There are a few things I wanted to respond to. Ed Fessler writes: > Why would anybody want to turn back the clock and >go back to Minneapolis the way it was in the early >90's?
TN: Once again I'll remind people that internal candidate John Laux was police chief in the early 90's Ed Continues: > Why did crime rates fall? Who deserves the credit? > 1. The prosperity of the Clinton economy. Jobs, >jobs, jobs and rising wages. > Nationally, crime rates quadrupled in the 1960's >and 70's. Crime went down in the first four years of >the Reagan Revolution (despite a bad recession) and >after the Gingrich Congress was elected in 1994. TN: I actually agree with this point. Crime rates and the economy are directly linked, thus social services and living wage jobs are better than law enforcement at reducing crime. <snip> > My conclusion: Prosperity and jobs reduce crime. >Conservative crackdowns reduce crime. > 2. The new model of law enforcement. The national >model was New York City under Rudy Guiliani and his >police commissioner, Bernard Kerrick. > 3. The CODEFOR program in Minneapolis cut the crime >rate by 16 percent in its first year. It was a >tremendous success. TN: I don't know where to begin here. CODEFOR (referred to as COMSTAT in New York) was the brainchild of Kerrick's predecessor, William Bratton. Guilliani scrapped this program and fired Bratton (in much the same way that Rybak tried to oust Olson.) Giulliani, who was a very pro police mayor, was none the less convinced that COMSTAT would force the city in to more civil rights law suits and that it wouldn't do much in reducing crime. As Ed says earlier in the same post, most of the credit for crime reduction went to the economy, not any policing strategy. Mark Anderson writes: >Tamir Nolley wrote: >In my view (I'm only speaking for myself, but I know >many others strongly share this opinion) most (not >all)of the people who support an internal candidate >support a certain level of police brutality (or tough >policing, use whichever term appeals to you) because >it makes them feel safe. >Mark Anderson: >That is absurd. I could as easily say about you, >Tamir, that you support a >certain amount of crime, because it keeps the police >from getting too >powerful. Give some evidence, or stop making >specious allegations. TN: OK Mark, that's a fair statement and it IS partially accurate. For example, I believe that marijuana (and other drugs) should be legalized and regulated. Since this won't happen on a federal level for some time, law enforcement shouldn't't deal with the drug issue at all. This isn't something that police do very well, and it crowds jails with people who aren't't really criminals, but are addicted and therefore have a disease. This should only be dealt with through social services and health professionals. Robert Olson has publicly said as much. By this criteria, it's fair to say that I support a certain level of crime and diminishing the power of law enforcement. I also don't like the focus on "livability" crimes. It opens up a huge cans of worms about the police being racist (e.g. ticketing someone for loitering when they could very well have a legitimate reason to be in said spot.) Also, I've heard the exact statement while sitting in on a block club meeting, that a certain level of police brutality is OK with some people because of a perception that it deters crime. I think this highlights a certain "under the surface" prejudice that many Minneapolitans have. I don't think any reasonable person would deny that prejudice exists in Minneapolis. Jonathan Palmer writes. >No guarantees, but as people are advancing the idea that an internal >candidate is better for the job and for bringing about change because >their internal >and change will best come from the inside (Niziolek advanced this last night, >quoting an MIT professor even), than one does have to consider what internal >candidates have done. It's not a red herring to hold this up as an >example and >ask the question. No guarantees, I'll agree, but the question should be >examined. To which Eva Young responds: >We'll just have to agree to disagree, Jonathan, I >still think Laux is a red >herring. Sharon Lubinski and John Laux are very >different people. I also >think other examples of other police forces - beyond >Minneapolis is better >evidence for or against - and that sounds like what >Council Member >Niziolek's point was. If the MIT Professor has >studied this issue, I'd >take that seriously. Jonathan says this (and so many other things) much better than I could. If the issue is purely qualification, than McManus stands out as being much more qualified, much more experienced. If the issue is whether or not and internal or external candidate would be better suited to the job, then you have to consider the last internal candidate who did the job and more specifically, who being an internal candidate affected his performance in the job. The most disturbing thing about Laux was that he resisted change BECAUSE he was an insider. It was Laux who bitterly fought the creation of the CRA (despite the fact that it was pretty much symbolic anyway.) Laux's explanation was that change can only come from within, basically the same argument that Dan Niziolek used as justification for an internal candidate. Laux was recently quoted in the Star Tribune endorsing Sharon Lubinsky for the job. Finally, Ed writes: > A group called Communities United Against Police >Brutality is circulating an on-line petition in favor >of McManus. > Communities United Against Police Brutality has a >long history of supporting baseless charges against >the Minneapolis police. Legitimate cases of police >misconduct get lost in the shuffle when irresponsible >groups support every charge raised against the police. > Should the endorsement of a group like CUAPB count >in favor of McManus, or against? Consider, for the moment, that a police chief with a history of reducing crime and making his city safer, can actually appeal to a group like CUAPB, and to a person like me. Consider that I (we all know how I feel about police issues) am supporting and rooting for a cop. For the first time in the history of the MPD, there is a chance to build consensus with people who, because of past experience, race or socio-economic status have had touble with police and the police themselves. There is a chance to build consensus between groups of people in Minneapolis who are traditionally at each other's throats. When we learn to get along with each other, both crime and police brutality will be reduced. For me, just the possibility that this can be done is worth it. Tamir Nolley Holland __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
