All your points are well taken, Emilie. But why the preferential treatment for Downtown, especially when the Jordan and Phillips neighborhood are more besieged by drug peddlers and gangs? Also, I've seen more panhandlers in Uptown near where I live than Downtown. Why not distribute the benefits, dubious as they may be, according to the greatest need?
While folks at City Hall may talk about how concerned they are about Jordan, it's obvious their priorities are elsewhere.----------------------Peter Schmitz CARAG On Mon, 02 June 2003 16:48:40 -0500 Emilie Quast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 08:28:45 -0500, Jim McGuire pointed out: > > >The concept of video surveillance of public areas is pretty new to > us here > >in the US, but it's nothing new in Europe. > > >I was pickpocketed in Ireland and paid a visit to the Garda > (Police) > >station. I was amazed to see the number of video monitors they > had. It > >seemed to show that police in Ireland (and elsewhere, from what I > >understand) spend more time watching video screens then walking a > beat. > > I think this is in response to years of terroristic events. England > had > Irish planting lots of bombs; France had Algerian terrorism; the > Basques > wanted Spain to shift on issues, and so on. > > Surveillance cameras don't feel Orwellean to people who have lived > for > decades with homocide bombers and bomb threats. It makes them feel > safer. > > I was struck by the reactions to 9/11 from people on an > international > e-list I read. People from Europe, the Middle East and other > targeted > areas were appalled by the fall of the towers, but not stunned. > USers took > much longer to comprehend the event. > > Cameras are now in your life. Remember those parking ramp attacks > several > years ago? Since then, it's been pretty hard to move around > downtown > without getting on camera. If cameras are now moving from privately > owned > structures (where they don't have to be announced) to the street, > what's > the problem? I only wish they'd spend enough money to get high > resolution > cameras instead of those muddy pic things banks seem to still be > using. > > BTW, what happened to the idea that we were going to refer to these > people > as "homocide bombers"? I thought the Minneapolis Tribune agreed it > was a > better term to use. apparently not? > > Emilie Quast > SE Como > TEMPORARY REMINDER: > 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - > change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) > > ________________________________ > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn > E-Democracy > Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls > TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
