Stop and Frisk, a policing method implemented in New York City at the turn of the century has become one of the most controversial policing policies in modern times.  While the ethics of stop and frisk have been the subject of many heated debates, what is hard to deny is the success of the program.  New York City has transformed from being one of the most dangerous cities in the United States to being one of the safest cities in the world.  Areas of the city that only a few decades ago may have been considered hazardous are now becoming gentrified and safer while wealthier neighborhoods experience virtually no crime at all.  As Daniel Bergner addresses in his piece “Is Stop and Frisk Worth It?”, the many socio-economic changes that New York City has undergone in the last two decades cannot account for the startling drop in crime, and the evidence points to Stop and Frisk as the crucial variable.  Despite the success, the program was heavily criticized for targeting young black and hispanic men and the NYPD was repeatedly accused of racial profiling.  In 2015, with Mayor Bill Deblasio, a staunch opponent to the policy, now in office, the era of stop and frisk seems to have come to an end.  While it may feel like a giant leap forward for social justice, it is unclear what affect the termination of this policy will have on future crime.

Towards the end of his piece, Bergner puts forward the question of whether or not stop and frisk can be improved, rather than ended.

What if cops were heavily trained to be careful in their judgments, and to do their field inquiries with respect and even a measure of deference? My nights with Big Cat and Gesuelli—who rarely raised their voices—suggest that such a change might be feasible. The idea may sound a little naive, but it comes up often in discussions about stop-and-frisk. Zimring brought it up during our conversations. “Why couldn’t it work?” he asked. “Why not remove the testosterone? Why not Stop-and-Frisk Polite? Why not a different kind of policeman?”

In my opinion, this seems like the best option going forward.  I can’t get over the feeling that anybody who rejects the success of stop and frisk is cherry picking their data.  At the same time, institutionalized racism is one of the greatest struggles that everybody in the world today has to work together to overcome.  Is the big issue with stop and frisk really the actually process of the searches, or the manner in which they’re carried out?  What if police at the very least attempted to by business like and polite before resorting to intimidation?

It is unreasonable to say that you can control the actions of thousands of police officers, but at the same time there could be stricter punishment for cops who treat pedestrians inhumanely.  If the shame were placed on cops for failing to be civil in their line of work rather than on the pedestrian until proven innocent, the entire system would function differently.

In her New York Times article “Rude or Polite, City Officers Leave Raw Feelings in Stops”, Wendy Ruderman explains how most New Yorkers are unhappy about being stopped, but are most upset about the way in which they are treated during frisks.  She explains how the police are often overly aggressive and vulgar during these encounters, citing this example

One of the officers, Mr. Morales said, warned: “Say one word and I’m going to make your parents pick you up at the jail. You guys are a bunch of immigrants.”

“Yep, that’s what they said, ‘You guys are immigrants,’ ” Mr. Mejia interjected. “We can’t say anything to them. They curse at us. They treat us like we killed somebody.”

Overall, it would be completely ignorant to ignore the issues with stop and frisk, but it would be equally ignorant to deny the program its success.  Modifying the system – insisting on proper police conduct – would be the best and most logical approach to keeping New York City safe for years to come.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/nyregion/new-york-police-leave-raw-feelings-in-stops.html?_r=0

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/is-stop-and-frisk-worth-it/358644/

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-morrison-kelling-20150107-column.html#page=1

In his article, “Is Stop and Frisk Worth it?” Daniel Bergner describes his experience while shadowing two police officers. He lists out their problems, but also explains the ways in which it is effective. His article convinced me that stop and frisk is a necessary policy. I understand that it is demeaning. I have been patted down at an airport, and it very uncomfortable and embarrassing. I expect it is even worse when it is done randomly on the street. But being demeaning is its only downside. In exchange for feeling uncomfortable, index offenses have been cut down by 75 percent. That is an incredible achievement, and makes me feel far safer. I understand that many police officers take stop and frisk too far; they are rude, and it would not surprise me if many of them discriminate based on race. This might be painful for people. But nonetheless, the system is working. If these measures are saving lives,  preventing rape, and curbing other crimes; then these small side effects are worth it. If someone had a new policy equally effective in preventing crime, then we could consider ending stop and frisk. But I think it would be ridiculous to abolish a policy that is doing so much good.

