Fighting crime in college park: The long and winding road
2/2 — Please read my April 2, 2009 post, “Murder in College Park, MD: The Tipping Point”
In the aftermath of the Malstrom murder, the stakeholders—students, city residents, politicians, and the university administration—reached a consensus that the crime problem had reached its apogee. Solutions were in order, and of course, many called for increased police patrols, viewing law enforcement as the panacea for criminal activity. However, in 2003 and the years preceding, that solution had never been easy to implement.
Still today, the city is served primarily by the Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD), with the University of Maryland Police Department (UMPD) providing coverage to the areas only contiguous to the university (although patrols have expanded by virtue of a joint jurisdictional agreement). During my tenure in College Park, and perhaps years or decades before me, jurisdictional issues had always been a problem. After the Malstrom murder, a core group of stakeholders lobbied the city council to study the feasibility of a city police force. A majority of the city council was concerned that the tax increases would be insurmountable for the city’s residents. Hence, as is not surprising, political concerns were trumping safety concerns. Instead, the governing body worked on forging a joint jurisdictional agreement between both police departments to increase patrols, and by late 2005, the agreement had been implemented. As a temporary “solution,” in November 2003, the city council approved hiring contract police officers to patrol downtown and the student neighborhoods during the vulnerable overnight hours. Perhaps effective, but merely a political move to stymie criticism.
Meanwhile, while the university administration had been working with the city council to find ways to reduce the prevalence of violent crimes, it had held on to its view that increasing crime rate was no different than other universities in metropolitan areas. Even if true, this is not a responsible reason for acting nonchalantly.
According to crime statistics released by the PGPD, in College Park, homicides increased 30 percent, from zero in 2001 to three in 2002. Assaults increased 15.8 percent from 38 to 44. Rapes, however, decreased from 6 to 1. Motor vehicle theft increased 19.6 percent from 168 to 201 thefts. Burglaries increased 3.4 percent from 174 to 180, and robberies decreased from 53 to 51. (The Diamondback, December 04, 2003)
In late 2002/early 2003, the data was significant for a few reasons. While some city and police officials had noted that these numbers are probably not indicative of a crime problem and are normal compared to other municipalities in the county, there still appeared to be quite a security issue when there are dramatic crime spikes in most categories (with the exception of rapes). While it is conceded that crime will occur even with the best crime preventions programs and police force, this should have never been an argument against innovation and implementing progressive crime prevention strategies. Police officers (especially contracted officers from different jurisdictions) cannot be relied upon to carry the entire burden, although they are clearly a significant component of an overall crime prevention program.
No one can deny that the coalition of stakeholders has made tremendous progress on the crime prevention front over the past six to seven years. While it took some time to wrangle the political support out of the governing body and from Upper Marlboro (the County Executive and other leaders had to sign off on the joint jurisdictional agreement), the politicians had no choice be to acquiesce to constituent demands. To wit: city residents were so frustrated about the crime problem that they narrowly passed a non-binding “public safety referendum” in 2004, which would essentially amount to a $40 per person tax on supplemental police services. It’s uncommon for voters, on any level, to support a tax increase, even if it’s clearly minimal, but with crime being a paramount concern, a majority of the residents felt that action was needed—and quickly.
However, I am not going to bestow the accolades upon the political operation, as in this instance, substantive action had been taken on account of a groundswell of demands from students, the press, and the general public—purely reactionary to political winds. Understandably, an over-arching objective of serving in public office is to be re-elected, but in a small city, where crime had reached a boiling point (even if perceived), true courage would have been to sacrifice oneself for the betterment of the community and take the issue seriously. After all, the local politicians are all potential victims.
There may have been an outward appearance of the city council acting proactively to devise and implement innovation crime prevention programs, but in reality, the substantive action did not come until early 2006, when the politicians truly had no choice but to react to statistics indicating that crime had reached a five-year high in 2005, including a 34% increase in city robberies. A March 28, 2006 Diamondback staff editorial, entitled “Underwhelming city council crime reaction worrisome,” opened with these unsympathetic words:
A five year crime high in the city, and all the city council members want to talk about are airbag thefts, traffic patterns and gang activity, rather than robberies – the crimes that truly plague the city. When Maj. Kevin Davis, District 1 commander for the Prince George’s County Police, presented last year’s record-high statistics to the council last week, they reacted with a lot less concern than one would expect from the leaders of a city where crime is a constant concern.
It goes on:
When it comes to public safety, something that comes up constantly in this area, the city has shown a lack of ability to produce substantial results. And the seemingly nonchalant way city officials took the news of record-high robberies certainly doesn’t show anything different.
