Justin Auciello: The New Wave Planner

GOVERNMENT 2.0: IT’S TIME

It’s Tuesday morning, and a client has called.

She needs planning consulting services and is willing to sign your proposal and FedEx the retainer check immediately. Especially in this economy, this is an optimal situation, since every client call is evidence that the housing and land development industry is not completely dormant.

However, in this instance, the hearing at the Zoning Board of Adjustment is on Thursday evening, leaving you only two days to prepare the case. The FedEx package with the site plans, traffic study, and architectural renderings and elevations will not arrive until tomorrow morning, so really, you’ll only have one day to study the documents, complete your due diligence, and prepare your planning report for delivery at the hearing.

The project requires a use variance, as well as a variety of dimensional variances, and the municipality in question is about two hours away, a logistical mess if you need to obtain to any planning documents. Worse, it’s a small municipality, and the planning office is only open on Thursday mornings from nine to eleven. You’ll need to obtain and review the both the Master Plan (hoping to find support for the proposed use) and approval resolutions for other similar use variance approvals (to gauge the potential response from the Zoning Board members).

It is possible?

It most certainly is, because I’ve done it successfully.

Is it easy?

No!

It’s quite stress inducing, and the source for most of the anxiety is actually in collecting the specific municipal documents that you need to build your case.

At times, it’s actually impossible to collect certain documents in a short time frame, as some New Jersey municipalities are very strict and require the submission of an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request, an onerous piece of government red-tape that must be completed with your name, address, phone number, method of payment, and a detailed request. The OPRA process allows municipalities up to 10 days to fulfill the demand, so at times, if you’ve requested something on early Thursday morning and hope to get copies made by late morning the same day, you may in fact go home empty handed.

I know.

It has happened to me.

You may be asking, “It’s 2009; why are we still pushing paper and mired down in government red-tape? With the Internet, why isn’t everything online?”

You’re no fool for asking that question.

In New Jersey, there are 566 municipalities, and I’d estimate that a vast majority do not have their standard municipal documents online (i.e. Zoning Ordinance, Master Plan/Reexamination Reports, Redevelopment/Revitalization Plans, etc) for public accessibility.

Fortunately for me, I pay to access commercial sites that offer Zoning Ordinances and parcel maps, but I’m not aware of any sites that offer other planning documents, with the exception of NJ State Atlas, which is stocked with Google Maps mashups and free to use.

Unfortunately for others, such as regular citizens, the materials are not generally easily accessible.

As planning dictates the future development and functioning of a municipality, access to this information is crucial—not just for the professional planners, but for the citizens planners, whom have a vested interest in monitoring development applications in their communities.

The barriers to information are rapidly eroding.

With the advent of social media, most notably Twitter, the lines between government and ordinary citizens are blurring. People are sharing information, expressing their views, and interacting with each other—all in real-time. The most remarkable aspect of this style of communication is the level of transparency and honesty; people are not afraid to express themselves.

In just a few years, social media, with its catalytic powers, has democratized our society immensely, and it is still in its infancy.

I am excited for what the future will hold.

Sadly, government has not embraced this emerging technology on a widespread basis, resulting in a deepening disconnect between the entity and its constituents, and frustrating interested parties whom have become accustomed to information on demand in their lives.

An exception is the City of LaSalle, Illinois, where Pam Broviak, P.E., City Engineer/Director of Public Works, is the brains behind the municipal social media operation, along with a pioneer within the Government 2.0 movement, which is an evolving model to improve transparency, communication, and efficient and practical delivery methods between government and citizens.

Recently, Ms. Broviak and I discussed open government, social media, and community integration in LaSalle, where a bounty of municipal information is available to citizens directly from its website.

Thanks to Ms. Broviak, LaSalle is a model city in this regard, and City Managers globally should review the “LaSalle Model” and consider applying similar programs in their municipalities.

TNWP: What was/were the catalyst(s) that had prompted you to investigate and enact innovative Gov 2.0 measures in your community?

PB: We began exploring the use of social media after I saw a presentation at Autodesk University on the use of Second Life for planning and architectural design. When I presented the possibilities of what could be done online using some of these tools, the current mayor showed full support and acceptance of the implementation.

TNWP: What have you implemented?