I also think it is necessary for police to show a certain level of aggression. If they have to say, “please,” and respond respectfully to people who are disregarding their authority, then they will not be able to do their job. Police officers need to be able to command respect in order to be effective. Some people are capable of doing that with a soft voice, but most are not able to do that. If the police officer can get the person to cooperate from the beginning, then it is less likely that things will escalate which could lead to the cops making mistakes. These policeman are putting their lives on the line to keep the country safe, if they feel threatened then they need to react accordingly. With a good policeman, as long as the person is cooperating, then nothing should happen to them.

I am not saying that our current system is perfect. I included a statistical analysis of racial profiling compiled by Civilrights.org, and it shows that racial profiling is very real and an issue that needs to be worked on. I also included a blog called policemisconduct.net. The blog is run by several people, and they frequently post links to articles of police misconduct. The two policeman we see in “Is Stop and Frisk Worth It?” are doing a great job at preventing crimes. They seem to know what they are doing, who to target, and how to search them efficiently but not excessively. Although these two officers are very capable, many police officers need further training. They turn what could be a simple matter into complicated scandals (and even tragedies) by overreacting and treating people with excessive brutality. There have been many cases on the news of police officers using excessive force on people, and even killing them. You can read about a relatively recent example here. Although some police officers are abusing the stop and frisk policy, I still think it is necessary. The police officers themselves are causing problems, but the policy itself is effective.

Sources:

http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/racial-profiling2011/the-reality-of-racial.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/is-stop-and-frisk-worth-it/358644/

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-morrison-kelling-20150107-column.html#page=1

http://www.policemisconduct.net/

http://nypost.com/2015/04/09/cop-who-shot-black-man-had-prior-excessive-force-complaint-report/

In Miriam Greenberg’s article, “The Disaster Inside the Disaster; Hurricane Sandy and Post-Crisis Redevelopment,” she touches on the idea that even natural disasters are not completely arbitrary. The systematically unequal rebuilding efforts after a disaster, as well as the existing economic disparity and status quo, creates a country where poorer areas suffer more because of supposedly “natural” disasters.

So you have to ask: How natural are these “natural disasters”?

Obviously, we can’t control nature. No amount of government or private money could protect us against the whims of the world, but if you take a look at various studies and scholarly articles on the subject, it becomes clear that while natural disasters occur everywhere, lower income areas suffer the most. Not only do they lack the solid infrastructure that their neighboring affluent areas have, but they also don’t receive the same focused rebuilding as those areas. Thus, a horrible cycle is created.

A horrible cycle indeed…

One research article that studies this cycle is “The Income Distribution Effect of Natural Disasters: An Analysis of Hurricane Katrina.” In this study, the three authors look at various income distributions and how they relate to natural disasters, specifically honing in on Hurricane Katrina. Greenberg also focused on this, but the nuance in this particular study is that it narrows in on the actual economics behind why certain areas weren’t as affected as others – using concepts in economics to prove that natural disasters are not distributed equally.

The study concludes that Hurricane Katrina was as disastrous as it was because of the poverty epidemic. The neighborhoods around New Orleans were already not in the best shape, leading the hurricane to devastate certain areas. And to make matters worse, the governments (city, state, and federal) didn’t even rebuild those neighborhoods afterwards with the relief money.

The question I had to ask, though – is it a chicken and egg sort of problem? Meaning, are the areas lower income because they were built in places that are susceptible to harsh weather and natural disasters? Did wealthy people just not want to live there? Or are the natural disasters more detrimental there because of the lower income strata that the citizens fall under? And therefore less money is offered to those areas, furthering the economic and “natural disaster impact” gaps? 

Regardless of how you answer this – the basic idea is that even though we can’t control nature, we should be utilizing whatever methods we can to bridge this “natural disaster impact” gap.

