PAC2 Meeting Minutes: September 8, 2003
Crime mapper
Grant update
Appearance Commission
Parks & Recreation master plan
Community concerns & announcements
Crime mapper: Tonight’s first speaker was Major Charles Tiffin of the DPD, who presented the new crime mapping software now available on the DPD website. This has been in the works for a long time; PAC2 and Newman Aguiar were instrumental in moving it along. To access the crime mapper, go to the DPD website (www.durhampolice.com), click to enter the site and get to the main page, and click on Crime Mapper from the list on the left side.
The crime mapper uses preliminary data, so it won’t be as accurate as UCR (Uniform Crime Report) data, but it is quite accurate, like the daily crime reports. It’s updated twice a month with the latest crime data from both the DPD and the Durham County sheriff’s department. The crime mapper is a multi-agency, collaborative project involving the police, sheriff, GIS, and other city agencies.
To use the crime mapper, you can plug in a particular address or the intersection of two streets, and see everything within a quarter-mile or half-mile radius of that point. Or you can see the area of a particular police beat. However, there isn’t a beat map shown here. The crime mapper is not currently searchable by neighborhood, but it will be in the future. That function was actually part of the first edition of the crime mapper, but it has been taken away and will return once changes to neighborhood boundaries have been updated.
The types of data available include UCR data (arson, assault, burglary, homicide, larceny, motor vehicle theft, robbery, & rape) and gun crimes, including reports of shots fired. The database goes back through 2002, and you can search for a particular month or range of months within that time. You can search for incidents of a particular type or types of UCR crime, or for gun-related crimes, or for calls for service involving drugs, or for calls for service involving shots fired. Major Tiffin demonstrated the crime mapper in action for us by creating a map showing all burglaries that had occurred this year within a quarter-mile of the intersection of Green & Iredell; there had been about 15.
Someone asked whether PAC2 would still get the daily crime reports; we certainly will. Newman said that we hope someday this system will generate those reports and provide them to the whole city. The points on the map are accurately located to within a block; you can also click on a linked table that shows the addresses (sometimes the precise house number, sometimes just the block). In response to a question about how the DPD will use this instrument, District 2 Commander Ed Sarvis pointed out that the DPD has had this crime mapping capability for more than five years; they just didn’t have the ability to make it available to the public until now. As well as the information we can get from the crime mapper, the DPD crime analysis unit also looks at the time of day and day of the week crimes occurred, in order to plan the most effective deployment of police resources.
Newman reminded everyone of the danger of drawing conclusions that are not supported by the data. Asked whether this type of system was in use elsewhere, he responded with an emphatic affirmative, adding that of the many cities using crime mapping, ours is the best and most detailed he’s seen, thanks to its GIS capabilities.
People were also trying to understand what the value of the crime mapper is. Newman stated that it has many functions; the police department uses it along with other instruments, and it can also be useful to the public. We often hear anecdotal data about crime; people come to PAC2 boiling mad and complaining about how much crime there is in their neighborhood. Now there’s an easy way for the community to see exactly how much crime there is in a particular neighborhood. The crime mapper can also help show neighborhoods whether residents are reporting crimes. A neighborhood can see incidents that occurred—for instance, a report of gunshots—and ask itself, how many of us called 911? Crime mapping can also be used by neighborhoods or community groups to examine crime trends. Major Tiffin pointed out that the crime mapper is just a new, higher-tech version of an old idea; before computers, the police were mapping crimes with wall maps and pushpins.
