According to “Canaries of the Creative Age,” Greenwich Village received an influx of gay and lesbian youth of color, who helped to organize a group called ‘FIERCE’ in order to protest against increased policing and police brutality as well as the fact that there was no public space on the piers. This was not the only group to form that centered on “pier youth culture” including youths of color. ‘FIERCE’ also tried to decrease how vulnerable gay and lesbian youth were to the violence and crime in Greenwich Village. The pier was a place that LGBT youth frequented as the areas surrounding it succumbed to privatization. ‘FIERCE’ wanted to have nonresidents have more of a “claim to the neighborhood,” while residents and police wanted them to leave and to increase policing. This argument between multiple parties is similar to the policy of stop-and-frisk today and how the community and police are in disagreements with each other.

What I found interesting was how this article contrasts with last week’s article in terms of “quality of life” policing. While the LGBT community fights to stop the increase policing, the residents of Greenwich Village actually want to increase the “quality of life” policing for increased safety. Last week’s article discussed this type of policing more negatively, explaining how this policing is centered on the low-income neighborhoods and how police brutality is often involved.

Question: Are there more pros or cons to “quality of life” policing now that we have seen two perspectives of how it can both be helpful and negative?