For instance, Greenberg suggests furthering equity amongst protective infrastructure and rebuilding all areas in a stable way after a natural disaster . It could legitimately make a huge difference in preventing a natural disaster from hitting a lower income area again. Disasters won’t happen again, or won’t be as bad, if an area is properly rebuilt after being struck.

The bottom line: Whatever control we do have, we should utilize. After all, this is a democracy – shouldn’t every neighborhood, regardless of income level, receive protection and rebuilding aid from these “not completely arbitrary natural disasters”?

Sources:

Brendler, Michael & White, Mary & Shaughnessy, Timothy. “The Income Distribution Effect of Natural Disasters: An Analysis of Hurricane Katrina.” Regional Analysis and Policy, 2010.

Article by Miriam Greenberg: “The Disaster Inside the Disaster: Hurricane Sandy and Post-Crisis Redevelopment.”

In Miriam Greenberg’s article The Disaster inside the Disaster: Hurricane Sandy and Post-crisis Redevelopment, she highlights the issues that metropolitan cities have been faced with during times of natural and unnatural disasters.  Yes, the disaster itself, whether it be a hurricane or a terrorist attack, is horrific on multiple levels. However, the way that that city copes with and tries to rebuild after said disaster is a crucial part of the entire landscape and often gets overlooked.  Too often, a city will focus all of its rebuilding efforts on the upper class, while basically neglecting the lower class.  Greenberg argues that in all of the major disasters that have occurred in the US during this century, all of them have been followed by the respective governments failing to evenly redevelop post-disaster.  This is an issue, and we must take steps to resolve it.

In an article by three professors at the University Of Minnesota entitled Distribution of impacts of natural disasters across income groups, the authors examine the rising effects of hurricanes on multiple levels.  For one thing, it has been estimated that natural disasters cost approximately 20 billion dollars annually, and this cost is spread across governments, insurance agencies, and the victims of these disasters.  To make matters worse, it appears that these costs are continuing to escalate based on a few things but the most important factor is the rising number of people moving to the coast and therefore being more vulnerable to these disasters.  Additionally, studies have shown that both the frequency as well as the intensity of hurricanes have increased in recent years, due to climate pattern changes.

In any such disaster, it all comes down to how vulnerable a specific person is at the time the disaster hits.  Vulnerability is based on multiple factors but one very important one is income level, and it is apparent that the lower a person’s income level the more vulnerable they are to a disaster and therefore will be more negatively affected by it.  But what makes lower income people more vulnerable to these disasters?  It’s a combination of a lot of different attributes such as the fact that lower income people are more likely to live in high risk areas, being less likely to have adequate insurance, or being less likely to perform necessary actions to avoid being affected.  So ultimately, it seems there is a direct correlation between poverty and being vulnerable to a natural disaster.

In conclusion, the effects of natural disasters show another problem with income inequality and one that needs to be fixed as soon as possible.  This can be fixed by creating new jobs and/or raising minimum wage in areas that are highly vulnerable.  These aren’t simple to carry out, but it’s important to promote more economic equality especially in highly affected places.  It’s also important to give people with lower access more access to the resources that will help them in a natural disaster.  This includes making reasonable insurance policies, and educating people on what to do during a natural disaster.  None of these are quick fixes, but they will go a long way in helping prevent future storms from devastating cities the way they have in the past.

Resources:

https://files.eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4902/2015/03/16061700/Greenberg-The-Disaster-Inside-the-Disaster.pdf

http://www.d.umn.edu/~pfarrell/Natural%20Hazards/Readings/Katrina%20article.pdf

These articles examine the typical tendencies and shortcomings of urban redevelopment post disasters. They demonstrate that despite the intentions of improving environmental conditions, economic issues often take precedence. Some of the redevelopment deficits are the failure to remediate existing toxic issues, which often results in amplifying these problems in the process of “improving” neighborhoods. There is also a concern that based on past revitalization projects, the consequential “environmental gentrification” that occurs fails to meet the needs of residents.