The point was made that we need to consider the many people who don’t have internet access or home computers. Newman responded that the DPD has in the past and still does generate crime statistics for individuals and neighborhoods; the crime mapper is just an addition to that existing service. Someone else suggested that crime information could be submitted weekly or monthly to the press. Capt. Sarvis explained that the Chief of Police reports monthly to the city council; representatives of the press are always present, and it’s up to them what they choose to report. Herald-Sun reporter Virginia Bridges was present and gave us a press perspective on the question; she pointed out that police reports are public information, available every day to anyone who wants to go look through them. The Herald-Sun has someone do this, but they don’t have room to publish all the crime that goes on because there’s simply too much of it. Officer Eric Hester reminded us that we have another useful communication tool that doesn’t depend on computers: the autodialer phone system. He suggested that the autodialer could be used to contact block captains who don’t have internet access; the block captains could then disseminate whatever information was of interest to their neighborhood. Katherine pointed out that the website is only one of many ways to share information. True, some people don’t have internet access at home; on the other hand, there are also homebound people for whom the internet is their only way of keeping up with what’s going on. The DPD is sharing information with the public in many ways. For those who want to take advantage of the crime mapper and other computerized resources, free computer use, internet access, and classes on how to use computers and the internet are all available at our public libraries. Newman offered the example of his own block captain, who doesn’t have a computer; he prints out the daily crime reports from the PAC2 listserve and passes them on to her. He argued that it’s also up to citizens to make an effort to inform ourselves and each other. The owner of a business on Hillsborough St. also commented, saying that when there were some problems in the neighborhood around her business, she had appealed to the neighbors to keep her informed, since she doesn’t live in the same neighborhood and can’t always be at her place of business. She said she got a wealth of information, and reminded us that we still need to talk to our neighbors.
Capt. Sarvis clarified that the DPD uses the same data we can access via the crime mapper, but they have a more sophisticated system that can perform more functions, and of course they have more up-to-the-minute data.
Someone asked about abandoned houses. Newman agreed that it would be a great idea for the future to add a connection to housing data which would allow people to use the crime mapper to map abandoned houses along with other crimes on the same map, in order to examine correlations between crime and housing blight. Katherine agreed that layering information to see relations between different data types can be one of the most useful functions of this type of tool. About abandoned houses, in order for the police to enforce anti-trespassing ordinances on private property, the property owner must post “No Trespassing” signs and file papers with their district substation. It’s up to the owner to empower the police to enforce this.
One of the officers present had stated that the crime mapper didn’t show all calls for service, only actual crimes. Someone pointed out, however, that in addition to the UCR crimes and gun crimes choices, there were two other searchable categories involving calls for service. We wanted to know exactly what those included, but the police representatives present were unable to definitely tell us. Katherine asked how we could find out, and was told that Randy Brown would know for sure; she will follow up with him.
Newman asked about domestic violence (which is a separate category in the daily reports), and Major Tiffin said that domestic violence incidents were lumped in with other aggravated assaults. Residents argued that it was important to break it out into a separate category; if the crime mapper shows that an aggravated assault has occurred to somewhere, it’s definitely of interest to residents of that neighborhood to know whether this was domestic violence or street crime.
Someone else asked about non-emergency calls. Capt. Sarvis gave us the number of the main desk at the District 2 substation, 560-4427. Soon the city will be opening its customer service center, which will have a non-emergency number people can call (like the 311 service we’ve been talking about, but the number won’t actually be 311). Newman made the very important point, however, that in order for your call to be counted in the crime statistics, you must call 911. Those 911-based statistics are used by the DPD to determine staffing levels, among other things. It was further clarified that calling the substation number would be appropriate if you were just seeking advice or information, but not if you were reporting any kind of complaint. As for the upcoming customer service center, calls to that nonemergency number also will not get counted in generating police statistics; that nonemergency number will be more appropriate for problems with other city departments, not police matters.
