Thomas Stith
Overview
Thomas Stith III is currently on the Durham City Council, and is running for Mayor in the November, 2007 election.
Platform
Stith's campaign literature emphasizes his interest in "lead[ing] a crackdown on crime"; the major points of his "plan for a safer Durham" are (from printed campaign mailer):
- A new get-tough stand from city hall to fight crime
- More police officers on our streets
- Strict enforcement policies to curb gang violence
- Intensify specialized police teams focused on gangs
- Prosecute gangs under federal RICO laws
- Gang intervention programs for young teens
- City partnership with schools and community groups to target at-risk children
Comments
from Barry Ragin
| from the DependableErection blog, 2007-09-04): |
|
Thomas Stith's signs have some curious features. First is the timing. Since only Stith and incumbent Mayor Bill Bell have filed for the seat, there will not be a mayoral primary, meaning the mayor's election is still 63 days away. However, the ordinance doesn't say that the candidate has to be on the ballot in the upcoming election, just that the election itself needs to be less than 45 days away. The other factor that catches my eye is the way the sign leaves out the word "Elect." So instead of saying "Elect Thomas Stith Mayor of Durham" it reads "Thomas Stith, Mayor of Durham." Which, at this point at least, he is not. We'll see if this subtle deception has any impact on that segment of the electorate which may not be so fully informed. UPDATE: Via email, an anonymous source tells me that Stith's signs are in fact in violation of the law regarding the 45 day window, but that no action is planned right now. That pisses me off. Two years ago, the Duke Park and Old North Durham neighborhood associations posted a number of signs on utility poles around our neighborhoods, advertising our National Night Out event. The notification we received from the enforcement people at the City/County Planning Department was very clear: fines up to $300 per sign per day, if they were not removed within 48 hours of receipt of the notice. Why are the rules different for citizens than they are for politicians? |
The word "elect" is in the web site's name, posted underneath, but that is in fairly tiny letters likely to go unnoticed by many people. --Woozle 07:41, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
from Woozle
Speaking as someone who has been a repeated burglary victim, in an otherwise-nice neighborhood which has been experiencing a rash of burglaries over the past few years, I actually don't think "getting tough on crime" is the right approach. Some of the specific items Stith plans seem more or less okay, but overall I don't want to see more security checks, more paranoia, more "zero-tolerance" policies. Also, I really hate RICO (far too much anti-drug hysteria went into it), and the focus on "gangs" (aside from leading to a lot of really stupid policies in the schools) is starting to seem like a smokescreen – another excuse, like the war on terror.
The way to reduce crime is through a combination of sane policies, e.g.:
- spending more resources on rescuing neighborhoods and restoring abandoned houses to use rather than just knocking them down
- providing better communication between police and citizens (why isn't there an email address for reporting minor crimes or sending in tips?)
- not making it quite so easy for people just to move on out to the latest greytown subdivision when existing neighborhoods start to get rough – provide some incentive for people to stick around and keep the existing neighborhoods vibrant (the much-opposed home transfer tax, which is now available for us to use, would be a small step in the right direction)
- looking at the national problem of our transient lifestyle, where the upper-middle class moves on to a new job in a new town every 5-7 years – is there anything we can do locally to work against this? Transience works against neighborhood stability, as it repeatedly wipes out any energy residents might invest towards getting to know their neighbors and working to build long-term neighborhood safety. This is especially a problem with the middle and upper-middle classes, who tend to be the most mobile and also have, relative to those lower on the income scle, more resources which might be set to work against crime.
- gang regime change – most gangs may be formed by hardened, cynical outsiders who set them up as a growing national franchise (it's not clear what percentage of gangs are franchised versus home-grown), but they are joined by young kids who mainly want something to be a part of (and who are often given a devil's choice of joining or being a victim). With city and police support, it might be possible to help any of the kids who still have some idealism left to either turn the whole gang into a force for community good, or at least to shave members off by giving them more appealing options (and perhaps some special protections, to help prevent reprisals for leaving). Better communications with gang members (especially newer members who don't have a position of authority to protect) would help a lot, as it will be important not to offer them a deal which seems like "selling out".
In summary: The resources of intelligence, reason, and data-gathering need to be brought to bear on this problem; using brute-force is just playing whack-a-mole.