The Editor's Desk

When I went back and read over my editorial today regarding voters’ expectations of city leaders regarding crime, I wondered if I went a little bit further than I actually intended.

The inspiration for the editorial was comments and quotes I’ve read from folks who actually seem to think it’s the mayor’s or City Council’s fault that crime happens — that they are somehow able to control who comes to Barstow and where they live and how people behave in their homes. People blame the city for Section 8 housing, which: one, is only used by 150 families in all of Barstow, so folks are confusing “Section 8” with “everybody in Barstow who is really poor”; and two, is a federal program between the government and landlords that the city has little control over. The city tried to introduce the rental inspection program in part to deal with the fact actually Barstow’s worst housing has nothing to do with Section 8, but they ran afoul of the Constitution and dropped it.

Also, there’s the element of the discussion that is actually the result of public safety unions going after public officials who have tried to hold the line against increasing expenses, trying to use fear of crime as a hammer to beat them out of office.

Furthermore, while the city can pass ordinances and arrest folks for crimes, the county runs the courts, not the city. The city is not responsible for sentencing.

I do think, though. that by trying to discourage folks from expecting too much from city leaders, who play much more of an advisory role than enforcement role, I might have gone too far and gave the impression I think city leaders have no responsibility at all. The City Council and mayor do play an important role — by setting the public safety budget, they set the tone for the police department to set priorities. A tighter budget means a less proactive police department. A looser budget gives them more flexibility and better able to innovate new ways to fight crime. So, they are very important. Their decisions will be even more important should Measure D fail.

I will admit that I probably don’t see local crime the same way people who have lived in Barstow for most of their lives see crime. This was highlighted in a discussion I had with a local leader last month over our editorial position against Measure D. He argued with me about how “unsafe” Barstow was and tried to get me on the pro-D side by asking me if I would feel comfortable if my family were to visit and spend time downtown Barstow at night.

There was a problem with his argument that became clear (and defused the conflict a little bit) after I answered: My family lives in St. Louis. My dad actually knew a couple of the victims of that horrifying City Hall shooting in Kirkwood earlier this year. Barstow’s crime problems don’t seem as significant to us. Personal experience can cloud perceptions of crime. I’ve been all over the place, some places safer than others. I’ve lived large chunks of my life in the Orlando area, where tourism can cause a significant amount of opportunistic crime, and St. Louis, where violent crime is a daily concern.

As I’ve said before, I grew up in the middle of the drug war. The idea some people have that you should be able to just go around not worrying about your personal safety is alien to me — a fantasy. The idea that any place called “downtown” would be a safe place to wander at night is not something I think will ever happen again. I hold myself responsible for my own and my family’s own protection first. If police are able to arrive on time in a crisis to contribute to our safety, they have my appreciation and financial support. But it’s never been part of my mindset that this is how the public safety works. I’ve always treated them as the folks you deal with after the crime happens.

So I think there may be an element to my editorial writing that comes from this experience. I don’t think violent crime is as big a problem in Barstow as some folks do, statistics notwithstanding. My observations from our reporting of violent crime are that most commonly the victim knows the criminal responsible. This certainly doesn’t make it any better (especially not for the victim), but I don’t think the average Barstow resident is more likely to be a victim of violence here than elsewhere. Because the nature of violent crime here in Barstow is often related to tumultuous relationships between the participants, often as a result of domestic abuse or drugs, it’s the area where the mayor and City Council has the least control and influence. Domestic abuse is a chronic social issue that involves a number of other agencies. The drug problem … we’ll I’ve gone over that one quite a few times. If we didn’t create the black market for drugs with our very laws, we would reduce the amount of drug-related violence significantly.

Property-related crime, however, is a big deal, and I agree with Chief Burns making property crime-fighting and prevention a priority. These are the crimes that are likely to have a direct impact on an average Barstow residents’ lives. So I’d be more interested in how leaders perceive that particular issue than violent crimes or “code enforcement” issues, which has become a tool to harass people who don’t treat their private property the way other people want them to.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.