Will The Co-op School Bring More of a Police Presence...

bknest · February 2009

on Putnam ave?

http://clintonhillchill.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/will-the-co-op-school-bring-more-of-police-presence-of-putnam/

Let's discuss...

boogieknight · February 2009

Well, is there an actual "need" for more police presence on that stretch of Putnam?

Obviously most people would like more (polite and effective) police presence in their nabe, but unless there's an ongoing scary crime wave on Putnam, the cops could be better used elsewhere.

st jameson · February 2009

I think the answer is yes, there is a need for more police on that stretch of Putnam. In the two years I've lived in this area, the intersection of Putnam and Grand has been where I've witnessed more drugs, and read about more shootings, than anywhere else in Clinton Hill.

So if having an acclaimed school a block away helps clean up the area, I'm all for it.

tearjerk · February 2009

I don't know about that particular area, but I have noticed an increase in the number of police I have been seeing on trains (A, C, G), train platforms, and just walking around. Anyone else been noticing this?

candicissima · February 2009

I agree with some people on the Brownstoner thread that I'd hope more for those empty lots around there being filled than extra police presence. I have noticed more cops around Classon and the train stops lately too.

bknest · February 2009

So it takes an "acclaimed" nursery school to increase police presence? Despite the fact that a nursery school was previously in the same location?

I'm not asking does it need more of a police presence. There's 5 schools within the direct vicinity. What's the corelation between this specific school and bringing added police presence?

Someone be honest and put me on...

st jameson · February 2009

I think the point from your website went unnoticed in this thread, BK Nest. If there was indeed an active school here before, then Brownstoner's presumption that more police are on the way appears racist, or at least to be a reflection of a racist reality.

While I welcome more attention to crime and drugs in my neighborhood, I find it unfortunate that it takes gentrification to get something like that in gear.

I was under the impression that the co-op school was taking over a building that was not currently in use. Was I wrong?

boogieknight · February 2009

bknest wrote: So it takes an "acclaimed" nursery school to increase police presence? Despite the fact that a nursery school was previously in the same location?

I'm not asking does it need more of a police presence. There's 5 schools within the direct vicinity. What's the corelation between this specific school and bringing added police presence?

Someone be honest and put me on...

Ahh, I get it now, I also thought your OP was calling for more police presence due to the Co-Op School move. Going to the link and reading your posts there (you’re bknesto over there, right, my apologies if I'm mistaken) and here, I now get where you're coming from.

Yes, if your assumption is correct, it may very well be an example of Brownstoner’s racism/classism to assume that the Co-Op School should automatically bring more police presence to Putnam because he thinks…
1) Most of the kids and parents are white
2) Most of the kids and parents are rich.

But it could just be an example of an innocent but poorly written and tin-eared article heading.

Or it could be that both of those assumptions are wrong, because how does anybody know what’s going on for real in anybody else’s head?

What is happening for real – no assumptions, no guesswork, just facts, is this - an empty building will now be used as a school for young pre-K children.

The kids are young, the staff is young, the kids and parents are committed to working for and participating in the school and their community. That includes field trips to local parks and playgrounds, visiting local businesses who don’t mind opening their doors to a bunch of 2-5 year olds for an hour or so and sponsoring/hosting events such as informational sessions on how to apply to pre-K and public schools and a host of other positive activities.

Is the school more expensive than some other neighborhood schools and care centers? Sure - but its leagues cheaper than the Montessori's and many other schools in the area. And for the love and attention and rich learning environment offered to the kids, it works out as a bargain.

Are the kids all white and/or rich? Not by half, literally, half the kids are minorities or biracial. The tuition is sliding, based on the parent's income. All of the families live in the immediate area. There are single parents, straight and gay parents, adoptive families, etc. There’s a waiting list to get in and interviews to make sure that kids and parents are ready to commit to the co-operative nature of the school, but there’s waiting lists and interviews for pretty much every school in this city.

BK Nest – I know where you’re coming from for your feelings regarding the effects of living in a neighborhood going through the throes of flux and gentrification. There’s a huge awkward bundle of fear and hatred and unease when such major changes come to any neighborhood, and I’m not discounting your concerns/fears/feelings.

But I guess the main point of this post is just to remind anyone reading that what is actually coming to Putnam just a school for very tiny, young and vulnerable children.

Just kids and their parents and grandparents dropping them off in the morning and bringing them home in the afternoons. These kids will be playing in the local playgrounds. The kids live here, they’re not an invading army, they have no agenda. They like ice cream.