Melissa Checker illustrated how Hurricane Sandy illuminated the shortcomings of previous reconstruction after 9/11 and Hurricane Irene. Despite former Mayor Bloomberg’s commitment to environmental issues, many of his revitalization projects after these disasters seemed to cater to high-end real estate development, which undermined environmental goals. Referred to as “environmental gentrification”, it involved improving environmental burdens and upscaling low-income neighborhoods with green initiatives that appeal to the elite such as parks, bike lanes, and farmers markets. But, the paradox of environmental gentrification is that the environmental improvements attract more affluent homeowners, eventually pricing out low-income residents. Also, the reduction of environmental burdens in a gentrifying area may just transfer them to another low-income area. These projects often fail to address the basic needs of citizens with its market-based priorities. While many sustainability policies and plans may promote “green” initiatives that reduce greenhouse gasses, they are less concerned with the uneven distribution of toxic contamination. This prioritizes overall economic and environmental goals over the immediate health and environmental concerns of local residents. This is the result of the lack of community involvement in the planning process of urban redevelopment.

Mayor Bloomberg’s viewed private enterprise as the answer to environmental urban redevelopment. His approach to redevelopment involved combining private investment with sustainability initiatives, inspired by the Brownfield Cleanup Project launched in 1995, which gave incentives to private developers to clean up toxic properties. However, while this stimulated economic development it was not necessarily beneficial to human and environment sustainability. The Brownfield programs incentives had a tendency to benefit large developers and property owners at the expense of residents who were displaced after the ensuing gentrification. The privatization of brownfield programs prioritized cost-saving measures over solving environment issues Bloomberg launched the “Environmental, Social Governance” (ESG) in 2010 to attract investors with the intention of building affordable housing, fostering economic development and addressing environmental problems by 2030. But many of these environmental projects were ultimately linked to its real estate agenda. “In particular, the NYC Economic Development Corporation (EDC) provided millions of dollars in subsidies to transform old industrial water front zones into areas filled with lofts, condominiums, and commerce that catered to the lifestyles of venture capitalists, suburbanites, conventioneers, and tourists (Checker, 166).” His aggressive water front revitalization was susceptible to flooding from storm surges and failed to adequately restore natural flood barriers or the address the legacy of hazardous materials that affected residents’ health. This undermined the environmental goals of redevelopment.

Miriam Greenberg’s article addresses the failures of redevelopment after natural disasters and recognizes how essential it is for community involvement. The Alliance for a Just Rebuilding (AJR), frustrated with inequities in post Sandy clean- up, had a long-term goal of discouraging “the top-down approaches to recovery and redevelopment that were established in the wake of 9/11 and Katrina. They unveiled a ‘people’s agenda’ for post-Sandy rebuilding with four demands: good jobs, affordable housing, sustainable energy and community involvement” (Greenberg 45). The involvement of the community in planning for urban redevelopment after a crisis was essential in assuring the community’s needs were met.

Greenberg indicated that neighborhoods in a state of post disaster crisis are vulnerable to the negatives of gentrification because of the urgency to redevelop. In this urgency, environmental issues tend to lose out to economic issues. In a process termed “crisis-driven urbanization,” uneven redevelopment transformed the post-disaster city: fortifying affluent neighborhoods, catalyzing gentrification and displacement in low-income areas, and realizing the long-held development dreams of powerful growth coalitions (Greenberg 46). Site assessments were conducted by the same private companies that coordinated site clean ups, resulting in substandard cleanup. Planning and execution of redevelopment projects were privatized and structured to limit public participation. “Urban regimes used public meetings, forums, and planning sessions to seek the ratification of their projects, not public participation in them(Checker, 175).” As a result residents became resentful that their concerns were not addressed and that projects were designed to attract more people to revitalized neighborhoods disregarding issues of pollution, traffic congestion, overcrowding in schools, and sewer problems. Not only was this lack of community involvement undemocratic, it resulted in economic interests superseding environmental and public interest.

Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow provides a solution for balancing environmental justice with gentrification by proposing that neighborhoods be made “just green enough”. This suggests that environmental concerns should be addressed, but modifications should be kept appropriate for the neighborhood to avoid radically transforming neighborhoods and pricing out residents. This attempt to prevent inequities resulting from gentrification requires community input. Tuhus-Dubrow cites improvements in Greenpoint , Brooklyn as an example of this strategy, where in the process of cleaning up toxic environments, neighborhood improvements addressed the needs of the working class community, preserving jobs, instead of focusing on creating attractive real estate.

Elizabeth Daigneau echoed this idea of creating neighborhoods “just green enough”, which she describes as making a neighborhood more livable without triggering gentrification. According to Daigneau, the key  to creating neighborhoods that are “just green enough” is community involvement.  She also refers to the neighborhood of Greenpoint, Brooklyn which was able to create a greener neighborhood and small park while preserving the character of the neighborhood. Contrasting Bloomberg’s  large scale approach to urban redevelopment, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced a plan to fix 35 neglected parks in underserved neighborhoods. These are small projects that stress community engagement. This effort to improve the neighborhood is designed to benefit, not displace residents (Daigneau).

With community involvement, urban redevelopment can be achieved without displacing residents and undermining environmental goals. With conscious effort, city policies and practices can complement a community’s sustainability, equity, and public participation.

Sources:

Greenberg, Miriam. “The Disaster inside the Disaster: Hurricane Sandy and Post-crisis Redevelopment.” New Labor Forum 23.1 (2013): 44-52. Web.

Checker, Melissa. “GREEN IS THE NEW BROWN: “OLD SCHOOL TOXICS” AND ENVIRONMENTAL GENTRIFICATION ON A NEW YORK CITY WATERFRONT.” Sustainability in the Global City: Myth and Practice. N.p. 2014. 157-79. Print.

Daigneau, Elizabeth. “Just Green Enough.” Just Green Enough. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2015. <http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-green-gentrification-series.html>.

Tuhus-Dubrow, Rebecca. “Green Urbanism: Balancing Environmental Justice with Gentrification.” N.p., 9 Aug. 2014. Web. 3 May 2015. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wilderutopia.com%2Fsustainability%2Fland%2Fgreen-urbanism-balancing-evironmental-justice-with-gentrification%2F>.

The main thrust of Loughran’s paper “Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines, and the Uneven Development of Urban Public Spaces” seems to be the emphasis of the High Line as the paradigm for the new trend in development, in which public works projects and spaces are being hijacked by the elite and turned into spaces catering to the privileged in society, as opposed to the public at large. One of the reasons the High Line turns out to be a strong example of such a project is that the idea was originally conceived in a grassroots organization started by the community for the community (presumably), however as Loughran writes “as the Friends of the High Line continued to gain momentum and financial support, idealistic sentiments were cast aside for pragmatic realpolitik.” As the founders of Friends of the High Line discovered, making a park that would serve to gentrify the neighborhood would get them the financial backing of those who supported that kind of development in the area, notably Mayor Bloomberg, who brokered a deal which helped finance $133.6 million of the projected $153 million cost of the first two phases of the park with government funds (Goldberger).

Perhaps not surprising is the fact that the current Mayor de Blasio has yet to step foot on the High Line. Mayor de Blasio spoke out against developing Manhattan to the exclusion of the other boroughs in his campaign for Mayor, and, once he was elected Mayor, he rallied for funding to revive the older and poorer parks around the city (Grynbaum). It can also be seen from his launching of the Community Parks Initiative, which will invest $130 million in parks in high-need neighborhoods , NYC Parks’ first major equity initiative (nycgovparks.org). That being said, de Blasio has gone on record to say “I am a fan of it. I think it’s done a lot of good for the city, but I haven’t visited”, perhaps due to the pressure from the overwhelming positive responses to the park (Grynbaum).

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/04/ny-high-line/goldberger-text/2

http://www.nycgovparks.org/about/framework-for-an-equitable-future/community-parks-initiative

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/nyregion/high-line-draws-millions-but-de-blasio-isnt-one.html