Recently, the city and count have both made improvements to city law enforcement, including the city devoting funds to contract county police to patrol the city and the county devoting a robbery suppression team to the city. However, statistics clearly show there is far more work to be done.
Choice words from the student newspaper, but all 100% accurate. From the Malstrom murder in 2002 to today, as one of the most widely circulated papers in College Park (it’s not just on campus; it’s circulated throughout the city) The Diamondback has been consistently framing the crime issue and keeping the university, city council, and multiple police agencies accountable for inaction over time. Even so, it has not just been The Diamondback, but also the students, city council student liaisons, and activists who have kept accountability an issue.
Although, since graduating in 2002, I have been living in New Jersey (and thus three hours from College Park), I have been working remotely to at least stimulate some dialogue on the crime prevention front. Since 2003, I have penned multiple opinion and Letter to the Editor pieces in The Diamondback and shared my studies, reports, strategies, and general observations with both the Student Government Association and University Senate.
Why would I help?
Well, I felt compelled to share my ideas, not just because the city was my home for four years and I have fond memories of my time there, but as a victim of a violent robbery in an off-campus neighborhood, perhaps my ideas could actually help to prevent future victimization. I had felt a burning responsibility to apply my passion and assist in any possible way.
I am confident that my actions have at least helped with brainstorming, even though, as a consequence of living quite a distance away, I have been unable to interact directly with the stakeholders.
As a neophyte—yet eager—urban planning student at Rutgers University in the fall of 2003, I had begun to realize the only way to effect change is through innovative measures, as well as, of course, good old-fashioned hard work, dedication, and persistence. In the planning world, I was told, you may have the greatest plan, but if the politics “don’t work,” your plan will just be relegated to the shelf. I determined that, if I had accepted this, then I would most certainly have a disappointing career of researching, crafting, and innovating, but ultimately failing in the end because, for whatever reason, the governing body would just not be supportive. Certainly, you have to adjust for political reasons, and that is completely understood; however, there are some changes for which you just have to fight.
With this attitude in mind, I felt compelled to become involved in contributing my thoughts and budding planning knowledge to the city and campus in which I spent four years, from 1998-2002. Within a month of beginning school, I began reading about the interplay between law enforcement, innovative crime prevention measures, and planning.
Even before planning school, I had always known that there is a direct relationship between the built environment and crime. Of course, it is obvious that crime rates are typically higher in depressed neighborhoods, but should this be accepted as a life sentence? Absolutely not. If police patrols alone are not effective in a high crime area, then why not gather all stakeholders and develop a comprehensive crime prevention program to attack the problem? Again, law enforcement is effective—but it is not the end game—and the only way to induce developers to become engaged in redevelopment/revitalization activities is to work on actively reducing crime. While College Park has seen some major development over the recent years, just think about how far improvements to the downtown area have been pushed back because of both the perception and reality of criminal activity.
Throughout the fall of 2003, I read weekly accounts of violent crimes in College Park, but after seeing a Diamondback report about a stabbing in the Knox Towers—an off-campus apartment complex, occupied by students and on the cusp of the downtown—I had to act. In November 2003, I wrote an op-ed in the same publication, in which I implored the university and city council alike to work collectively and immediately formulate an inexpensive, yet potentially effective, method: student/resident safety patrols.
Why?
Presence.
Patrols members would not be armed, of course, but would wear reflective vests, carry radios and have contact with police, and be situated in those areas most vulnerable, as identified by police crime statistics and community knowledge. It’s simple. As Jane Jacobs had written about in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, a major failure of urban renewal is that vibrant neighborhoods had been obliterated to accommodate highways and other projects, thus removing eyes on the street. Criminology studies are clear: criminals are generally rationale actors, and consider committing crimes after completing a cost/benefit analysis, even if it’s for just a split second. Therefore, as logic dictates, increase capable guardians (people) in a high crime area, and crime should be deterred.
In April 2004, I learned that the SGA organized a community watch and, according to reports in The Diamondback, patrolled the city throughout 2004 and early 2005. I am not sure if it continued beyond early 2005, but it most certainly was an innovative, yet simple, step in the right direction.
In 2006, after realizing that the city, university, and police agencies had not taken enough substantive actions in the war against crime, I wrote a number of pieces in The Diamondback, detailing various crime prevention strategies that are politically feasible. As an urban planner, I had always framed the crime issue around redevelopment, and my March 30, 2006 opinion piece, entitled “Reducing crime through smart design,” opened with the following:
I applaud the College Park City Council for its recent redevelopment discussions, and I must note that the EPA revitalization study is a major step toward invigorating the Route 1 corridor. College Park contains all the necessary ingredients to flourish as a world-class “college town” capable of attracting not only the brightest students, but also residents seeking the same experience.
