BROKEN WINDOWS THEORY

Once again, rather than actually addressing the issue of crime in the city of Milwaukee, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board flips the issue to attack people who want to get tough on crime and take back the streets.

In its editorial "Asking the wrong question on crime," the board carries water for Mayor Tom Barrett and Police Chief Nan Hegerty, almost excusing their failed efforts to get crime in the city under control.

Instead of coming with effective answers to the crime problem, the weaselly board gets bent out of shape over the question, "What would Breier do?"

Some Milwaukeeans are trying to stage a community séance and call up the spirit of the late Police Chief Harold Breier.

I don't care for the imagery. I think it's in bad taste.

They feel their city is going to the dogs, and, in a well-intentioned effort to turn the tide against big crimes and smaller ones, they are advocating a return to the get-tough policy of Breier, who retired in 1984.

Trouble is, they're looking to the past - in particular to Breier's hard-fisted and often highly controversial rule, for solutions to present problems. They are forgetting how much everything has changed in the interim. In our estimation, the answer isn't to summon up ghosts but to summon the living to make this city a better place.

Those behind the movement, which includes some police officers and city workers, want city leaders to harden their approach to what movement supporters consider smaller, neighborhood-debilitating crimes such as noise, vandalism, burglaries, drug dealing and arson, according to Journal Sentinel reporter Raquel Rutledge.

THE JS EDITORIAL BOARD IS CLUELESS.

I wonder have they heard of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani?

It doesn't appear that they are familiar with how he and his police chiefs worked together to turn NYC into the safest large city in America. They should know. It's not like it's ancient history.

How did Giuliani do it?

He looked to the past. Yes, THE PAST.

Giuliani utilized the "Broken Windows" theory.

He describes it:

I very much subscribe to the "Broken Windows" theory, a theory that was developed by Professors Wilson and Kelling, 25 years ago maybe. The idea of it is that you had to pay attention to small things, otherwise they would get out of control and become much worse. And that, in fact, in a lot of our approach to crime, quality of life, social programs, we were allowing small things to get worse rather than dealing with them at the earliest possible stage. That approach had been tried in other cities, but all small cities, and there was a big debate about whether it could work in a city as large as New York. One of the ways that New York used to resist any kind of change was to say, "It can't work here," because they wanted to keep the status quo. There is such a desire for people to do that, to keep the status quo. And I thought, "Well, there's no reason why it can't work in New York City. We have bigger resources. We may have bigger problems, we have bigger resources, the same theory should work." So we started paying attention to the things that were being ignored. Aggressive panhandling, the squeegee operators that would come up to your car and wash the window of your car whether you wanted it or not -- and sometimes smashed people's cars or tires or windows -- the street-level drug-dealing; the prostitution; the graffiti, all these things that were deteriorating the city. So we said, "We're going to pay attention to that," and it worked. It worked because we not only got a big reduction in that, and an improvement in the quality of life, but massive reductions in homicide, and New York City turned from the crime capital of America to the safest large city in the country for five, six years in a row.

If the "Broken Windows" theory can work in a hellhole like NYC, it can work in Milwaukee.

Taking a tough approach on the small stuff transformed NYC.

Giuliani and his police chiefs didn't throw out the theory because it wasn't new. They didn't care about summoning up ghosts. Giuliani had the vision to pull NYC out of the gutter by paying attention to the relatively minor problems. That translated into dramatic reductions in major crime problems.

Getting tough works.

The JS editorial board doesn't see the value in that.

"Everything has changed" since Breier was the chief of police.

What a lame rationalization! Really lame!

Calling their campaign "What Would Breier Do?" they have printed T-shirts with the slogan and Breier's photo and plan to sell them around town.

We have no qualms with their goal. But we do with their means, starting with selecting as their icon Breier, who was often criticized by African-Americans for being insensitive to their concerns. Rather than asking what Breier would do, we think they should ask: "What should we do?"

I don't think it's a fair charge to suggest that those wanting to get tough on crime in the city also want to be insensitive to the African-American community.

The idea is to better the high crime neighborhoods for the residents, not harass the people living in them.

With all due respect, Breier is gone. And so is the city that he once served as chief.

No kidding. The city is a mess.

Could it be because of years of ineffective policing policies and an ineffective judicial system?

We can understand why this group and other Milwaukeeans are upset. These are frustrating times. Many people would argue today, with reason, that society as a whole has become far less civil and far coarser and that many Americans, no matter where they live, are far less likely to obey laws, rules and regulations. When you add drugs, guns, poverty and underperforming schools, students and parents to the mix in big cities, it's easy to see why things are the way they are.

This is just so stupid, even for the JS editorial board.

"Many people would argue today, with reason, that society as a whole has become far less civil and far coarser and that many Americans, no matter where they live, are far less likely to obey laws, rules and regulations."

And why would that be the case, if it is, in fact, the case?

Perhaps it's because people know they can get away with disobeying the law.

If it's so easy for those on the JS editorial board to "see why things are the way they are," then why is it so difficult for for them to understand that it would be wise to follow the plan that fixed NYC?

For the record, we're not saying that Milwaukeeans should shrug their shoulders and watch neighborhood after neighborhood deteriorate. Of course not. They should fight back, and many are, with neighborhood watch groups and associations, often working appropriately with police to stage rallies and walks, especially at night, to let the criminals and rowdies know that people do care and that they're willing to stand up and retake their streets.

But getting tough on crime and criminals is different from getting tough in general.

The board makes it sound like those in the movement are interested in bashing in heads.

The idea is to reduce crime by not accepting law-breaking, no matter how minor -- the "Broken Windows" theory.

...To ask "What would Breier do?" in 2006 in a far more diverse city, where many victims and perpetrators of crime are black, asks an emotionally loaded question.

But on the core level, this debate goes beyond race to how things have changed since Breier's day, starting with the gunfire that in some neighborhoods has regrettably become a daily fact of life and death.

The same was the case in NYC.

That didn't stop Giuliani and his chiefs from getting tough.

The result: Things got better.

Some of those in the Breier group blame Mayor Tom Barrett and Police Chief Nannette Hegerty for not doing enough to prevent crime.

That's a fair comment, but used in the context of what Breier would do clearly suggests that they are soft on crime and sitting on their hands while the city burns. And that's not fair. As Hegerty says, she has told her officers she expects aggressive policing. But that doesn't mean they can violate constitutional rights.
"Breier didn't face any of the problems the department faces now," Hegerty says. "He was chief during a different age."

Yes, Breier was chief "during a different age."

So what?

Giuliani wasn't mayor "during a different age."

Hegerty is looking for excuses. That's not leadership.

She's absolutely right. Like it or not, this is a different time and things are far more complex.

We can't help but feel that some of the people behind the Breier movement are making a mistake by simplistically yearning for the past rather than checking the calendar and trying to find answers for today.

Blah, blah, blah.

I think the JS editorial board should examine how Giuliani turned NYC around. They might learn something, get some constructive ideas in developing a strategy toward solving the crime problem.

Tom Barrett MUST read Rudy Giuliani's Leadership.

He has a lot to learn about being a mayor.

Milwaukee needs leadership, not excuses.