PB: We began actually by setting up a small city-related site in Second Life that offered information about our city using the multimedia tools within that software. I began a blog that discussed public works-related matters in our community. Last year, we created a Twitter account just for the purpose of sending out informational feeds related to a construction project in a certain neighborhood. Then, more recently, we created a Twitter account to explore its use as a short, quick feed of the council meetings and other issues that arose in town. We published our annual presentation on Slideshare.net and shared photos of our recent flooding disaster using a Flickr account for the city. There is also a Facebook page where we began to explore interacting with “fans” of our city.

TNWP: Have the initiatives been successful?

PB: I believe these efforts have been successful because they have helped us achieve a few of our primary goals. The most important goal we had was to help promote our city and let other people know about the development and tourism opportunities here. Another goal has been to increase the amount of online information, allowing for easier access by citizens and decreasing staff time required to handle information requests. We also wanted to increase the communication channels between staff and citizens.

Relying just on mail and phone calls was becoming difficult because most of this had to be done during the regular working hours. Online interactions can occur at any time of the day and can be handled when time permits. I totally agree with you that everything should be online; we have an obligation to citizens to implement online publication of the public records we maintain and generate.

TNWP: How have the municipality’s representatives & community members reacted?

PB: The mayor has been very excited about the possibilities and fully supportive from the beginning. The members of the council who chose to learn about our efforts have also been supportive. Citizens and local media have seemed pleased to be able to have easier access to staff and additional information without having to actually make a phone call or set up a meeting. But, because we are a small community and not yet high tech, most people in the area are not yet familiar with social media or its possibilities. I have noticed within the last few months, more people getting involved, but I think it will still be a few years before we would have been able to use these tools to their full potential.

TNWP: What has not worked?

PB: As I mentioned, it will take some time before we are able to use these tools to their full potential. Even so, I cannot say any of these efforts did not work. Each of them increased awareness of our community and allowed for increased interaction between staff and citizens. Particularly for the time and money involved, which was minimal, the results have far outweighed the investment.

However, I do not have a lot of faith that our city will continue to succeed in this area. The current administration had plans to continue implementing new uses of these tools, but with many of us leaving – myself, the current mayor, and many council members – I do not expect our city to continue along this path. Instead, one remaining alderman and myself have talked about trying to continue our efforts through the use of a community-based site.

So using this experience, I have to wonder if a citizen-based effort has a better chance for longevity.

TNWP: Does Gov 2.0 have a bright future? Any ideas?

PB: I most definitely think there is incredible potential in the Gov 2.0 movement. There is an excitement among government professionals to get going and start using these tools. And, because of the nature of the tools, people from all geographical areas, all types of professions, and from both the private and all levels of the public sectors are finally able to meet, share ideas, and collaborate. If this is used to its full potential we have the chance to make great strides in developing policy and delivering services.

I think from a citizen standpoint, for the first time, citizens have the ability to use these tools to let their voice be heard and to collaborate and increase their participation in government. One of the great challenges will be how best to publish, manage, and analyze the incredible amounts of information that can be generated.

TNWP: Thank you for sharing your expertise, and good luck in your future endeavours.

Innovation! Embracing (mostly free) technology! Community engagement!

Under the tutelage of Ms. Broviak, LaSalle has been providing its citizens with the gift of open government and transparency. In turn, citizens are now empowered to become more involved, increasing the likelihood that they will help shape the planning process in the future. Additionally, developers, with limited resources in this down economy, can more easily survey the municipal landscape, seek approval on projects, and make their professional consultants lives easier.

As Ms. Broviak notes, the recently elected political administration may not support the current movement, even though the initiatives have been quite successful. In all municipalities, the political machine, at times, hinders the best laid plans and objectives, and this is a reality. Hopefully, the incoming administration will embrace Ms. Broviak’s social media initiatives, and the program will  flourish and refine over time.

I urge municipalities to consider the LaSalle Model and incorporate, at least initially, a few elements into their websites. Indeed, change is scary, but apprehension should not be an impediment to “opening” government via the Internet, allowing land use professionals and citizens to obtain information on demand.

The technology is readily available, and there are plenty of savvy individuals that are willing to assist.

There is a growing movement of people who are sharing ideas, collaborating on projects, discussing innovation, and evangelizing open municipalities. Here’s just a few: be2camp, DIYcity, & Government 2.0 Club.

It’s time.

What is CPTED, and what can it do for my municipality?