Redevelopment, however, will not be successful unless College Park is a safe and aesthetically pleasing place where the perception and reality of criminal activity is low, and with robbery rates at a five-year high, a triumphant redevelopment seems far off.
And, as I highlighted in a February 2, 2007 Letter to the Editor piece in The Diamondback:
[T]he burgeoning redevelopment of both the campus and the off-campus areas will quickly expand and solidify the university’s competitive advantage among its peers. A heightened perception and reality of crime, however, could have disastrous impacts on all the university’s positive attributes, in addition to hindering the redevelopment process.
While the intent had always been about methods to reduce crime, I understood that the issue had to be encapsulated within an overall objective, such as the need to take a holistic approach toward redevelopment, with the hopes of creating a groundswell of political support. Doubtful, perhaps, but harping on just crime had not seemed to create much of an impact between 2002 and 2006.
Among the suggestions in my pieces:
- Formulate a sustainable plan of attack;
- Create a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (aka, CPTED—a detailed analysis of the program will follow in the next post) Subcommittee within the city council in order to determine which crime prevention methods could work, and then codify findings within the Zoning Ordinance to provide the legal “teeth”;
- Improve on UMPD and PGPD patrol saturations by instituting tactical deployments to the highest crime areas, with the overall intent of inducing fear in criminals. (Still ongoing after 9/11, the New York Police Department does this on a daily basis. You may have noticed a caravan of police vehicles with sirens and lights ablaze in the most vulnerable sections of Manhattan at times—this is the tactical deployment method.);
- Increase the number of “blue lights” and live surveillance cameras (both of which had already been in place since at least the 1990s), especially in the most isolated and vulnerable areas, as identified by crime statistics; and,
- Improve the landscaping and lighting conditions in the area between the Metro station and the campus (predominately a student neighborhood, there was a strong pattern of criminal victimization here) and institute a shuttle from the Metro station that would transverse the student neighborhoods.
During this period, I shared my thoughts directly with a few members of the SGA and University Senate, as I was certainly not the only person actively seeking solutions. In 2007, the University Senate began the process of preparing a “security policy report” by soliciting input from students, faculty, staff, and law enforcement, with the goal of cementing security policy into the foundation of the institution—a clearly holistic approach that would take into account input from stakeholders and formulate a future direction for campus security. I considered this to be a major breakthrough on the student/administration relations front.
Around this same time, as I observed in a March 30, 2007 Diamondback Letter to the Editor:
The University Police Department, in partnership with the city of College Park, unveiled a “safe route” program, dubbed “Preferred Route,” with the intent of providing a safe path from the student neighborhoods to the east of Route 1 to the College Park Metro Station. Crime prevention measures have been deployed along the safe route, including enhanced lighting, landscaping improvements, and emergency blue phones.”
Even though I applauded the Preferred Route program, I stressed that “it is merely a component of a sorely needed comprehensive crime prevention package,” as it, as well as other methods, must be reinforced by a CPTED ordinance, “which would provide a legal mechanism to mandate a full crime prevention design review for all proposed developments in College Park, in addition to requiring the city to improve lighting, landscaping and its structures to comply with CPTED standards.”
While there have been a number of crime prevention improvements instituted in the city over the years, but the governing body has yet to codify a comprehensive crime prevention program into the Zoning Ordinance. As such, other than complying with the standard lighting, landscaping, and general design procedures in the Zoning Ordinance, developers do not have to employ sure-fire crime prevention measures in their future projects. This is a concern.
I do have to commend all parties for working on this pressing issue over the years, including the UMPD and PGPD, both of which have worked with the community and established a variety of practical and innovative crime prevention strategies; however, a substantial number of accolades should be bestowed upon The Diamondback for not only providing a forum for on-going dialogue, but most importantly, acting as a daily watch-dog on the crime prevention beat and ensuring accountability. Of course, significant credit is also due to students, student liaisons to the city council, and community activists, all of whom pressed the issue and demanded solutions (and still do!).
The issue is not over, however. Crime is still a concern in College Park.
What can cities do—especially with the potential for innovation that emerging technologies provide us—to either reduce crime or prevent it from even brewing up from minimal levels?
Stay tuned for the next post.
RSS
Archive
Mobile
