Dane County Dem Party Opposes Ban on Loitering (Or...How to Turn Your City Over to Gangs)

The Democratic Party of Dane County wasted no time in joining the political fray over the prospect of resurrecting an anti-loitering law in Madison.

The party on Wednesday approved a resolution opposing such an ordinance and calling on members of the Madison City Council to drop their support for it.

In stating a rationale against such a law, the party resolution says that an anti-loitering ordinance in effect in 1997-2002 "was applied in a grotesquely disparate manner that targeted African-American residents."

The Common Sense Coalition, a local public policy group, is pressing for consideration of an anti-loitering ordinance in response to a season of downtown muggings and street fights and brawls in the Allied Drive neighborhood.

Mayor Dave Cieslewicz termed a call to resurrect an anti-loitering law divisive and politically motivated.

Mayoral candidate Ray Allen today said through a spokesman that he is "philosophically supportive" of such an ordinance if it can be written so it is not discriminatory.

"We are advocating a community dialogue on it," said Semmi Pasha, Allen's campaign manager.

Allen led the Common Sense Coalition before announcing his candidacy for mayor this spring.

The previous anti-loitering law, which made it illegal to loiter for the purpose of illegal drug activity, was taken off the books after it became apparent it was being enforced disproportionately against African-Americans.

The Common Sense Coalition on Wednesday identified 11 City Council members - a majority of the body - as in favor of an anti-loitering ordinance.

The Democratic Party in the last election endorsed five of them: Larry Palm, District 15; Zach Brandon, District 7; Noel Radomski, District 19; Isadore Knox, District 13; and Lauren Cnare, District 3.

East side alderman Palm said today he supported looking at a new version of the ordinance to see if it would be useful. "I think that's where we're all at," he said.

Under the previous law, 89 percent of citations in 2000 were issued to African-Americans, who made up only 6.7 percent of the city population, a factor cited by the Democratic Party in its current resolution.

Police supported that law. Current Chief Noble Wray said he is not opposed to a loitering ordinance if it does not have a sunset clause and if reporting loitering is not mandatory.

The previous law was vetoed by then-mayor Sue Bauman after the City Council voted to make it permanent when its sunset provision came up.

Wray said he was concerned that mandatory reporting would interfere with community police efforts. "We have found the most success in problem-solving when there are multiple resources from the community working together," he said in a statement.

Ald. Palm said looking at such an ordinance now "doesn't mean we'll take off the shelves what we have now."

He said that at a meeting Monday on recent bar-time violence on King Street, people spoke of crowds hanging around "waiting for something to happen."

"Let's see if we can craft an ordinance to successfully reduce the number of individuals loitering," Palm said.

He criticized the local Democratic Party for taking a position on the issue without first sponsoring a membership forum.

Ald. Austin King, District 8, is an adamant opponent of efforts to reinstate an anti-loitering law.

"It's clearly a political maneuver designed to capitalize on people's fears," King said.

"Anybody who claims an anti-loitering law is going to protect people from muggings needs to have their head checked," he said.

King pointed to opposition to the previous ordinance by the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP and the Urban League.

"We're going to talk to the people about this," he said. "History is on our side."

Other City Council members supporting consideration of a new anti-loitering ordinance are Jed Sanborn, District 1; Paul Skidmore, District 9; Tim Bruer, District 14; Judy Compton, District 16; Paul Van Rooy, District 18 and Cindy Thomas, District 20.

Diana-

Do you live in Madison?

Is that skanky-looking McDonald's still in downtown - right across from the Capitol. I was afraid to go in there and eat - not because of possible bodily harm - but due to health reasons.

I saw some shady-looking people hanging around there - but that was a few years back. I was on my way to the Wisconsin Veterans Museum and I thought "I could see how this might scare some people away".

I live 10 miles south of Madistan...and it's no longer far enough, LOL!

I don't know if that McDonald's is still there but yes, the downtown area is really hitting the skids this summer.

That's an awesome museum, though. Did you look through the sub periscope? That's always fun. One of the soldier statues there is actually my friend Norm. I mean, Norm isn't IN there, but they cast his body to make the statue, LOL!

The previous anti-loitering law, which made it illegal to loiter for the purpose of illegal drug activity, was taken off the books after it became apparent it was being enforced disproportionately against African-Americans.

