I have a fundamental problem with the concept of Broken Window Policing, the same issue that has plagued the stop-and-frisk policy since its conception. Namely, that all crimes are equally, and that all breaches of morality are equally devastating. The idea behind Broken Windows policing is that people who commit minor crimes are equally as likely to commit major crimes, and therefore putting them behind bars after a minor crime will prevent major crimes. I believe that this policy ignores the inherent complexity of people. I don’t believe it naive to claim that there is a very solid moral divide between say, jumping the turnstiles, and rape. The assumption that someone would commit a minor crime out of desperation or immediate need would just as likely say, kill, is casting a universal stereotype that condemns innocent people to a potentially very difficult life. How can we control crime without instilling a policing system based upon gross assumptions or racial stereotypes?

In the first reading, a great point is made when the author says, “Whether crime has actually decreased is subject to debate considering that misdemeanor arrests have increased by fifty percent” (23). Bringing this to the national scale, isn’t this essentially the problem with our justice system? I know Lydia works very closely with research on the prison system in this country, so I want to try very hard not to sound stupid here, but isn’t the increase in arrests for minor charges, along with overly harsh punishments for said crimes, one of the biggest problems facing the “justice” system? Because of it, there are more people in jails and prisons, which have shown not to be correctional facilities but rather criminal-career-making facilities, which breed a kid that may have been locked up for having weed on him into a drug peddler for a gang establishment. And, because of these minor offenses, a person is then branded as second-class citizens, often making it much harder to maintain a legal job and pushing them further into criminal territory. My question, then, is how this is justified to be a sustainable practice? I feel as though, up to this point, these policies have been shown very blatantly to not work—so what is the justification for continuing them?

“Turnstile Jumpers and Broken Windows” by Tanya Erzen is quite a lengthy article, which led me to write this personal opinion heavy response. First and foremost, I found the term the term “visual disorder” to be an insensitive one because it’s used in a discussion the indecency of individuals, not of pornographic images. Secondly, I found hard to believe that everyday commuters were the ones to “demand a safer subway environment”, according to Kelling and Coles. I appreciated that the author points out questions not addressed in quality-of-life literature. The Quality of Life also appears to be riddled with ignorant arguments such as that made by Kelling who “emphasizes that  homelessness is not a result of structural issues like poverty or unemployment, but exists as a choice for many people”. Lastly, I am outraged not only by how the AVP is practiced but by the vague and complex legal wording as well. This point is illustrated well in the provision that states: “In the event of a member of the service, because of lack of experience, is unable to determine if the reason of the excessive noise emanating from a motorcycle is because of “straight pipes”, an Environmental Control Board Notice of Violation may still be issued”.

I find it interesting that in the final reading, “quality of life” policing is mentioned in tandem with the “broken windows” theory because I have the same problem with both. The ideas make sense – as, admittedly, the “trickle down theory” in economics does. However, these ideas are all contingent on the idea that people are inherently good and non-corrupt. In this case, the major issue I can see with “quality of life” policing is that the police can then use it as an excuse to bully and discriminate. There are definite targets for this type of treatment, and it makes me uncomfortable to know that the policing occurs without a real crime being committed. It’s similar to the “broken windows” excuse surrounding Stop and Frisk, where the policemen say they’re trying to uncover smaller crimes like drug possession or concealed weapons. Is there ever a situation in which “quality of life” policing would help rather than hinder everyone involved?

I think everyone has always understood that the distribution of wealth has been a horrible weight looking over the world, but the Oxfam Study opened my eyes to the idea of home truly massive that gap between the have and the have-nots truly is.  The study finds that by next year the richest one percent will control more than half of the world’s total wealth.  It goes on to describe an even more shocking detail: that the eighty wealthiest people own $1.9 trillion, which is equivalent to the cumulative wealth of the 3.5 billion individuals on the bottom half of the income scale! That is insane! Yet, even though many of these wealthy individuals put their money back into the community to create parks, these actions are not as public oriented as they seem.  In “The Billionaire’s Park,” David Callahan explains how the investment of individuals like Mr. Diller into seemingly public spaces , are in more affluent places and developed in a style that leans more towards the interest of the wealthy.  Essentially this philanthropy is taking away the voice of the public center when it comes to the question of what to do with public space.  This idea is further supported in “OWS: The Part of Wall Street Meets Its Nemesis”, which paints the story of Occupy Wall Street and the end that came to it by the idea that the government decides which space is public and allowed to be occupied.  In a space that is obviously public, it seems that the mass public, those who represent the 99%, are not allowed to take up space in that area because they do not fit the aesthetic off the private sector. So what is it that we, as the 99%, have to do to regain our voices in how to develop public space, a small construct that will hopefully lead to strengthening our voices in other political outlets? We must change the system that equates money with power.  But then, how do we do that?