Another resident asked whether the TRU (Telephone Response Unit) still exists. Capt. Sarvis confirmed that it does, and added that it is being civilianized, or converted to being staffed by civilians rather than sworn officers. The TRU still operates through 911; if you call 911 with a matter appropriate for the TRU to deal with, the 911 operator will take your number and someone from the TRU will call you back. This unit handles situations where the presence of a sworn officer on the scene is not necessary, and a report can be made over the phone. Residents had a number of useful suggestions for further improvement to the crime mapper, including:
* Posting the date of the most recent update to the data somewhere on the page * Linking to definitions of the crime categories (e.g., larceny vs. burglary) * A drop-down menu for the street names, to avoid errors caused by misspelling * Color-coding the markers for different crime categories
Grant update: PAC2 treasurer Fred Lamar brought us a grant update. He said that Lt. John Mozart will speak at next month’s meeting, and will tell us about the block grant program in more detail. Briefly, though, Fred reminded us that money is made available to the PACs through the police department to be used for crime prevention activities. As of right now, we have $2200-2300 available through November 2004; then we’ll have another $5000 through 2005. Fred will be posting a sample proposal form to the listserve, for anyone who wants to present a proposal to get a project funded by PAC2. Someone else pointed out that this is the last year of funding for Project Safe Neighborhoods; this project won’t be funded next year, so starting in October 2004, PSN will be hitting up the public for money to continue the vital work they are doing. PAC2 funds have been used to date to purchase the phone autodialer, the PAC2 computer, the speed trailer, and all kinds of other useful crime-fighting paraphernalia. Newman reminded us that the block grant won’t last forever, and that a long-term goal for PAC2 should be to find other ways of raising funds for itself.
Appearance Commission: Katherine reminded us that at last month’s meeting, there had been some discussion of CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) principles, and in that context the Appearance Commission had been mentioned. She then introduced one of the commissioners, Cheryl Sweeney, to inform us about what the Appearance Commission is and what it does. Sweeney told us that the Appearance Commission is one of Durham’s youngest commissions, having been in action for only three years. Their first year was devoted to organizing and goal development; in the second year, they did more organizing and helped write the street tree ordinance. The commission is now studying other ordinances relating to new community developments, irrigation, and making parking lots more pedestrian-friendly by retrofitting them with street trees. Last year the Appearance Commission held an awards ceremony; the theme was “Communicate, Cultivate, and Celebrate Design Excellence.” The commission is sometimes invited to review and critique design plans. They are always asking themselves, “How does this affect the appearance of Durham?” Some other things they consider are adherence to CPTED principles, compatibility of new buildings with the existing neighborhood, park maintenance, civic buildings, pedestrian-friendly design, and designing for less labor-intensive maintenance. There are fifteen members of the Appearance Commission. The commissioners include licensed architects, landscape architects, city planners, entrepreneurs, developers, historical preservation directors, etc. There are several subcommittees; Sweeney is the chair of the outreach committee. The Appearance Commission has no funding. They raised the money to put on their awards ceremony by soliciting from local businesses. When the commission wishes to recruit new candidates for membership, they do so primarily through the newspapers. Applications for membership are reviewed by the Joint City-County Planning Commission, which seeks to keep the Appearance Commission membership balanced and well-rounded. Commissioners serve staggered terms of two, three, and four years.
Parks & Recreation master plan: Katherine informed us that there will be a public hearing before the city council to discuss the Parks & Recreation facilities master plan. This hearing, slated for Monday, September 15th at 7 pm in the city council chambers, is of potential interest to citizens and neighborhoods. If you’re concerned about your neighborhood park, you should be there.
Katherine read from a Parks & Rec notice listing the parks in most need of repairs: Bay/Hargrove, Belmont, Burton, Drew/Granby, Glendale Heights, Old North Durham, Shady Oaks, Sherwood, Southern Boundaries, Weaver Meadow, and Wrightwood. It also listed the recreation centers most in need of repairs, which were Forest Hills, East Durham, Weaver Street, and W. D. Hill.
The first question raised was about the parks that had been promised funding from the previous bond issue; people wanted to know how that money was spent. To answer our questions, Katherine introduced park planner William Royston, who has been with the city five years. Responding to a question about Duke Park, Royston said that there was no money reserved for that park. There may have been verbal plans or promises in the past, but there is nothing on paper.
Royston explained to us that Parks & Rec has two landscape architects, of whom he is one, and one city planner who deals with the trails. They are understaffed and hope to hire two more landscape architects soon.