'course, stating the obvious would get one branded as a racist. "The obvious" being: are the people violating this ordinance disproportionately African-American?

The funny thing is that - back in my day as an undergrad there (1975-79) there were street people who were fixtures, providing entertainment and not at all threatening. We had an incredibly old wino named "Snowflake" with white hair and a Santa-like beard - matted with soot and grime. This fellow was often seen in July wearing a filthy air force parka while stumbling up and down State Street pandering. I recall seeing him at the bar in the Kollege Klub frequently [while I ate lunch there, he apparently drank lunch there].

The other was the infamous "Art the Window Washer" - who resembled a polar bear in terms of physique. A bulging gut hanging out from under his t-shirt (even in December) - he would pose leaning against a mailbox and bellow out random unintelligible sounds at passers by. If you knew who he was, this was part of the perverse charm of State Street. To the uninitiated - it was frightening. At some point there was a bit of sympathy for Art - and students designed a t-shirt (front side "What is Art?", backside photo of Art and the text "Art is a Window Washer!") and proceeds from its sale were to help the poor fellow. I think he had the massive heart attack on the street not long afterward.

If a few random, entertaining old bums were our only problems these days, we'd be lucky.

The cops are all in a miff because The Guardian Angels are coming back to town next week to recruit and try to get a citizen watch started. They were here two weeks ago and actually completed TWO Citizen Arrests in that area which is two MORE than the local cops have completed; and they have guns and pepper spray! *Rolleyes*

Let's see...no loitering ordinances or anything else that will "move people along" or "offend" the criminal element. No guns of course, and if Joe Sixpack is caught with a pair of brass knuckles, or a slingshot, or a sock filled with pennies for personal defense...guess who goes to jail?

It's complete lunacy! As I said in an earlier post, I don't live nearly FAR enough away anymore. It used to be laughable, but since gang members shot up my little Cow Town last summer, it just ain't so funny anymore.

P.S. Even my backwater Sheriff is against arming the citizenry in our town. And as a result, he's never been invited over to my house for supper; and I'm a d@mn good cook, Fool! LOL!

And Thunder90? You be careful now that you're back on campus. If, for some unexplainable reason, you decide to be out Hip-Hoppin' at 2-3am I expect you to check in with us before, during and after you do so. ;)

If they want to enforce drug laws, they should enforce drug laws. Not make it illegal for people to stand around in a public area. I'm surprised more people here aren't opposed to these types of laws. It's illegal for me to see a friend on a street corner and catch up with him? Oh, but I don't have to worry about being arrested because the cops will be targeting those people that they apparently suspect of dealing drugs. Well, if those people are selling drugs, arrest them for selling drugs, not for doing the same thing on a street corner that I am a block away. Or do people here feel that I should be arrested for talking to a friend out in public?

"Or do people here feel that I should be arrested for talking to a friend out in public?"

How often do you "catch up with a friend" (or 30 of your "friends") at 3am outside of a Hip Hop club? I mean, that's your right, but you're taking this to the extreme to make your point.

And I'm all for the right of Free Assembly and all that. But some things are what they are in Real Life, not just in the abstract. And Madistan is BLIND to the real issue here; Gangs are moving in, just as they do in all parts of our country that are blue and offer great amenities and plenty-o-social services, have a lax attitude toward crime and don't allow guns for the citizenry. In other words, where people are sitting ducks.

The Madistan City Coundil is making it into a "race thang" because...well, I don't know why. Maybe they're hoping Jesse or Al will show up to bless (pimp) our city or something? Who knows what lurks in the hearts and minds of Moonbat Progressive Dane lemmings?

This is ALL they have to say about Public Safety. Progressive Dane OWNS the City Council. In other words, it's every man for himself lest someone be offended:

Public Safety and Protection

1. Provide diversion programs and preventative, collaborative approaches that address the root causes of crime and juvenile delinquency with respect for civil rights and individual liberties as the primary approaches to dealing with non-violent crime.

2. Provide a secure treatment facility for alcohol and other drug abusers as the primary incarceration tool used to prevent repeat offenses and reduce jail crowding.

http://www.prodane.org/about_us/county_platform/#safety

Makes you just want to hug someone and sing Kumbaya, don't it? ;)

How often do you "catch up with a friend" (or 30 of your "friends") at 3am outside of a Hip Hop club? I mean, that's your right, but you're taking this to the extreme to make your point.

