Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Let Facts Guide Council ShotSpotter Decision

A gunshot detection system unveiled on July 28 and touted at an Aug. 1 Town Hall meeting might have rolled on to Planning Board endorsement on Aug. 5 and City Council approval by Aug. 16. But somehow its unannounced presentation Aug. 5 gave Planning Board members pause and they asked for more information at their Aug. 19 meeting. And as early as Aug. 2, a flurry of OPRA requests began, asking how much it cost to stage the on-air Town Meeting, simulcast on WBLS and WLIB and featuring The Rev. Al Sharpton.

Some residents also took issue with letting the entire metropolitan listenership know about Plainfield’s wave of gun violence starting in May that the ShotSpotter system was supposed to help alleviate. When the $1 million tab for the system became known, another rumble of concern arose. The city had just had two rounds of layoffs in order to wrap up the FY 2010 budget.

The Planning Board voted on Aug. 19 to recommend the ShotSpotter project to the governing body as a capital item, though member Horace Baldwin remained unconvinced of the plan’s usefulness. The detection system would place 40 sensors in a two-square-mile section of the city identified as having the most gunfire. The exact location of any gunshot would be conveyed to laptops in patrol cars.

But before the council met on Sept. 7, Plaintalker received and posted images of documents showing WBLS received $20,000 for the Town Meeting and that funds were drawn from the hardware and software maintenance account of the city’s new Information Technology division. Council members expressed concern at their meeting and called for an investigation.

At the Sept. 13 regular meeting (which Plaintalker could not attend), representatives of the ShotSpotter company gave a presentation on the system, but no action was taken.

Now West End Heights residents are questioning a possible stigma on their neighborhood if the system is installed there, and are planning a Town Hall meeting in early October.

So instead of being an easily understood and accepted project, the gun detection plan now seems itself to be under fire.

As a former reporter, I read about the initial July 28 demonstration with some sympathy for those who got assigned to cover it. Obviously, there had been a request for coverage that the editors could not ignore, but it seemed to be more PR than news. The Town Hall meeting following on the heels of the demonstration came across to several blog commenters as a big show and not much more. In the cold light of day after the Town Hall meeting, people wanted to know how much it cost.

My first clue that major hype was involved came at the end of the Aug. 5 Planning Board meeting, when one of the law enforcement officials asked me to suppress information on the blog, specifically the scope of the detection system. I responded that the facts in question were given in testimony at a public meeting. It was one of the very few times as a reporter or blogger I had been asked to do such a thing and I found it both offensive and somewhat intimidating,

Well, never mind. The hype didn’t fly and now more and more questions are being asked. Those who called for a fast approval in early August argued that lives were at stake. But of all the strategies that can be brought to bear on gun violence, and there are many in effect right now, the use of a costly and sophisticated gunshot detection system has somewhat lost its glamour amidst the ensuing controversy.

Whatever the governing body decides, it is now more than ever likely to be based on facts, not emotion or pressure. And that’s a good thing.

--Bernice Paglia

15 comments:

  1. Well what I see is the fact that our illustrious (in their own opinion of themselves), public officials feel as though they are not doing their jobs unless they are either writing ordinances or spending taxpayer monies on items that they KNOW are beneficial to the City, whether the citizens believe so or not! They are going to REPRESENT our best interests, if they have to go against local consensus to do this!(They are so much smarter than the rest of us)!
    Sort of reminds me of when the President said that no legislation would ever be signed into law by him, until it had been posted online for a number of days, and the PEOPLE's feedback was first taken into consideration! That lasted 10 seconds, at best!
    Well at least when we get shot spotter we will be in good company . . . Camden, Paterson, Newark, East Orange and Irvington! Those towns are soooo much safer now! I still don't feel too safe when traveling to the Aquarium!

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is an expensive response. There is no assurance the uptick in incidences of gunshot violence is not temporary, or able to cross red-lined districts. And the annual $150,000 maintenance cost for the ShotSpotter system, plus interest on the $1 million bond, could also pay for beefed-up patrols in affected neighborhoods. Have the police ramped up their presence? Have we been flexible in our response, and now come to the conclusion there is no choice but technology and surveillance? Is it time to go all in on triangulation and secret sensor installations?

    Al Sharpton didn't stay long enough to work, so the next step is obvious: Orwell.

    ReplyDelete
  3. For all those who didn't have the pleasure of attending Sunday's Jefferson School meeting held by Nan of the 4th Ward it proved to be a great opportunity for people from Plainfield to exchange opinions on the proposed ShotSpotter system. The most beneficial aspect of the meeting in my opinion were discussions surrounding crime prevention and how to increase community input.