Let’s not unload a whole lot of unpleasantness and resentment or bad vibes on or near the kids.

That’s all.

wasder · February 2009

Boogie---thank you so much for this post, which puts into much more eloquent words my feelings about this issue. Wonderful to read someone who can distill these very emotional and complicated issues down to their essence. You made my day with this. Thanks again!

bknest · February 2009

Just so I get this right....

So there have been problems that have plagued this area for years on end before the Co-op school and a lot of you came to the hood. A nursery school/pre-k/afterschool center has been in the area for years in the midst of these problems, along with several other schools in the area(atleast 5). The school has been closed for a year, after being open atleast 20 or more.

Now that a new school has taken occupancy in the same building of the old school it should pressure on the 88th precinct to up the police presence?

The things your talking about going on as far as kids and parents, goes on EVERYDAY in this same area and has been going on before and after the school closed. So as afar as that goes, this school will be bringing nothing special( do think all the kids in nursery to Pre-K in the hood walk themselves to school?!) This is NOT a slight against the school at all. I want to know the sentiment behind the statement. And why this school specifically would put pressure on the 88th but in all the years the previous school was in the same building(with kids, parents dropping them off etc.), it had no effect?

So you're whole rant about the school is moot. It's not about the school itself. It's about the sentiment behind the statement when it comes to the school, poorly written or not. In the post on the blog there is no assumption made, a question is asked.

wasder · February 2009

"Now that a new school has taken occupancy in the same building of the old school it should pressure on the 88th precinct to up the police presence? "

I think we are all in agreement that police presence should have nothing to do with this school BK. It was a strange, tangential connection by brownstoner and not one that I have seen agreed with too much here or there. If there is anyone suggesting that this school is more worthy of police attention than any other school I would strongly disagree with it. Again, I wish that this particular issue had not become the sticking point for this discussion. Its a good school with a diverse student base and I am happy its coming to my part of the neighborhood. I don't believe it should have anything to do with the police.

boogieknight · February 2009

bknest wrote: Just so I get this right....

So there have been problems that have plagued this area for years on end before the Co-op school and a lot of you came to the hood. A nursery school/pre-k/afterschool center has been in the area for years in the midst of these problems, along with several other schools in the area(atleast 5). The school has been closed for a year, after being open atleast 20 or more.

Now that a new school has taken occupancy in the same building of the old school it should pressure on the 88th precinct to up the police presence?

The things your talking about going on as far as kids and parents, goes on EVERYDAY in this same area and has been going on before and after the school closed. So as afar as that goes, this school will be bringing nothing special( do think all the kids in nursery to Pre-K in the hood walk themselves to school?!) This is NOT a slight against the school at all. I want to know the sentiment behind the statement. And why this school specifically would put pressure on the 88th but in all the years the previous school was in the same building(with kids, parents dropping them off etc.), it had no effect?

So you're whole rant about the school is moot. It's not about the school itself. It's about the sentiment behind the statement when it comes to the school, poorly written or not. In the post on the blog there is no assumption made, a question is asked.

My response was in no way a rant, and if I may be so bold, I think you're conflating a couple of things.

The school did not call for more police presence. A random guy who runs a website did.

Everything you write about how there's tons of other schools there and people have been walking their kids to and from school everyday for decades is true. You say "there have been problems that have plagued this area for years on end before the Co-op school and a lot of you came to the hood" - that's true.

So, the above quote and the general tenor of your posts suggests that you'd like more police presence in the area? You and the other old-timers have wanted more police presence in the area for decades, right?

Let's just say that for the past 20 years everyone in the area has been clamoring for more cops. The cops haven't come because they don't give a shit about poor Black people in a poor Black neighborhood. Let's just claim this statement as fact.

So now in 2009 a new school opens up and miraclously the cops come. Let's just assume that this will happen.

Why?

The cops come because they're terrified that something may happen to these new kids and their parents. In the past they couldn't give two shits about the poor Black kids and their parents. Now they care. Maybe this is true.

Maybe the cops come because a bunch of parents of kids at this new school call the precint and demand more cops in the area. These new-comers have the connections and political weight to get the precint to acquiesce to their demands. Maybe this is the truth.

Maybe the cops come because the precint realizes that for far too long they've neglected the area and that reflects badly on themselves as peace keeping professionals. They decide to do the right thing, and since it has to happen sometime, this epiphany coincides with the opening of this new school and several new shops in the area. Possible, maybe.