A couple of weeks ago, I saw a friend in San Francisco outside of a restaurant at closing time - around 11 or so. We talked out on the sidewalk for about half an hour. Would I not be subject to arrest under this law?

And I'm all for the right of Free Assembly and all that. But some things are what they are in Real Life, not just in the abstract. And Madistan is BLIND to the real issue here; Gangs are moving in, just as they do in all parts of our country that are blue and offer great amenities and plenty-o-social services, have a lax attitude toward crime and don't allow guns for the citizenry. In other words, where people are sitting ducks.

Yes. So go after real crimes. Arrest gang members if they are selling drugs or injuring others. Not for standing around in public.

The Madistan City Coundil is making it into a "race thang" because...well, I don't know why.

Well, they claim a disproportianate number of black people have been arrested under this law. The trouble with a law like this is that it basically lets a cop arrest anyone he feels like for just standing around. There is much potential for abuse - police are subject to the same prejudices as anyone else. And while you say, "Real life, not just in the abstract" - I say, the real constitutional right of Free Assembly, not just in the abstract. Can I assume that you would feel different about a law like this if some cop who didn't like you for whatever reason arrested you for talking to a friend outside of a bar?

And I'm all for the right of Free Assembly and all that. But some things are what they are in Real Life, not just in the abstract.

Had to single this out - I have such a big problem with this attitude. It's like you're saying, yeah, we have constitutional rights - until some County decides they can't go after drug dealers by arresting dealers for selling drugs. Must be too difficult for them. So what we'll do is take one of your rights away to make it easier for the police to arrest drug dealers. And hey... as long as we're able to make more arrests, it must be a good thing right? Maybe we should give up some more of those rights in order to feel more secure. Can you see where this is leading?

"Can I assume that you would feel different about a law like this if some cop who didn't like you for whatever reason arrested you for talking to a friend outside of a bar?"

I guess I can't relate to the life you lead. I don't hang out in bars. Nor do I travel in packs with the intent to harm others. Well, the Moonbats would say that I used to; I am Retired Army, LOL!

However, I do totally understand your point, belive it or not.

So, what's your answer to our rapidly expanding gang and crime problem? The City won't put any more cops on the streets, they don't want Citizen Groups protecting their apartments and businesses downtown from these roving gangs, the owner of the Hip Hop club won't close, or limit liquor sales and just points a finger back at the cops for "not doing their job" and gawd forbid anyone be offended in any way, shape or form while they're fighting in the streets at bar time or beating up our college students and robbing them.

And not just robbing them. Taking the few measly dollars starving students have AFTER literally beating the cr@p out of them with fists and baseball bats and pipes. Fifteen to one; now that's a fair fight! Please! That's some sort of Gang Initiation if ever there was one. And I was a Teenaged Girl Once-Upon-A-Time. I know all about Gang Warfare. ;)

Count your blessings that this isn't happening in your town. But while you're not looking and chatting with me and arguing your right to meet your friends in the street at bar time...the cancer is creeping in to infect you and yours. ;)

So, what's your answer to our rapidly expanding gang and crime problem?

Obviously, I don't have the answer - nobody does. But I definitely believe that abridging the rights of honest citizens ISN'T the answer. I believe that those who would sacrifice freedom for security do not deserve either.

Incidentally I was living in Berkeley about 10 years ago when Telegraph Avenue was getting hit on a 2-3 times weekly basis by rioting teenagers/hooligans. I've also lived in South Central Los Angeles during the 80s, so it's not like I've been sheltered from street violence. But even having experienced that, I don't believe that taking rights away is a good solution, nor do I believe that giving policemen carte blanche to arrest anyone they want to for standing around is a good idea either.

Nor do I travel in packs with the intent to harm others. Well, the Moonbats would say that I used to; I am Retired Army, LOL!

LOL!

Now, I need concrete solutions to take to these dopes on the City Council so people and businesses in the area aren't harmed any further. Got any? :)

So I can't criticize this policy unless I can solve the crime problem? As I mentioned, if there was an easy solution, it would have been implemented already. There are lots of bad ways to reduce crime. You could have cops shoot all suspected drunk drivers on sight. Would that lessen the numbers of drunk drivers out there? Certainly. It would be more effective than all the previous drunk driving programs combined in getting drunks off the road. That still doesn't make it a good law or a good idea.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.