9th and Pacific Community Forum ( 4. October 2007, 14:12 by Derek Young) ~ Let's Make A Difference
The New Tacoma Neighborhood Council and the Downtown Merchants Group would like to invite everyone who is concerned about crime and safety issues near 9th & Pacific and the surrounding 3 block radius to a community forum. The forum will examine the current conditions and their social and economic impacts. As a community we will explore both short and long term solutions. The goal will be the elimination of nuisance behavior in our neighborhood.
Where & When
October 17th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Sanford and Son Auctions
734 Broadway
Library Room
Please RSVP to:
Marty Campbell
Chair, New Tacoma Neighborhood Council
Email: Tacoma1@Gmail.com
Phone: 253.376.3774
Commenting Is Closed
Comments are allowed for two weeks from the posted date. If you want to make a comment or reopen this discussion, please contact us with your request. Thank you for visiting.
will there be a digital projector available so we can all share our photos of public urination?
1 | Posted by RR Anderson | Oct 4, 03:12 PM
As a community we will explore both short and long term solutions. The goal will be the elimination of nuisance behavior in our neighborhood.
Good idea. Unfortunately, many of the nuisance problems that were present in March of 2006, still exist.
This will be a good time to see how many of recommendations that were made in March of 2006 were adopted and implemented by the city.
Once positive development was the fencing around Fireman’s Park that slowed down some of the drug trade under 705. However, there are other problems which have become worse.
It seems that the parking issue dovetails with this problem. All of the parking garages in Tacoma are a haven for drug use, vagrancy and encampment. The city should first answer the parking problem, change the law, get rid of the parking garages. Then they should make sure that no ‘social services’ agencies are in downtown Tacoma. Watch the development at that point!
3 | Posted by boandluke | Oct 4, 07:02 PM
At one time New York City had a volunteer safety group called Guardian Angels. They were men and women identified by thier red berets.
They weren’t gun slingers; just a recognizable friendly force.
As I remember, they had some opposition from the police department which was a conflict of interest issue noted as interference with official peacekeepers.
4 | Posted by Mofo from the Hood | Oct 4, 09:28 PM
I wish to be a peacekeeper, a stakeholder, a gunslinger, but friendly force, of community… with long and short term solutions and a good idea…a recommendation, a volunteer safety group, whose goal is the elimination of nuisance behavior in our neighborhood.
5 | Posted by Laura Hanan | Oct 4, 10:08 PM
boandluke:
“Then they should make sure that no ‘social services’ agencies are in downtown Tacoma.”
Yeah, lets make social services harder to access for folks who need them. That worked real well the first time. Better yet, lets take your advice, move services out of downtown and put them in your neighborhood and see what you say then.
Social services aren’t the problem, they’re part of the solution. The fact that they’re horribly underfunded and understaffed is obviously not helping.
And no, vigilantes in berets aren’t going to help, either.
There need to be places for people with no where to go to go, and services to help them get on their feet. Further, there needs to be better enforcement of laws so that the people causing the real problems down town, specifically openly dealing on street corners, aren’t given free reign to do so.
Moreover, there need to be more folks out and about on the streets in general. When the only people on the streets are sketchy, the streets are sketchy. I think this site has done a great job embracing the idea of making Tacoma walkable, and safety is one of the big benefits of walkability.
Any streetwise people downtown didn’t take over the neighborhood because they were stronger or fiercer than other people. They did so because they’re more clever. Any account of human behavior has to take in the factor of intellectual capacity.
7 | Posted by Mofo from the Hood | Oct 8, 09:21 AM
Commenting is closed for this article.
