Friday, November 24, 2006
clarification
I probably threw some people a curve with my post about the neighbors of Sugar's. Stop and think for a moment though; it has been in business at the same location for over 20 years, it has been doing the same type of business for all that time while going through two owners. Why then, is it so important to close it now? It is illegal and should be closed, but is it a threat to the public? I'm saying, yes close it; but, don't lose sight of the big picture. It will not lower crime anywhere in the city except for the building it is in. We need to keep in mind that violent crimes are up. Murders, rapes, assaults, etc. We need to remember that orginizations like JLCS, PedCor and others don't help, but hurt when it comes to crime. All one has to do is look at Castlewood, Goose Creek, the low income housing on Jersey Ridge, or talk to neighbors, to know where the crimanals are. It's been proven poverty, and undereducation are two of the biggest factors in crime, along with single parent families. Let's keep looking for solutions to solve the crime problem we have, not put a band-aid on a broken leg.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Sugars brings in criminals and lowlifes from around the region. A man was shot and robbed outside the place in the last few years. Its an ugly building, housing an illegal business.
There's every reason to close it down, and no reason to allow it to keep operating.
In 2005, I conducted a survey that included 28 businesses in a sixteen block area from Western, west to Marquette on 4th, 3rd, and 2nd Street. The number one and two barrier to doing business in the area was identified as open prostitution and drug dealing. I was working under funding from JLCS in order to establish a relationship with the businesses in the neighborhood that JLCS properties and residences were located on 3rd Street and to see what steps may be taken with the businesses to make the neighborhood safer and to protect everyone's investment in the area. The first step was to follow Dee Bruemmer's advice and to get a Public Works lighting survey completed for the area (there was none on record) and last spring 16 new street and alley lights were installed. Chief Bladel has met with the businesses many times now and listened to their concerns and his department has acted aggressively (they had been doing so much work already!)
The reason that it may have been tolerated for the years you say it has (I don't agree that the neighboring businesses do) is that there was a mind set in Davenport at one time that this sort of criminal behavior was expected and as long as it was here, at least it wasn't in others' neighborhoods. That time is long past. Many businesses have moved into the neighborhood since JCLS reconstructed three buildings that were vacant into well managed apartments. Petersens moved into and invested in the old Hockenbergs building, Willman Construction bought three vacant buildings on 3rd Street, Iossi Construction moved into a building that they once occupied and have completely remodeled it. In other words, you may think that everything is as it was twenty years ago, but it is not and its time for Sugar's to move on and let the legitimate, tax paying, decent employing businesses have some peace in the neighborhood. Willman and Abraham's employees don't need to be propositioned as they come to work or over lunch on a nice day when they may sit outside. I've talked to three businesses that would have moved into the neighborhood ten years ago and looked at property, but didn't want their location to be associated with Sugars. Bob Petersen has stuck it out in that neighborhood because its location works for the bi-state nature of his business and its where his Dad started the business when it was a decent neighborhood. He deserves some respect and consideration-far more than the lawbreakers at Sugars. You said that you had a link to the complaint-I think you should read it again, drive through and actually look at all of the good businesses down there. I just started looking at your blog through the qconline link and thought that you have had some interesting posts. Closing Sugar's is no band aid.
Shelly - canyou tell me where the house is located owned by JLCS and subletted to the Wish List recipient on the Times on Sunday? I trying to figure out where it is off of Marquette and why it is sublet.
You seem to have knowledge of JLCS and hope you can tell me. Is is in the CCC? I didn't realize they had homes there - just apartments. Perhaps the new projects they have built?
While I can't argue it will help the immediate area, it won't stop the streetwalkers and drug dealers in the area. I will admit that we have to start somewhere, and I guess that's a good a place as any. You mentioned the JLCS apartments in the area; I worked on house right next to the JLCS property. All the time I was working in the area I didn't feel threatened, and we had no thefts or vandalism. The lighting has helped quite a bit, especially in the alleys; and I have no problems with the police, public works, or the NEO. What we need to concentrate on is getting rid of this undeserved bad reputation that downtown now has. If people don't feel safe, they won't go; and if they don't go, nobody makes money.