Bottom line - the cops that everyone has always wanted in the area (again broad assumption) are here now or coming damn soon.

Because the cops took so fucking long to come, because the cops ignored you and your folk for so fucking long - do you not want them to come anymore?

Should the cops bring flowers and go door to door apologizing for their neglect of the past 20 years? It's not going to happen.

And if and when the cops come, you and the old-timers don't have to invite them into your homes or throw a parade or pretend that the past 20 years have all been pillow fights and tickles.

If the cops come, just make sure they do their job of protecting and serving us citizens and finally breathe a sigh of relief that they've finally shown up. 20 years too late maybe, but they're here, so put'em to work.

wasder · February 2009

And truly, I don't think the cops coming or not is going to have anything to do with this school.

putnam-denizen · February 2009

I think BKnest's point was well made when he first raised it on the Brownstoner's thread; it came across a little forced here. And as I wrote on that thread, I do think that many of the posters were excited about an institution which we are familiar with, founded by people we know, coming to our corner of the neighborhood. And some of this has to do with having greater appreciation for establishments or groups which reflect ourselves - economically, and yes racially (and as someone else already pointed out, the Co-op school reflects more than just white folks).

But is that some different from the nostalgia for the Clinton Hill of his youth which BKnest so beautifully shares in his postings across many sites, including his own blog? As Clinton Hill changes from a place you are FROM into a place you move TO, there is a jostling and an incomplete matching of knowledge and expectation. I myself, while I intellectually understand the mourning and dismay which BKnest expresses about the changes, can't really say I feel it emotionally. I wouldn't want to live in either the neighborhood of my youth (suburban Boston) or BKnest's youth.

The police presence aspect of this discussion is a bit silly, and distracts from the very real, and to me intriguing discussion of what it means to claim or feel an ownership stake in a neighborhood. Clinton Hill at its best should encourage conversations and reassessments of assumptions; often times we just glide by each other obliviously.

kevin_on_putnam · February 2009

Subject: School

We used to enjoy watching the parents carry their sleepy children to the day care center that was there before. We liked less that they got that block of Irving closed to traffic and parking during the summer weekdays so the children could play outside on the street instead of on the roof (or in the park nearby) but we understood. We were considerably less happy when they rented the space out to noisy late night parties. We kind of missed the fact that it closed down, though, until we heard a new school was moving in. The old playground equipment is still on the roof. So I wonder why it closed. Was the rent going up? Does anyone know the story of the old daycare center?

In terms of the police: on the rare occasions when we've had to call them, they have always come pretty promptly. I can't complain. What I don't like is the fact that there are several empty buildings and lots in the area. My dream would be to see a community garden on Putnam between Downing and Irving where the vacant lot has been partially cleared out but still has a burned out hotdog stand and other debris. And the vacant parking lot on Irving? How about a secured place where those of us with cars could find secure, off-street parking at a good price? We've been sideswiped twice while parked on Irving and had our windows broken twice -- this over about 4-5 years. Whoever owns the property now is probably not going to be able to build on it for a while, so maybe the community could put it to better use.

wasder · March 2009

Kevin--good points all. When we have our block association up and running we should be able to tackle many of these issues (wink wink).

I am pretty sure that the school is not going to close the street, and I know for sure they are not going to rent it out for parties. But I better be careful to not be too positive about the school or I will get my head ripped off again (haha).

saint james infirmary · March 2009

Neighborhood pride is fantastic, and something we don't see enough of. I'm perpetually vexed by people's willingness to desecrate their own space by littering and neglect. I love it when my neighbors look out for me and offer a helping hand when I need it, and I'm always there to return the favor. This is community and it's one of the admittedly few benefits of living in such a cramped and populous city.

Neighborhood ownership and territorial disputes, however, are moot in this city as every neighborhood has morphed over the years and been home to wildly disparate groups of citizens. A brief look at the history of NY's neighborhoods should nullify any one person's claim to an area, be it by race or economic standards. Clinton Hill has been in turn a wealthy aristocrats mansion row, a working class Italian neighborhood, a predominantly black neighborhood and is currently more racially and economically diverse than ever before.

I understand feeling displaced, but one must understand that generally NYC neighborhoods are populated by the people that can best afford them. I bought my home here because I liked the neighborhood, yes, but primarily I bought here because I got the most space I could for the money I had. I didn't move here with some nefarious plan to displace and alienate the residents and remold the nabe in my own image. I'm a resident here now ( almost 8 years) and I am already priced out of the area. This is NYC- someone else is ALWAYS going to come along. It happened in the E Village when I lived there amongst the Ukranian, Puerto Rican and Dominican immigrants. It happened in Harlem when I lived there. I would never deign to stand up in any nabe in NYC and proclaim "I was here first and it was a white middle class neighborhood with white middle-class values". These things are transient; it's the nature of the city. For all we know Clinton Hill could be 75% Inuit in 10 years.

