This week’s reading continued to discuss the topic of quality of life specifically focusing on the Greenwich Village area and touches upon Times Square. In this reading the author automatically expresses a negative point of view on Neoliberalism. Also, police brutality is brought up once again. In comparison to last week’s readings, this article could’ve included some personal accounts regarding the issue of police brutality to make the argument stronger. However, unlike the last reading, this article seems to have a slightly different perspective and actually requested more police presence and quality of life responsiveness. Community board two supported the police and blamed prostitution for resident discomfort and for attracting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth. They believe that Greenwich Village attracts the LGBT population and as a result, they get mixed up in activities such as drugs and prostitution. In reality those activities attract police violence, resident vigilance and anti LGBT threats. In response the LGBT community has formed groups such as Fierce to promote change and fight against discrimination. Unfortunately, they still face hard times when youth of color get ignored at meetings and aren’t taken seriously. This effects community planning and promotes discrimination.

How do we insure that community planning is fair when not everyone’s voice is being heard?

I felt that this week’s reading was a bit lacking in focus. The chapter opens with a quote which does a wonderful job of creating a tone of crime, chaos, panic, and danger. However, the writing that follows seems to only barely relate to that theme. Hanhardt fluctuates between discussion of riots, racial segregation and gentrification, and gay communities without really providing what feel like strong connections between the themes. What’s worse, none of her themes seem to serve any overarching informative goal – the chapter seems to lack a purpose.

The real shame is that this weeks reading seems to be covering a particularly unique subject. While we have already spent a fair deal of time discussing racial tensions and how they relate to financial and housing crises, I believe this is the first time that discussion of LGBT communities and “The Gay Index” has come up in class. The Gay Index was a completely new concept to me, and I found it genuinely interesting to discover that there were such important correlations between the presence of gay communities and various advancements in tech and business.

The strange parallelism between an aesthetically “clean” environment and the imaginary safety of said environment resulted in a wave of harmful legislation and policing policies. I believe that these abusive policies are the issue, as far as the issues we have covered in class, that directly impacted my experience in New York City. I have been a direct witness to police tactics aimed at “cleaning” a neighborhood up, that simply result in antagonized citizens already at a severe disadvantage within the community. Friends of mine with otherwise completely clean records ending up suspended from high schools in which they were performing appropriately because principles catch wind of their arrest for graffiti. A violation whose consequence could’ve been a ticket was escalated to the point of trial, and although the charges were immediately dropped, the resounding consequences in that young man’s life affected the level of eduction to which he was exposed. Alienating and disenfranchising misdemeanor offenders seems to me like a counter productive strategy, as it only fuels the cycle of poverty and distrust of police. Cleanliness of walls and of citizens does not translate to safety, but they are telling of much deeper issues that must be solved as opposed to making the victims of these problems disappear. A 17 year old with a marker should not be held overnight in the same cell as dangerous criminals, taught to equate himself to them, and then stripped of opportunity, and to think that this strategy is helping the city move forward is foolish.

“Quality of life policing” is probably one of the most hypocritical and unjust phrases I have ever heard. It is supposedly aimed at making neighborhoods and cities safer and more enjoyable places to live. However, this better quality of living is not for everyone. It is reserved only for those who fit or conform to society’s standards of what is considered “normal.”  For those who do not fit into this very narrow category, quality of life is significantly decreased.

Broken windows theory is an idea used to support zero tolerance and quality of life policing. Interestingly enough, this theory can be used to describe this type of policing. If we allow police officers to do whatever they please when it comes to “enforcing the law,” they will take advantage of vulnerable populations. Many police officers have gone unpunished for serious CRIMES they have committed under the guise of zero tolerance policing.

Also, quality of life policing is meant to improve PUBLIC spaces, when it is really taking these spaces away from the public, especially those who need it most. Our country spends the most on incarceration instead of things like healthcare.

Question: Should there be a zero tolerance policy placed on police officers?

This week’s readings had a focus on the broken-windows theory of law enforcement. I think this is an important issue to address, because there is the idea that this type of policing is improving the way of life for everyone and also that laws like these that address lower-level crimes are equally enforced for all members of a given population. However, we have seen, especially for anti-vagrancy laws, that this is not the case. Often for laws like no drinking in public, urination in public, loitering or sleeping on public transit, the enforcement is very subjective, with emphasis on criminalizing acts that are done by homeless people, for instance. This allows for gaps in the system to target people based on housing status, gender, sexuality, race, and other classifications that allow for minority marginalization. To address this unequal enforcement of the law, we should first bring attention to the fact that these policies may have been designed to improve the quality of life for all, but are instead causing stark divisions in our society.

Question: How can we modify zero tolerance policing to maintain a society in which personal biases and prejudices are not as easily allowed to affect law enforcement?

There is no policy that does not have both pros and cons, and the only sources provided for today’s reading are regarding the cons of quality of life policing. But coming from an area where jails were overcrowded for serious offences, so people who’d committed lesser crimes were booked and released – and it was always the same people getting booked – the logic behind quality of life policing makes sense. It’s probably something I would support. Whether or not it was excessive aside – and I really can’t say either way, there was no statistical evidence given (the Erzen article stated that the number of homicides had risen over 1999-2000, but provided no evidence for any other crime rate; it was all mostly anecdotal in both that and the INCITE pamphlet) – it did what it claimed. Did it clean up NYC? Most likely – the sources aren’t arguing against that. Did it catch people wanted for greater crimes on lesser charges? Again, most likely – but as no solid evidence was provided on this, I can’t say. But saying that arrests are higher after a policy designed to – honestly – increase arrests is too obvious.

Question: Why do or don’t you support quality of life policing? In light of today’s reading, do you think it would be effective if the policy were altered, or should it be scrapped altogether?

It was very interesting learning about the laws that actually support the unethical and atrocious behavior of cops towards the people.

I feel like what the people in charge of the city at that time meant to do with the safety of the streets was a good thing. But, unfortunately, us human beings tend to take advantage of the power given to us and so we end up distorting the purpose of many things, such as the “zero tolerance” law. Nonetheless, it was a ruthless law, as well as the “quality of life” policing. It seems quite ironic to me that the people who were supposed to keep order and enforce the law on everyone, equally—the word “equally” didn’t seem to have much meaning back then. I wonder if people think that we still see somewhat of this behavior nowadays? And what do they think is the cause of such behavior?

I do know one thing for sure, the root for racism back then was easily political more than just a social issue that affected, not just the blacks, but the lower income class. Which could lead to the conclusion that any other state government that ended up implementing these laws that were first tested out here in NYC, were just as racist and/or biased as NYC at that point in time.

“Quality of life” policing first started in the 1990s when Giuliani was mayor, and it has been adopted into broken windows policing which Mayor Bill de Blasio currently advocates. This form of policing focuses on arresting those who commit misdemeanors in order to prevent more serious crimes from occurring. I believe that this form of policing is doing more harm than good. Police brutality has been increasing, even for the smaller crimes such as drinking in public or urinating. “Quality of life” also targets minority groups as well as the homeless. I think this is unfair. Those who are homeless should not be getting harassed by the police for sleeping in public. I think the police should not waste their time on making arrests for crimes that are not making the city unsafe. A person urinating in public is not as serious of a crime as rape or murder is. The police should be focusing on these more serious crimes that affect the safety of an individual. The broken windows policy and police brutality contributed to the death of Eric Garner, who was arrested for selling cigarettes on a Staten Island street. He was put into an illegal chokehold that ended his life. Another important thing the city should focus on besides crime is how the police are conducting themselves while on the job.

Question: Do you think that the broken windows policy is helping to prevent more serious crimes from occurring?