons who may not “belong” in their neighborhood. In established neighborhoods, particularly those with a concentration of homeowner occupied homes, people look out for one another to a higher degree than in areas where residence is of a more transient nature. They are also more likely to call police to report suspicious persons and crimes.

Areas that contain concentrations of run-down houses are crime magnets. Poorly kept properties indicate to potential criminals that the houses and residents are more vulnerable than those in well-kept properties. They know that the odds are lower that these neighbors look out for one another to the extent that others might, and even if victimized, won’t call police. They know that there are more unlighted entries to houses, more unlighted or otherwise concealed routes of escape, fewer good locks on doors, more unsecured windows, and more opportunities for successful criminal activity. And, of course, there’s the fact that many of the criminals themselves live in these areas, giving them the important advantage of familiarity with both the properties and the residents.

As a former police officer, I can attest to the fact that high police presence and visibility do contribute to a lower crime rate, but that police presence has its limits in every city, and that policing itself is only a small part of the whole crime prevention picture. Education of the public as to how to avoid being a victim, enforcing residential zoning laws to eliminate crowding and blight, providing adequate lighting of streets and homes, and, yes, sprucing up the neighborhood all have their place as strategies in crime prevention. The responsibility for ensuring that all these are consistently met is not only the city’s; it’s ours.

To view information regarding neighborhood cleanups and property maintenance as regards crime prevention, I invite your attention to: http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/physenv.txt.

For a free crime prevention assessment of your property by an officer of the Salisbury Police Department, call 410-749-5151 during daylight hours.

Tim Spies
President, Camden Neighborhood Association
Co-chairman, Salisbury Area Weed & Seed Program

1 comment:

Gunpowder Chronicler said...

There are two great points here:

1) The "broken-window" approach to law-enforcement does work when applied consistently. By addressing the lower-rung "quality of life crimes" first, and being aggressive in it, you do chase away the riff-raff. Simply denying them a location to ply their trade can be EXTREMELY effective.

2) Forget for the moment that some landlords may be in fact, slumlords. Even the "honest" landlords are hamstrung in their ability to evict tenants who are violating leases. I know of at least a dozen or more situations up here in the frozen tundra where it took OVER A YEAR to get the final eviction order out of the courthouse for tenants who were clearly breaking the law (and I know of one situation where the tenants actually set the rental property on fire during the process). The laws in the state need to be changed to 1) seize rental properties from slumlords who do nothing and 2) make it much easier to evict tenants when a clear violation of the law is the reason (ie, you are using the upstairs bedroom as a meth lab).