My point, I guess, is this: your outrage seems to be based on the fact that your neighborhood's values are changing with the increase in property values and wealthier residents. It is, and it will. There is no fighting it. I assume that in the 1800's when NYC's wealthiest residents called Clinton Hill home their values would have contrasted pretty starkly with yours as well. Change with the changing times, as they say. As despicable a truth as it is, the poor have never EVER been a priority to the NYPD. I'd imagine you (like me) would benefit from the added protection our wealthier neighbors seem to afford even as we disagree with the reasons it is finally being offered. That's how I'm choosing to look at it anyhow.

kevin_on_putnam · March 2009

wasder wrote: Kevin--good points all. When we have our block association up and running we should be able to tackle many of these issues (wink wink).

I am pretty sure that the school is not going to close the street, and I know for sure they are not going to rent it out for parties. But I better be careful to not be too positive about the school or I will get my head ripped off again (haha).

uuuh, that was my wife speaking, but I liked seeing the kids too, I like to cut them roses in the spring when they walk by, little kids love flowers, don't know why

bknest · March 2009

I never said I or anyone owned the neighborhood and this isn't about a terroritorial dispute or us vs. them. ONCE AGAIN I HAVE NO PROBLEM W/ THE SCHOOL, THE KIDS OR THE PARENT'S WHO ARE TO BRING THEM. I don't know why people are so impulsive to the point where they divert what is being asked or discussed.

Let me start again, I asked what is the sentiment behind feeling ONE nursery school, occupying the space ANOTHER nursery school occupied a year ago & for 20-something years prior, will NOW put pressure on the 88th precinct for added police presence? Here's one answer:

This school is a private co-op which is predominantly non-African American (even to the extent that they feel the need to reach down their waiting list to be more "colorful"). To the extent that it represents a presence by an upper middle class institution, I believe there is some sense that it confirms the possibility of further development/change of this corner of Clinton Hill. Given the number of empty lots over here, anything which encourages further development is welcome. But your point is well taken, BK,[clintonhilchill] it is obvious that there is a strong undercurrent of "a school filled with kids who look like our kids." Perhaps visions of a little Berkeley-Carroll School in the hood. (I know that the Co-op School is hardly that!)

Sigh, sorry if our enthusiasm reveals our classist slip is showing.

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at February 23, 2009 6:05 PM

I was hoping maybe others would be as honest to create a dialogue about certain feelings some harbor about the people they live around. And just because the NYPD never gave a damn about poor residents, & older residents in the hood can now benefit from the added protection of our wealthier neighbors, doesn't mean that isn't a major problem that should be glossed over. Something is wrong with that (along with other indefensible NYPD tactics), perhaps if it wasn't so easily dismissed merely as despicable truth, but a truth that needs to be confronted among many, by ALL neighbors things would change for the better for ALL New Yorkers.

Once again I accept what my neighborhood is, what it was and whatever it will become. I just wish others would be just as accepting of things and people that preceded their residency. When people call 311 to complain on a practicing church choir that's been doing the same for generations, that's not being accepting.

When a person w/ a voice on a major forum suggests that the 88th precinct needs to crackdown on a business without basis, because the business or crowd doesn't appeal to them, that is not being accepting.

When someone can suggest that ONE school can increase the visibility of parents taking their kids back and forth to school, despite there being HUNDREDS doing the same each day & have been for years, it's not be accepting of the pulse of your neighborhood.

Saying businesses that are anti-BID want crime & drugs back, whether you agree or not, is not being accepting. Putting an older resident on blast enough for the Daily News to notice, for having primer on HIS brownstone is not being accepting.

Moving to a block w/ two Section 8 buildings then suggesting they blow it up or evict everyone and make it condos? Yeah, real acccepting... Being dismissive of church going folks tranquil sundays being disrupted by thousands, interferring their service w/ ppl walking in to use the bathroom, ppl relieving themselves on the street? Yeah, changes were made, but there wasn't much empathy for the parishioners. More was given to the five people who complained about the noise from Jelani Lounge.

