Author: Paul Root (page 1 of 1)

The base issue is that Broken Windows fails to consider the very real prejudices that exist in our society and within our police force. On paper it does appear that this form of policing will keep our neighborhoods safer and more orderly, however, prejudices against people of color, members of the LGBT+ community, the homeless, etc. make it so that broken windows only increases a mistrust of police forces. A mistrust of the police only creates a greater disregard for the work of the police and thus an increase in the very crimes that broken windows policing seeks to end. The Atlantic article mentions the shift of police being a force to maintain order to a force of actual law enforcement over the last two decades. The issue with this shift is that the police are not concerned with maintaining order at all, but instead end up contributing to disorder. This can be seen in the many anti-police riots of the past years in which situations were escalated, instead of de-escalated by police officers, resulting in a complete loss of order and abuse by the police. The objective of order has been lost in a complete focus on enforcing laws, including many minor “broken windows” laws. It is because of this that Broken Windows policing hasn’t worked and will not work. When police can drop all prejudices and fully focus on their civic duty to maintain order and safety for all citizens (even those suspected of committing crimes) then broken windows could be valid. Unfortunately, this world does not exist and so another way must be found. Our best option may be a balance between the maintenance of order and the enforcement of law. At the moment, the balance has shifted too far in one direction.

Paul Root

Personally, I found last Wednesday’s presentation highly comprehensive and impressive. I was unaware of how little our (already infuriating) tolls made sense. Furthermore, “Gridlock Sam’s” plan made logical sense in terms of which roadways we need to clear up and which we can afford more traffic on. Most interesting is how the illogicality of our toll system can be traced back to Robert Moses’ Tri-Borough Bridge Authority. Just as we were discussing how Moses harmed and/or helped New York City we found out one more way his policies are still affecting us today. In this specific case the argument is clear that his policies are causing us harm. While the fix to this problem seems relatively simple, this is easier said than done. Getting the votes of politicians of the outer reaches of the outer boroughs has proven rather difficult. Even when it is proven that this plan greatly helps them even if the toll on one of their four bridges is going up, politicians (and their constituents) remain stubborn. It seems to me that this issue could be handled in a very similar way that the issue of getting sports fans to come to the Barclays Center through public transit was handled: Information. The most important part of getting this plan implemented would be getting information out to the citizens of the neighborhoods that are still reluctant. In this way, these citizens could learn how this plan does indeed benefit them and in turn they can convince their elected officials to vote in their interest. Hopefully, in the end we would have an improved New York toll system and thus improved roadways.

Paul Root

While it is true that Robert Caro definitely criticizes Robert Moses towards the end of his introduction, so much of his writing is done in what seems to be a commending sort of tone that I had begun to wonder whether he was ever going to get around to pointing out Moses’ many shortcomings. Having said that, I would say that Caro’s assessment of the damage Robert Moses did to New York City and its surrounding suburbs was a valid and fair one. I would actually have taken it further. Robert Moses’ total disregard for the lower classes and people of color is troubling at the least. Furthermore, Moses’ devolution into the very political machine he claimed to have been fighting against is worthy of scrutiny. Without taking into account what could be seen as physical or financial damage, the damage done to certain groups of people by Moses’ work is enough to make me question his motives, his methods, and ultimately his impact not only on the city of New York but on the people of New York. However, one cannot argue the fact that New York City would not be the place it is today without Moses’ works and it certainly won’t be escaping his influence anytime in the near future. Thus, one can appreciate and understand Moses’ impact as a benevolent force, while in equal parts criticizing this impact as a hindrance and more so, a force of injustice and inequity.

Paul Root