They are spending the money from the 1996 bond referendum; there’s $6 million left for sixty-three parks, and it’s not enough. Many of the parks mentioned as being in need were already renovated with the 1996 bond money. They’re in trouble again because there has been no money at all for maintenance. Maintenance has been deferred for three years now, and that function has been taken away from Parks & Rec and transferred to General Services.
An irate resident from River Forest said that they have been hearing promises for the past seven years, and that they were told by a council member last month that it was on the agenda. Royston said that he could only be personally responsible for what had happened in the past five years; he pointed out that he had redesigned Duke Park himself, in-house. As for River Forest, Royston said that it was ready to go to council two years ago, but ‘someone dropped the ball’. He guaranteed us that it would be under construction by the end of the calendar year, and promised the River Forest resident that they’d have a park by next summer. Royston reminded us that he’s one person responsible for $15 million in construction, and he’s doing the best he can.
Another resident commented that staff come and go, and promises are made and broken; they said they wanted to see a list in writing. Royston said that he has a list of all the active projects, plus more pending ones that he’ll assign to his new staff members as soon as he gets them. He said he would bring us this list, with a detailed timeline. As an example of a successful project, Royston said that after years of waiting for a dog park, he had designed and built one himself in eight months; our dog park is now the biggest in the state.
A Walltown resident reminded us that their community center was built by Walltown residents in 1957 and only holds fifty people. Their neighborhood really needs a new community center; young people have no place to go, and end up hanging out on street corners. She asked Royston to please take this request back to his superiors. He said that money has been spent on the Walltown trail and playground, and that a schematic study has been completed for an enlargement of the existing facility and the addition of a gym.
Newman said that we want to see a list of the projects that are planned and to know how much money is left for them. We also want to know who’s setting the priorities, because maybe we want to change them. He said that the community has been ‘sold a bill of goods’; we put our tax dollars in and got nothing back. We want to know who’s getting priority and why. Royston responded that he would bring us, not promises, but a list of what they’ve done and are going to do, with a timeline, budget information, listings of consultants and staff working on each project, and their contact information.
Someone asked, if our project is not on that list, how we would get it on there. He advised us to contact city council, or possibly interim Parks & Rec director Joy Guy.
Another resident commented that since this had been a bond referendum, our tax dollars were being used to pay for work on the parks whether we got the promised work or not. They argued that we need to hold council members’ feet to the fire about keeping those promises.
A Northgate Park resident recalled that her neighborhood had turned out and voted for the bond because city staff came and met with them, promised that money would be spent on their park, discussed the design and solicited feedback on it—then when the promised date came, they wouldn’t even return calls from Northgate Park residents.
Katherine pointed out that although our parks are still in bad shape, a number of consultants have gotten a lot of money out of this.
An Old North Durham resident asked how we can educate ourselves about the situation prior to the council hearing on the 15th. Royston said that he would send Katherine the documents he’d referred to, in Word format, and she could post them to the listserve.
Another resident wanted to know where the bond money went, and which parks had benefited from it. Royston said that there was no remaining money from the 1996 bond that was not yet allocated. The resident asked if it would be possible to get a breakdown of how much money went to consultants and how much was actually spent on the projects themselves. Royston said that those data were not readily available, and that if he tried to research the answer to that question it would probably take a month.
Then someone raised the issue of crime in the parks. Royston said that Parks & Rec is working with the DPD to fight vandalism and gang activity in the parks. They are also working with Parkwatch, a community organization that is similar to Neighborhood Watch, only in this case composed of residents who live adjacent to parks. There are five patrol officers assigned to the park patrol. Mitch Archer of the Impact Team praised the excellent job they are doing, saying that he had just received a very thorough and extensive list of graffiti sites in the parks.