In Thinking About Crime, James Q. Wilson observed, “if a child is delinquent because his family made him so or his friends encourage him to be so, it is hard to conceive what society might do about this attitudes. No one knows how a government might restore affections, stability and fair discipline to a family that rejects these characteristics.” (Poyner 1983) Researchers began to challenge the assumptions of Wilson and other doubters of governmental intervention. They began to look beyond merely changing the behavior of criminals, and started to look for ways to reduce the likelihood of victimization through innovative concepts, instead of relying exclusively on law enforcement to carry the burden.

This outlook planted the seed for a program called Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), which has begun to resonate deeply amongst community planners. Some cities implemented CPTED policies in the 1980s, a time when “entrepreneurial” cities began competing for business. It has continued to be an effective tool, and the new smart growth movement will continue to make CPTED an attractive, low-cost, worthy program for municipalities.

CPTED applies the combination of design changes and community organization (representing both the built and social environments, respectively) to reduce the opportunities for, and the likelihood of, criminal activity. It seeks to create an environment less tolerant and more resistant to criminal behavior.

Reducing crime through proper design is the ultimate goal.

The program centers on a working partnership between criminologists and planning and design professionals. In his seminal book Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, (1971) C. Ray Jeffery advanced Oscar Newman’s “defensible space” (defined as bringing the environment under control of its residents) concept to formulate the CPTED program. Newman designed and successfully demonstrated methods to reduce the likelihood of criminal victimization by providing people with defensible space in inner-city housing projects.

The CPTED tenets include natural access control (controlling the ingress and egress of individuals through the placement of landscaping, fences, lighting, entrances, and exists as to leave a criminal without any rational for trespassing if stopped), natural surveillance (the arrangement of physical features and people through the intelligent placement of doors, windows, lighting, and common outdoor areas to decrease the ability of a criminal to act without being detected) and territorial reinforcement (the use of physical features that expresses ownership, such as fences, signage, and landscaping to clearly delineate public, semi-public, and private space so citizens know where they are).

This program is the antithesis of the gated community concept!

Newman applied his tenets to high-crime housing projects, but CPTED has evolved to rework entire cities. Since CPTED is intrinsically malleable, planning professionals have added their own elements, including activity support (placement of kiosks in heavily traveled areas to promote news about community events to demonstrate community pride and organization.) The application of all of the above tenets reduces crime and increases the public’s awareness sine “the physical changes and raised social expectations created an environment less tolerant of criminal behavior.” (Carter et al., 2003)  CPTED applications seek to create a more dynamic, integrative, design oriented community program to give everyone a stake in their neighborhoods to reduce crime, rather than relying on pure design techniques.

Early criminology studies had indicated that there is a strong, tri-angular relationship between interpersonal activities, the build environment, and crime. While there have been a number of studies through the eyes of people with different agendas, all have come to the conclusion that a well-designed community with involved citizens can reduce the likelihood of criminal activity. Jane Jacobs, in her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), stresses that one of the best attributes of city neighborhoods is the safety that results from people being familiar with each other. These types of neighborhoods generally have mixed commercial and residential uses that generate plenty of human activity and interaction. In turn, the dynamic atmosphere acts as a deterrent to criminal activity. Jacobs coined this as the “eyes on the street” theory.

Studies have shown that police protection generally reduces crime, but it is difficult for patrols to stop crimes, such as home burglaries or street robberies, because of the disproportionate amount of resources alloted for a geographical area. Communities began to view Jacob’s eyes on the street theory as an important deterrent to crime in response to the inability of police to stop a majority of criminal activity. This theory is deeply rooted in CPTED methodology.

Crime is a subject everyone is concerned about and would like to reduce, but if crime abatement programs are too expensive to implement and operate, it may drop in political importance. CPTED addresses the larger issue of the omnipresent crime problem (especially in older, more vulnerable downtown areas) through a low-cost, intuitive program.

The next post will detail CPTED application in the North Trail section of Sarasota, Florida, an area that—prior to CPTED— had been plagued by drugs, prostitution, violence, and a litnay of quality of life problems.

Sources:

Carter, Sherry, Stanley L. Carter, and Andrew L. Dannenberg. “Zoning Out Crime and Improving Community Health in Sarasota, Florida: ‘Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.’” American Journal of Public Health Vol 93 (Sep2003).

Poyner, Barry. Design against Crime. London: Butterworths, 1983.

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.