    Topics discussed varied from everything from ShotSpotter to alternative crime reduction strategies. There was widespread agreement that historically Plainfield's growth has been limited because of issues like political infighting, race and the perceived lack of appreciation that the more affluent areas of Plainfield have for the problems that exist elsewhere in the city.

    The fact that Councilman Mapp, Councilwoman Carter and Rebecca Williams (Democratic Nominee for the 2nd & 3rd at-large seat) attended allowed for a question answer period that otherwise would have been impossible. They were a great asset to the debate and should be commended for their participation.

    All present benefitted from the experience. This type of forum which is not restricted by the format of City Council meeting was much more like a conversation at the kitchen table. Its result-- a scheduled town hall meeting to give the people of Plainfield what they deserve regarding ShotSpotter and any other major issue, the opportunity to get the facts and a forum which allows for the kind of interaction that can produce better governance.

    How I feel about the proposed technology is dwarfed by how the city as a whole feels. That indeed is the question. How does the city feel? We can't began to answer it until we get all the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Rev Al didn't want to be in the westend for too long after nightfall! I thought that was silly, he was with the MAYOR!

    ReplyDelete
  5. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
    NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO SHOT SPOTTER SAVE THE MONEY

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was rolling on my back laughing so loud when I heard that Nan was afraid of her neighborhood being stigmatized as crime infested.

    What does Nan think the 4th Ward is? Summit?
    LOL! LOL! LOL!

    I just have not had a good laugh in a while. Thanks Nan. Keep them coming!

    ReplyDelete
  7. After I laughed so hard, I started to cry. That a resident of Plainfield will place percieved home values over the lives of our teens and young men...

    I cried and I cried.

    How dare Nan and Mapp and the other value this as debateable item!

    How dare Mapp and others think this worthy of discussion.

    How dare Mapp and others give this argument any credability by attending this forum.

    Let me tell you something: The 4th Ward needs this today. We need to find a way to stop our children being shot, and if this technology can stop children from being shot, then I am all for it.

    Watch your home values then sky rocket once people find out that can way around without being shot at!

    That I am sure will please Nan. Not the childred being saved Nan, but the money you can take from your increased values. That is all that will make you happy.

    I pray for you Nan.

    Charles Ashford

    ReplyDelete
  8. We already have Shotspotter only it's called something else here... 9-1-1. Here's how it works; if you hear some shooting going on, dial that number and tell whoever answers the phone where you hear the gunfire. That only costs a dime!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Children do not die from bullets, children die by other children [ours] putting bullets in guns

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here's a better way to do this. We get one of those lifesaver chairs like they have on the beach. We position it in the center of the 2 square mile area in the 4th ward, facing north. Now we put Charles in the chair with a cell phone. When he hears gunfire, he calls 911 and reports where it is in relation to his position!
    We need one other person as committed to this as Charles so that they could each have a 12 hour shift. I would be glad to do my part and bring them coffee and donuts once in awhile!

    ReplyDelete
  11. When the police got a call of shooting near park and prospect.the caller gave a desription of the shooter which helped the police find the criminal.The caller was the shot spotter
    Thats what we need citizens to call the police and help. That old saying It takes a village to raise a child. Well it takes people to save a city........

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think Mr. Ashford makes a lot of assumptions.

    Was Bridget Rivers there?

    ReplyDelete
  13. What's wrong with Summit? Maybe if you raised your threshold to Summit instead of Newark, Plainfield would be a better place.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think everyone has forgotten the best part of this system. Once the gunshot has been detected, the person using the firearm will calmly wait until the police are able to get there and arrest them. There are ALWAYS plenty of police cars hanging out in the parking lot at HQ

    ReplyDelete
  15. There is something called the "soft bigotry of low expectations." I think the residents of the 4th ward have every right to fight for and demand a high quality of life not unlike that of Summit. Unfortunately some think standard of living and quality of life are one in the same. They are not.

    Anyone who grew up less than rich, with pride in where they lived and surrounded by people who generally felt the same know what I'm talking about. Average middle class families that worked hard and refused to allow the unsightly to become the norm.

    That's why I'm a bit confused with the tentative approval of 148 more residential units when Plainfield doesn't have the necessary green/open space needed for the people that already live here.

    Ok, I'm not confused I'm just saying, packing people into less than desirable conditions and expecting a new and better Plainfield sounds like more of the same failed strategies to me.

    ReplyDelete