[Summit] Overnight parking (was Re: Summit Digest, Vol 113, Issue 22)

Nathaniel W. Turner nate at houseofnate.net
Tue Aug 26 15:59:59 CDT 2014


Thank you both for the thoughtful responses.

I suppose I'll have to read through the list archives some time for more 
historical background on this topic.

n

On 08/26/2014 01:33 PM, Dean W wrote:
> Hi Nate,
>
> I think Francisco did a great job of answering the question, and I 
> share his perspective.  I would also add that more cars on the street 
> overnight present more opportunities for cover when walking around at 
> night.  If a potential criminal is casing a house or pedestrian, and a 
> police officer or other on-looker happen by, parked cars present cover 
> to hide.
>
> I am sure I'll get responses to this saying that "we live in a city", 
> "don't be alarmist", etc.  I agree, and I am not actually concerned 
> that we have too much property theft or violent crime.  I am just 
> reducing the facts to a basic level: more cars = more cover.  This is 
> just one of the problems I personally see with the Overnight Parking 
> program, which again, was NOT passed by City Council, and is - in fact 
> - an "indefinite pilot program" (oxymoron) enacted by mayoral 
> executive order.
>
> My thoughts only.
>
> Dean
>
>
>
>
>     Message: 7
>     Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 13:58:35 -0500
>     From: Francisco <pacolovera at hotmail.com
>     <mailto:pacolovera at hotmail.com>>
>     To: "Nathaniel W. Turner" <nate at houseofnate.net
>     <mailto:nate at houseofnate.net>>,
>             "summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>     <mailto:summit at sna.providence.ri.us>" <summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>     <mailto:summit at sna.providence.ri.us>>
>     Subject: Re: [Summit] Overnight parking (was Re: SNA Meeting
>             addressing area crime, Crime Watch, & Overnight Parking)
>     Message-ID: <BLU181-W44CF8C4ED7DFD6B7EB9D4D1DF0 at phx.gbl>
>     Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>     Nate,
>
>     You are correct.  The parking ban would not deter crime during the
>     daylight hours or through the time that parking was allowed (up to
>     1 am?)  What I heard directly from a former police chief in
>     Providence is that as a patrol man if you see a car parked in
>     front of someone's house at late hours you can easily assume that
>     the car either does not belong to the neigborhood (best case
>     visitor or forgeful homeowner) and write down the plate.  If a
>     crime in the area is committed, you have at least one lead.  With
>     many cars on the street it becomes more labor intensive to do a
>     scope of all the streets and check every single car wihtou a
>     sticker every day. I totally concur with you, the parking ban does
>     not help to deter crime during the day when most people are at work
>
>     Also, as neighbors, I agree with you, we can tell when there is a
>     new car in the neigborhood.  Which again, requires eyes on the
>     street.  These may not happen when people are not necessarily
>     looking (at work or at night)  If it wasn't for my neighbor who
>     feeds her baby at 4 am, we would have no lead whatsoever on the
>     recent break ins.
>
>     As a recent victim of one of these crimes, I am oversensitive to
>     cars (especially unfamiliar ones) on my street.
>
>     Conclusion, removing the parking ban has its pros and cons.  More
>     effective policing at night is one of the cons.  We, as neighbors,
>     decide the weigh in the pros and cons and request a solution (re:
>     parking ban) on each block.  After all, we are in a democratic
>     society.
>
>
>     Francisco J. Lovera
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20140826/a29f4f35/attachment.html>


More information about the Summit mailing list