Murder in College Park, MD: The Tipping Point

To continue with the childhood connection to my planning career, I’ve also always had an deep interest in law enforcement, which may in fact be in my blood, considering that my maternal grandfather and two uncles were police officers. Of course, with the exception of the classical fantasies that kids have about future professions, I never wanted to actually serve within the front lines of law enforcement, although I still occasionally daydream about being a detective and solving cases.

Just like in the present day, as the years progressed, my interest in the subject had always been much more academic, i.e. theories behind policing, penology, the justice system, the criminal mind, and crime prevention strategies. In fact, as an undergraduate, I was just six credits short of adding another major, Criminology and Criminal Justice, to my diploma. But, as a graduate student, I created a concentration for myself in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)—more on that later.

So, you may be asking, this is a blog about planning, and not law enforcement, so where is the connection between the two?

Turns out, there is a direct interplay, and this will be explained much throughout this blog.

For now, I’ll explain how I put the two together.

I graduated from the University of Maryland, College Park (UMCP), the flagship institution of the University of Maryland System, in May 2002. College Park is a city in Prince George’s County located only about 5 minutes from the District of Columbia. In fact, Route 1, which is a major thoroughfare into DC, cuts directly through College Park and serves as the major commercial corridor for students and residents alike.

The UMCP campus, which consists of hundreds of acres and contains such diverse uses ranging from a mini farm to a nuclear reactor, is completely contained—that is, the vast majority of the campus does not spread through city neighborhoods. And, it is well known for its sports, most notably (or perhaps notoriously) the basketball team’s 2002 NCAA National Championship.

Although not on the same aesthetic and “fun” level as classic college towns like Ann Arbor, Michigan (The University of Michigan), Charlottesville, Virginia (The University of Virginia), or Chapel Hill, North Carolina (The University of North Caroline), College Park is an archetypal college town, with a small—yet vibrant, attractive, and pedestrian-friendly—downtown, packed with bars, restaurants, delis, takeout restaurants, specialty shops, national chains, and a standard of all college towns, an over-sized bookstore.

Beyond the downtown, the Route 1 corridor extends to both the north and south, with the northern portion of the city along Route 1 characterized by a mixture of land uses, varying from auto body shops on small lots to sprawling shopping centers. As you drive through the northern portion of Route 1 to reach the downtown, you instantly notice the land use differences, as it’s generally urban sprawl vs. pedestrian-friendly mixed-use.

The vast majority of the city’s visitors, however, are not interested in the northern portion of Route 1; the target begins just as you pass by the campus’ first entrance off Route 1 south.

It is not without surprise that, with all College Park has to offer, the city is a magnet for those seeking a good time, whether it be drinking at one of the bars, enjoying a meal, or watching a basketball game at the Comcast Center. While the DC Metro area has a number of destinations, it is widely known, especially amongst the college age cohort, that College Park, with countless “open door policy” parties, is the place to be on Thursday, Friday, or Saturday nights.

With parties comes intoxication, and intoxication leads to vulnerability. Even without the inebriation factor, a packed college party is almost always a volatile environment—ripe for confrontation.

During my tenure there, from August 1998 through September 2002, crime had always been a fact of life. Without fail, The Diamondback, the daily student newspaper, reported accounts of theft, robberies, assaults, or sexual assaults on a weekly basis. Certainly, any campus, with its concentrations of young people, has its share of criminal activity; college students are just easy targets, but in College Park, it seemed, during my tenure, everyone knew of someone who had been victimized

Incidentally, beyond providing an overview of College Park student life, I am not going to explain why, in my opinion, crime levels were unusually high in College Park until the next blog post.

Students, police, residents, and local politicians had always “accepted” crime as an unfortunate fact of life.

However, that all changed shortly after I graduated in May 2002.

During Homecoming 2002, Brandon Malstrom, a UMCP student, was stabbed and killed at an off-campus party. Student deaths, while rare, do occasionally occur, as did three in my last year (one from an overdose, and the other two due to a tornado). A student murder, on the other hand, is beyond rare. It strikes fear into every student, and perhaps even more so the parents.

This event served as the tipping point, with intense media attention and pressure on the city, county police force, and the university administration to assuage the fears and devise a solution to a constantly simmering problem.

Clearly, law enforcement is not a panacea for all of society’s ills, but it does share in the overall responsibility to work with the community and act creatively to combat crime.  Moreover, the city, its residents, and the university all are stakeholders and have an incentive to ensure a safe community. Without community consensus and action, problems tend to continue and exacerbate, ultimately reaching a critical breaking point, as it did with the Malstrom murder.

