Last night's Manor Woods community meeting (10/15)

I attended most of the community meeting last night at the Highview School (Oct. 15, 2009). The genesis of the meeting was the request of Grace and some other residents to Supervisor Feiner that the Town Board and representatives of the police department convene to hear the concerns of Manor Woods residents after the late September car break-in spree. Before my account and impressions, I have to remark on the astounding attendance. I went to the community meeting last spring and very few Manor Woods residents showed up then. That gathering turned into a forum for seniors residing in the Hartsdale Ave. apartment building and the discussion was focused almost exclusively on the E. Hartsdale Ave. traffic situation, with particular emphasis on the Wilson-Hartsdale Ave-Central Ave. area. Last night's demographic was very different. It seemed as though a majority of neighborhood homes were represented. Supervisor Feiner remarked about it being the largest such community meeting he's seen in his (nearly two decades?) term in office.

While the Board Members attended (excepting Councilman Sheehan - ironically, because he's the only Hartsdale resident on the Board), Police Chief Kapica dominated the proceedings, responding to the audience's questions almost exclusively. The in-coming chief (who's name I don't remember) who will take over in late November, deferred to his superior and rarely spoke, except to affirm the Chief.

The Chief's initial remarks focused on contextualizing the recent incidents as "crimes of opportunity" presented by unlocked cars, including the theft of one vehicle with its keys inside. The Chief, the incoming chief, and Councilman Morgan - a former detective - repeatedly emphasized that such "minor" crimes were facilitated by the carelessness or inattention of residents who left doors unlocked or windows open. Typical robbers, they said, will look for these easy pickings. True break-ins, they said, are very rare. They advised residents to take preventative measures like locking cars and houses, putting in motion sensor lighting in the backs of houses, being alert to strangers, organizing neighborhood watch through the police dept. liaison.

Because of the nature of these thefts, the police dept. did not view the recent incidents as a crime wave. Instead they saw these as isolated incidents and did not take evidence or investigate "crime scenes." The issue of one Lexus that appears to have been "professionally" stolen a few days after the first incidents did not disturb this conclusion.

The second major topic was traffic and parking concerns, particularly the commuter cars parked all day near the confluence of Caterson, Charlotte and Holland. The opinion of homeowners in that area seemed to turn toward imposing a parking restriction in the mornings. The Chief was amenable, but stressed gaining street-wide approval, via petition, before proceeding and considering the consequences, such as the impact on parking for local residents and their guests or workers, and the likelihood that the commuters would just park elsewhere in the neighborhood. Further progress on this issue was left to the residents to decide if and how to proceed.

A third issue, of less pertinence to the original purpose of the meetings, was Greenburgh's apparently unique system of having its police force trained as EMTs, instead of having a separate civilian EMT/ambulance staff. The Chief emphasized the positives (having police first responders trained as EMTS) and the negatives (emergency visits drawing the attention of police officers on duty away from policing). Some residents questioned whether volunteer or professional corps were a better, more economical approach. This seemed to be a very sensitive issue to the Chief and Supervisor, who firmly rejected any challenge to the status quo. I left at this point, having listened for two hours.

My reactions:
1. Crime Issue: There seemed to be a mixed message. The Chief's advice all seemed to be reasonable and common sense: lock doors etc. However, he also mentioned in passing (and I didn't quite follow this) that these types of incidents were part of a larger phenomenon in central Westchester. The "casualness" of the incidents, too, doesn't quite fit in with the "professional" theft of the Lexus a few days later. I asked whether the police dept had taken any affirmative measures in response to these incidents. The Chief responded first by describing the dept.'s general reaction when it perceived a "crime wave" by posting plainsclothes officers, etc. When I asked if the department had in fact taken these pro-active measures in the last month, he indicated that had. This seemed to contradict his prefatory remarks that these incidents were in fact not a crime wave, but isolated "opportunity" crimes.

The Chief spent some time encouraging residents to report suspicious activity and strangers. I was tempted, but desisted, from remarking that the one time I did make this type of call, I was quickly told to forget about it. Last year, I observed two early-middle aged men strolling down Mercer Ave. with a large black bag ostensibly pulling recyclables out of peoples' trash. I had never seen these two before - nor since. They definitely did not look homeless. I wondered if they were casing the neighborhood. I called the police dept. and was summarily told they had a right to pick through peoples' garbage once it was placed next to the street and they couldn't do anything.

2. The Caterson/Charlotte parking issue is a major concern because of the narrowness of the streets and the amount of traffic in the mornings. Because there are no sidewalks, I am forced when I walk back and forth from the train station to weave around these parked cars and bob between them to avoid oncoming traffic that is funneled into the one open lane. During slippery conditions and also dark evenings in the winter, this situation is especially hazardous. Cars must also anticipate other cars approaching from the opposite direction, sometimes not visible behind the crest of the hill, and then move over and stop to let the other car pass, hopefully avoiding pedestrians while maneuvering. Thankfully, the homeowners most directly impacted want to deal with this issue. The one concern, which the chief raised, was the probability that the commuters will park further into the neighborhood (probably in front of my house on Mercer.)

3. I found the EMT/police issue the least convincing discussion. The Supervisor and Chief did not present any statistics to justify the unique Greenburgh approach. The Supervisor vaguely referred to an article many years ago which, he claims, said that it was great to have a heart attack in Greenburgh (I assume he meant the survival rate was high). Perhaps we do have the "best" system, but it would have been much more persuasive if they had come prepared with some numbers. Instead, on this issue, the Chief relied on his authority and experience to make his argument. Perhaps The Wire has given me unrealistic expectations about the statistical analysis approach to police operations.

In my view, a constant undercurrent of the Chief's statements was a plea for additional manpower resources and funding for the police dept. The need to dispatch several on-duty police officers to each emergency call (because of the unique dual-role of Greenburgh officers) left the rest of the town under-patrolled during such emergencies. The insinuation was that we would all be better off if additional funding provided for more officers on the streets at all times. But when some residents suggested reassigning the EMT responsibility from the Police, the Chief reacted very defensively. The Chief insisted that instituting a traditional civilian EMT system would be very expensive (he threw out the number $5,000,000), but did not discuss the full costs to the taxpayer in terms of police training, time off-policing for training etc and whether officers were paid extra (including the impact on benefits) arising from the police handling EMT responsibilities.

Any comments/corrections to this account?
Dan from Mercer Ave.