The following statement is a real eye-opener: “The 80 wealthiest people in the world altogether own $1.9 trillion […] nearly the same amount shared by the 3.5 billion people who occupy the bottom half of the world’s income scale.” This fact is absolutely mind boggling, and how it could even be true is a whole different story. To think that most of the world’s wealth is held by only 80 people is utterly insane. This shift to private money holders is becoming apparent because there has been a shift from public funding to private funding for various projects. For example, the High Line in NYC is a park that was mainly funded by private donors. Its really beautiful, and when I went to visit the park, I actually did notice that the only types of people visiting the park were tourists, runners, or cyclers who lived near by. It’s a great park and a wonderful way to use the money that the wealthy have, but there is always a better use for excess money.

Question: Is there any hope for the wealth to be distributed among the lower income population, or are the “rich just going to get richer and the poor, poorer.”?

The information presented in these articles is of great concern to our society, and are representative of many of the social structures that our generation has come to loathe. It is unfortunate to see the growing influence of the rich in the politics of this country, and how money is in fact a more powerful force than the government in charge of representing the will of the people. The idea that the development of public spaces, whose very name is indicative of it role as a physical extensions of the people’s common will, is to be controlled by those with the wealth for development seems to be a corruption of the very concept. How to combat this development is another question, as we are witness to the very short-lived effects of the Occupy movement, although the powerful language displayed in the reading “Chapter 7, “#OWS: The Party of Wall Street Meets its Nemesis” serves as a representation of the impassioned frustration we are beginning to see as a result of these negative shifts. What we haven’t seen is concrete steps taken in order to reverse these steps. There need to be systems put in place in order to separate purchasing power from political and social influence.

Economic rewards are far more lopsided in the US than in European countries, this inequality drives American poverty rates. In sociology the champagne glass distribution theory of inequality, is used to explain the unequal global distribution of income. 925 million people are hungry in the world, 1 billion people do not have access to clean drinking water, and 2.3 million children die from preventable diseases. It really says something if 1% of the population control half of global wealth. It only adds to the issue if the 1% of the population only uses their money for leisure and entertainment. There should be a limit to how much a person could own; imagine owning $1.9 trillion, at some point all your needs and desires would have been met and the rest of the money would have been redundant. The rest of that money could be allocated for better services, towards the needy, homeless, and the poor. Instead billionaires are spending their money on leisure activities like building a billionaire park that will only have use for tourists, instead of using them on the community. Is there a way to solve the global inequality problem?

I agree with Nicole, this week’s readings are perfectly timed. Beginning with Party of Wall Street Meets it’s Nemesis, the author holds a negative point of view and claimed that only the wealthy have power and control of politics. That was further proved in the other readings, especially in Patricia Cohen’s New York Times article when she stated that 80 wealthy people own more than 3.5 regular people do. This showed the severity of the issue. The New York Times article by Callahan, on the other hand, did not seem as important. I failed to see why investing into a park would have such a negative impact. After all, it is their money and they may invest it as they please. However, the last reading by Cindi Katz showed that there are far more important issues out there that are being ignored. Also, something as small as investing in a park can give the wealthy more control than imagined. This leads me to wonder is the only way to have a voice is to have a “collective power of bodies in a public space” which Party of Wall Street Meets it’s Nemesis suggests is the most effective instrument of opposition.

Is there really anything we can do to control how and where the wealthy invest their money?

The article “Oxfam study finds richest 1% is likely to control half of global wealth by 2016” shows a wide-spread concern focused primarily on the gap that is ever-increasing between the extremely rich and the painstakingly poor of the world. This article impresses me in showing how the richest percentage of the world can easily control an important and vital amount of money in the economic world. For instance, the connections and the amounts of investments that can be summed up by these people can easily determine the future of many corporations as well as international multi-millionaire businesses. Other than believing this as an inevitable end that will happen, the wealth that is just gathered in such few hands, can be redistributed at a much widespread rate. In addition, this article also begins to make you think of several possibilities that will eventually lead to a much more desired outcome, for example heavier taxes for the rich, much more money limitations and a lot more taxes for trivial activities that can only be afforded by the richest people of the world. Yet on the flipside, the immensity of such a project will never be a one-night job so what do you think? What improvements or ideas do you have that will limit the rich and help the poor without endangering or boosting the middle class of the world?