So yeah I'm the dinosaur unaccepting of change but some of the ppl who changed their address to live over here can't accept the ppl or things that come with that change of address. Most of the people moved speculatively hoping most of these things would change or be gone. There isn't any outrage nor did I make out to be an us vs. them thing. The blog championed by me is not written in the divisive tone that some of you are trying to make me out to be. And to suggest that some have better values than my family because of their socioeconomic level with out knowing me or my family? Once again real accepting...

bknest · March 2009

Saint James Infirmary wrote: My point, I guess, is this: your outrage seems to be based on the fact that your neighborhood's values are changing with the increase in property values and wealthier residents. It is, and it will. There is no fighting it. I assume that in the 1800's when NYC's wealthiest residents called Clinton Hill home their values would have contrasted pretty starkly with yours as well. Change with the changing times, as they say. As despicable a truth as it is, the poor have never EVER been a priority to the NYPD. I'd imagine you (like me) would benefit from the added protection our wealthier neighbors seem to afford even as we disagree with the reasons it is finally being offered. That's how I'm choosing to look at it anyhow.

Now see folks this is what I'm talking about when I ask what is the feeling/sentiment behind statements being made. This person doesn't know me from a whole in the wall, doesn't know I'm the product of a two parent home & currently married w/ 3 daughters, owned my apt for ten years, but makes the inference that there's a stark contrast between the value system of working class folks like myself and those higher on the socieconomic scale in my neighborhood. Yeah when it comes down to core values there's this vast difference :roll: . Not judgmental at all, I can only imagine how opened minded you are walking past these same ppl in the street. And I'm still looking for my posts of OUTRAGE...

candicissima · March 2009

bknest, I think we understand where you're coming from, but the thing is that unlike Brownstoner, no one over here is especially fixated on the need for police presence to "protect" the new schoolkids, so the dialogue you want probably isn't going to happen. I understand your gripe over there, but we should focus on the discussion at hand instead of trying to force it to be something it's not.

putnam-denizen · March 2009

BK - you carry a huge weight in your posts. And although I value greatly the distinct and important voice you bring to the blogosphere, you often come down like a ton of bricks on people. Your above post is an example of that - you go through a laundry list of outrages committed by newcomers on the longer term residents. Someone might agree with one point or another without feeling the wish or ability to engage with you. This is not a question about whether or not you are right in some of your evaluations of your new neighbors - you are often, unfortunately, accurate. I guess it is just that you often come off as being unwilling to acknowledge or appreciate the legitimacy of others perspectives or the possibility that they are good people who may simply come to the table with different assumptions than you.

So even though you cite me as an example of someone who is willing to engage, I would suggest that you don't give the impression of relly wanting to engage sometimes. Maybe you don't have the emotional energy for it. If I am wrong, maybe you might think of how you could signal your true intentions to others. But again, I appreciate the opportunity to reflect on more than the worth of granite countertops our can lights...

bknest · March 2009

Putnam-denizen, I think people came down on me about a bunch of things I wasn't even talking about. I asked a question and you were the only one to answer without going off on a different tangent beyond what was being asked. So even though we have had a difference of opinions in the past I did thank you for your honesty without being totally in agreement.

Uhh I find it funny as the OP that no one kept to the discussion at hand or question but it's me being called out on it.

wasder · March 2009

Nesto--I remember when you and lesterhead from Clinton Hill blog had your meeting of the minds at Mirrors and I was impressed at how bloggers with such different initial points of view on the neighborhood managed to get together and enjoy each other's company and create a dialogue. It might be a good idea for you to ask Brownstoner directly what he meant by his police presence comment and see if there isn't a way for you guys to find common ground.

candicissima · March 2009

bknest wrote: Now see folks this is what I'm talking about when I ask what is the feeling/sentiment behind statements being made. This person doesn't know me from a whole in the wall, doesn't know I'm the product of a two parent home & currently married w/ 3 daughters, owned my apt for ten years, but makes the inference that there's a stark contrast between the value system of working class folks like myself and those higher on the socieconomic scale in my neighborhood. Yeah when it comes down to core values there's this vast difference :roll: . Not judgmental at all, I can only imagine how opened minded you are walking past these same ppl in the street. And I'm still looking for my posts of OUTRAGE...

What I'm saying is that you're not going to find that same amount of outrage or discussion of what their motives are over here because personally I couldn't give two shits about what they're saying on Brownstoner because I rarely if ever read it anyway. So a topic linking to a post talking about something that was written on another board is really too convoluted.