Cruiser, I have to disagree with you on this one. A recent QCT article showed men were driving in from more than an hour away to visit Sugars. When it is closed down there will be less people willing to come into our city to commit crimes. There will still be streetwalkers. In fact, for a while I think on street prostitution will spike. If I were vice I would already have a sting operation in place for widescale arrests immediately to set the tone that prostitution will no longer be tolerated.
Unfortunately many people believe prostitution is a victimless crime. How very untrue. Prostitution is a vice and as with any vice it inherently brings low lifes into an area, it has a high likelihood for violence and it is often paired with other crimes. Why get off with a hooker when you can get off and pick up some coke on your way in. Increase the experience. Then you get the pimps who are "looking out" for the girls and taking their money. Not nice guys. And they are going to be hanging out.
Sugars has to be closed. Us supporting this closure is the biggest gift we can give to our strapped police department. I can't understand for a minute why anyone would question why we are closing this whorehouse. This area could finally see some revitalization if the crime were taken out of the equation. Let's stop attracting law breakers to our city and take away their candy.
People need to understand and stop using blind reasons to support the continued negative growth down in that area to support it. What I mean is that maybe whenyou are thre is it okay and maybe it is okay all the time (I think the police reports say differently) but, if this citycontinues to support ONLY low income service housing and business, then the area will always be that and not integrated. I think that the people served by JLCS need and deserve better, especiallly the young mothers and children. The neighborhood there is not healthy and the ripple effect on the rest of the central city is amazing. JLCS is the first tier of slum rentals. Not that it looks like slum rental, but after that housing attracts people to Davenport and after they get kicked out, then the slumlords throughout the city benefit.JLCS creates a constant stream of cleints for the slumlords.
What needs to be assessed is how JLCS' programs are doing. Outcome measures. How many men learned the computer and got jobs through JLCS? HOw many found appropriate jobs and housing? How many can't be helped and then what happened to them? Are they on the streets? Are they served by Vera French and if so then how is the funding doing? Get me?
My fear is that the agency keep bringing people here and then after the services are done, then we all deal with the people that are needy. After a while any town will break.
Ok, let's try this again. First off I said close Sugar's. And there are a ton of ugly buildings all over town.
QCI, I don't think too many lowlifes could afford the $100-$150 per trick price tag. And even if they could, it goes on in the building.
shelley, the people I talked to were south of Sugar's. The only thing I said stayed the same for 20 years was Sugar's. Closing Sugar's will not stop guys getting stopped by streetwalkers, and it will not stop the drug dealers. I have reread the petition for abatement and it mentions undercover stings inside the building, and code violations, also inside the building.
snarky chick, the hookers who work at Sugar's are not streetwalkers. While this will stop activity at Sugar's, it will do nothing to stop the streetwalkers or drug dealers. No, it is not a victimless crime, but with the posts on your blog I figured you knew crime comes from the low incom housing developments, and not $100 hookers. Yes it is illegal and should be shut down. I also feel when it is shut down, there will be no drop in crime in the area unless more steps are taken.
anon at 10:38, I agree, but it has too be expanded to include the welfare complexes thoughout the city. Snarky did an excellent post on that on her blog.
You say the hookers who work at Sugar's aren't streetwalkers. Sorry, I've known some. When, for whatever reason they are not working at Sugar's they are walking the streets.
Also, I think an excess of low income housing attracts crime as does any vice such as prostitution and drugs, even non-violent drugs like marijuana.
I know you said to close it but I think we need to really applaud our city and our police for finally taking a stand on this crime attractor. You and I will just have to agree to disagree :)
snarky chick,
i didn't mean to give the impression that I wanted anything stopped. And as I said, I don't know anything about hookers, it just never crossed my mind what they did on their time off. I also agree the police are doing a good job, and that even non-violent crime adds to our problem. Guess I got tunnel vision from just looking at violent crime. I in no way want this thread to end, that was never my intention. If it seemed so, I appologize to everyone.
I'm really glad you brought this up. Many people get the "tunnel vision" that limits them from seeing the problems with non-violent crimes. Prostitution is one that people like to ignore. Now if prostitution was legalized and regulated like in Nevada you run into less problems because it's no longer an underground market and it eliminates the association of criminals with the service. However, that would still attract lowlifes to the area. Just because someone has $100 to spend on a hooker doesn't mean they aren't a lowlife. Lowlifes come in all income levels.
Post a Comment