Sounds like common sense, doesn’t it?

While it does, its simplicity belies the reality of human nature: people are naturally protective of their flock, and any interference is tantamount to a threat against natural order. Coalition naturally form as a reaction to a need to work together, not out of desire, but merely necessity. With the murder, all College Park stakeholders had no choice but to work collectively.

Although I had graduated months earlier, I was still reading the online version of The Diamondback, and I was immensely interested in following this story. Having such a personal connection to College Park, I began to think critically about why this happened and how the ongoing crime problem could be mitigated. Surely, I thought, police saturation was helpful, but unsustainable and politically adverse. Where the students going to stop partying? Absolutely not, so the “targets” would continue to exist.

Then, I began thinking that perhaps the most effective method was to institute additional safety programs (beyond the rarely used “Call A Ride”), or maybe even go as far as altering the built environment in such a way to reduce the likelihood of criminal activity, a consideration probably due to my urban planning studies at the time.

With all stakeholders finally working together (or, at least the appearance of it occurring), the potential for change was bright, and the leaders most certainly had a mandate to devise solutions.

The crime problem had reached its tipping point, so the environment was ripe for innovative ideas, beyond just law enforcement tackling the problem solo….

The New Wave of Interactions

As humans, interactions with others are essential. Certainly, most people do enjoy alone time, but we thrive off communicating with others and keeping up to date.

This is not a groundbreaking theory: just ask your typical twenty-something if s/he uses, let’s say, Facebook or Twitter on a daily basis; most do. Although our social networks extend well beyond the Internet, undoubtedly, the Second Generation of the Web (also known as Web 2.0, i.e. post dot-com bubble) have tightened our networks so quickly and stunningly, in such ways that we could not even envision just a few years ago.

Our world is now so entrenched in this New Media/Social Media process.

Much has been written about President Barack Obama’s internet prowess; his campaign managed to harness the power of a multitude of social websites (including Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube and his blog) and a massive database/email distribution list, both of which ultimately resulted in a grassroots network of interested parties and contributors. By just creating the web presence, maintaining the accounts, and disseminating the message, the Obama campaign product became viral — spreading effortlessly. Armed with record amounts of cash, an ironclad message of “change,” and an army of dedicated volunteers, Obama cruised to an historic victory. Now, the weekly presidential radio address and press briefings are broadcast via Vimeo. 
 
People have woken up, and now realize that this interactive model can be applied to mostly anything.

For better or worse, the New Media has entered the mainstream consciousness. We have reached a critical mass in that not adapting with the New Media is to fade away into antiquity.

All of this in just a few years.

How does this relate to planning? Well, the planning process is participatory by nature, in that the most thoughtful plans are vetted among a disparate group, such as stakeholders, developers, public agencies, the press, etc. In the past, while all interest groups have had the ability to express their opinions on issues through their respective interactions, the general approach had almost always been controlled by the bureaucracy.

Now, with the ubiquity of the internet, a bottom-up approach is now tenable, and there is no reason that a critical mass of information and power should not be exploited by everyone. Even beyond this, municipalities should be tapping into the power of the new wave and promoting these invaluable to tools to their respective citizenry.

For instance, on the simplest level, a municipality could easily create a Twitter account to disseminate news instantaneously, solicit input from its residents, and engage in an ongoing two-way dialogue.

In addition, a municipality could create a simple mapping interface, linked to Twitter updates, for its residents to report broken street lights, property maintenance issues, and crime “hot spots,” among others. This could be displayed in real-time and updated when issues are rectified, thus holding department heads accountable.

Lastly, for the true urbanite, these same networks can be also used to streamline daily life, such as real-time updates of bus schedules, wait times at restaurants, and “rideshare” requests.

The interplay between internet technology, the New Media, and interactions in the planning process, a practice that I feel is ready and well suited for a dose of Web 2.0, should be both maximized and evangelized—and I will push this movement through this blog.

On the tech front, future updates will include:

• A review of the New Jersey State Atlas, an interactive mapping website, which is maintained by John Reiser, and how it is a prime example of the New Wave interplay;
• An analysis of how contemporary crime prevention techniques are changing the law enforcement rubric and our communities, including crime mapping and gunshot detection technology; and,
• An ongoing, expanded examination of how municipalities should be adapting with the New Wave to meet the needs of their respective constituents.