Katherine asked about Oval Park; Royston said that there was a meeting about it scheduled for Sept. 24th. There is a consultant already on contract; the tennis courts in Oval Park were renovated with funds from the 1996 bond. Katherine pointed out that Oval Park did not make it onto the list of needy parks, and Royston said the list is really longer than just the ones mentioned in the flyer. That’s just to show that due to the lack of maintenance, now some parks that we spent money renovating have once again fallen into disrepair.
The suggestion was made that we contact the council members in advance, to let them know the concerns we have and the questions we will want answers to, so that they can be prepared to respond. Katherine and Glennis will attend the meeting to voice PAC2’s concerns. Newman urged everyone else to show up also and let the council know that we’re angry about the parks situation.
A motion was made and carried that we not support the bond issue until the city shows that they’re willing and able to put adequate monies into the general fund to maintain the parks we have now. Royston commented that it would take $6.3 million, as a one-time cost, to bring all our existing parks up to standard. A resident responded that we also want to know the ongoing cost of parks upkeep. Royston said that this information was in the Parks & Rec master plan.
Someone else asked about the status of the skateboard park for Duke Park. Royston told us of an upcoming meeting to be held between supporters and opponents of the planned design, in the hope of reaching some consensus. He said that there should be an update by next week.
Asked whether park maintenance fell under the purview of General Services or Parks & Rec, Royston replied that Parks & Rec “doesn’t even have a rake”; General Services is responsible.
Another resident pointed out that the parks discussion had raised some questions with a broader application. She sympathized with public servants like Royston, who is doing the best he can, doesn’t have enough staff, and has to deal with the wrath of the community about things that happened before he ever got here. It would be unreasonable to hold any city employee personally responsible for events that occurred in their area before they were employed there; from our point of view, though, how can the city be held accountable when staff come and go? We also need to know who is and is not empowered to make promises for the city, and when and how those promises are binding. Katherine suggested that the answers to these questions could be explored at the upcoming Neighborhood College.
Community concerns & announcements: A Walltown resident thanked neighboring Trinity Park for taking action to get something done about the party house at 900 Onslow. Capt. Sarvis added that last weekend, three houses around East Campus had decided to put it to the test, and had found out that the police were serious; eight citations were given. University administrators were notified, and Sarvis said the police would certainly notify those students’ parents if they can find them.
A Denver Ave. resident thanked officer Tony Scott for helping them get additional streetlights, which have discouraged people from trespassing through their yards. They’re now petitioning for speed bumps; although it was pointed out to them that there’s no money for traffic calming, at least they can get their request ready.
Mike Shiflett of the Inter-Neighborhood Council announced the INC’s annual neighborhood summit, coming up on Sept. 27th. The focus this year is on housing blight, and representatives from the Housing department will be there. INC has been working with the Campaign for Decent Housing to learn what we can do in our neighborhoods about housing blight. This issue is well worth three hours of your time, plus the INC will feed you refreshments. Mark your calendars for Saturday, Sept. 27, starting at 8:30 am; the summit will be held at the Department of Housing and Community Development, in the Heritage Square shopping center at Lakewood & Fayetteville streets.
Also upcoming is the Neighborhood Hero awards banquet, which will be held on Wednesday, October 1, at 7 pm, at the University Club on top of University Tower. Turns out we had two neighborhood heroes in our midst tonight; among those slated to be honored are Sylveria Corbin of Northgate Park and Katherine O’Brien of Duke Park. If you wish to attend the banquet, please call Cheryl Sweeney at 641-6540 to RSVP.
Richard Mullinax of Old North Durham warned us about temporary traffic interruptions in his neighborhood resulting from improvements soon to be made. OND is getting new pedestrian crosswalks on Mangum, Geer, Roxboro, and Trinity; they are also planting trees and putting in additional trash cans.
Walltown will hold their annual community day on Saturday, October 4th.
On September 15th and 16th, there will be a “Faith-Based Homeownership Capacity Building Conference”. The conference will be held from 8:30-3:45 on Monday, and 8:30-11:45 on Tuesday. Registration forms were available tonight; for more information, call 560-4570, extension 252.