Will the co-op school bring more of a police presence? I dunno. Should it just by virtue of being there? Not really. Why do I think that? Because considering a school was apparently there already without incident, it's not needed.

bknest · March 2009

If you don't give two shits then you didn't have to feel compelled reply in my thread which linked to my blog for further explanation. I've said numerous times what the discussion is about for me there and here...you must've missed that. Nowhere did I state that ppl should be outraged, Putnam-denizen wasnt but I appreciated his honesty.

Once again preconceived sentiments/ feelings between two groups in a neighborhood where most of us are NEIGHBORS is worthy of discussion to me. As you can see where someone so blanketly inferred what my value system is by simply reading my posts, it's obvious that this is an issue. If it's not to you then please just move on. I'm not berating anyone or group in my posts.

Lesterhead never made the kind of divisive posts brownstoner has so we never had an issue. When CHC was started she gave it a blast, we coresponded from there to find out we knew a lot of the same people in the neighborhood, including some very near and dear to my heart. You see Lesterhead interacted & continues to interact with ppl from ALL walks in her building& surrounding ones. I'm sure a guy who puts his neighbor right on his block on blast enough for The Daily News to notice, doesn't interact w/ anyone on his block I know, so this isn't the kind of person I'd like to interact with... Lesterhead, instead of placing judgment on a new venue, actually came to patronize the venue then went on to throw a fun neighborhood event at the same spot. The only thing they have in common is that they are both new to the neighborhood and have blogs. One is open to bridging a gap the other just wants to expand it at the expense of those on the other side. BIG difference...

wasder · March 2009

I hear you about Lesterhead Nesto. Still, sometimes the best dialogues come when the gap to be bridged is the biggest. I would say the same thing to Brownstoner if I had the chance.

candicissima · March 2009

bknest wrote: If you don't give two shits then you didn't have to feel compelled reply in my thread which linked to my blog for further explanation. I've said numerous times what the discussion is about for me there and here...you must've missed that. Nowhere did I state that ppl should be outraged, Putnam-denizen wasnt but I appreciated his honesty.

Once again preconceived sentiments/ feelings between two groups in a neighborhood where most of us are NEIGHBORS is worthy of discussion to me. As you can see where someone so blanketly inferred what my value system is by simply reading my posts, it's obvious that this is an issue. If it's not to you then please just move on. I'm not berating anyone or group in my posts.

Well as a mod, whether I give a shit or not, I am compelled to post in a thread where I feel things are getting heated for no reason. And it seems your anger/irritation is directed at Brownstoner/some posters over there, so what's the beef over here? Especially since after you restated what your issue is with that original post about the school, no one here is disagreeing with you exactly.

MOD · March 2009

Admin here, and yeah. keep your fights to yourself Bknest or to your blog.

bknest · March 2009

Wow...now I'm "fighting"?

I asked a question to spark a discussion or dialogue, which ppl choose to divert from, I then replied to their assumptions about my value system & accusations of me being outraged & unaccepting of others so now I'm fighting?

Brooklynian mods you really need to stop doing that to me whenever I'm opinionated about something that concerns the community, which you may disagree with or because YOU or the majority here don't want to hear it. And by stating my opinion, it doesn't mean I'm angry, just calling it like I see it.

There hasn't been any name calling, assumptions or generalizations made about anyone in my posts.

Everything has been discussed in a cordial manner.

People really like to selectively address the wrong things.

st jameson · March 2009

Just catching up. I say Mod was out of line! BK Nest is part of a dialogue that happens to be a little charged. No flames here.

I think what I notice here is that BK Nesto called out Brownstoner for making a presumptuous and classist / racist observation. I imagine Brownstoner would even admit it, if he reflected about it.

I think BK Nesto would have liked more people to validate his point. That didn't exactly happen. Other points came into the fold about the neighborhood, gentrification, and the application of anger. And we ended up off topic.

So if we are to stay on topic, yes, a high profile yuppie-leaning school does not deserve more police protection than a poor daycare. Kids are kids and this neighborhood deserves the same protection today and tomorrow that it did yesterday, which is possibly more than its getting.

I am not sure where the conversation goes from here. I'll say that the name-calling and Mod-interfering feel unnecessary, and not worth taking the bait on.

Church choir protests and five person Jelani Lounge opposition "movements" are unfortunate, but not necessarily a reflection of the mind sets of most newcomers to the neighborhood. I think there are more people here that agree with you about these things than you realize BK Nesto. I hope we can keep everything in the spirit of a healthy dialogue.

Will The Co-op School Bring More of a Police Presence...

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories