BOSTON HERALD
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2003
Stunned by a sudden rise in gang violence, politicians in Somerville have latched on to a controversial solution: anti-loitering laws. Meanwhile, other nearby communities reject that approach.
Who's right? Not Somerville.
Looking for a quick fix, the city of 77,000 has adopted a tactic that police elsewhere believe not only is ineffective, but can backfire - exacerbating, not solving, the gang problem.
Recent gang activity in Somerville has been unquestionably disturbing. About a year ago, police in the largely white, blue-collar city became aware of a violent and scary Salvadoran gang called MS13. Last October, gang members allegedly raped two girls. Shockingly, both were handicapped; both deaf, one in a wheelchair. The cruelty of the crimes created enormous pressure on local politicians.
And they reacted quickly. In December the Board of Aldermen passed legislation prohibiting gangs from congregating on streets, sidewalks and in other public places. Mayor Dorothy Kelly Gay signed it. But because it affects criminal codes, the measure still needs approval from the state Legislature.
The new law - the first on the East Coast, say officials - has raised objections from many quarters. For one, anti-loitering laws have an ignoble history. They often have been used to go after groups that were unpopular, unwanted or simply of the wrong ethnic or racial background. Indeed, it was those flaws that caused the U.S. Supreme Court in 1999 to strike down a Chicago ordinance like the one Somerville adopted.
And the fact that the law is clearly targeted at one ethnic group in this case, Latinos - has prompted cries of profiling. It's hard not to share those concerns. Bruins players hanging out on a Somerville street corner would not be threatened with imprisonment; Latino males would be. Moreover, says state Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty (D-Chelsea), anti-loitering laws run headlong into a practical problem: Kids like to hang out together. They need to go somewhere.
Yet these issues aside, anti-loitering laws would still be popular if they actually reduced crime.
In Somerville, aldermen concluded that "current laws are inadequate" to deal with gangs. Police Chief George McLean concurs, calling anti-loitering laws a "necessary tool."
Law enforcement officials elsewhere disagree - and their opinions carry weight. For unlike Somerville (where gang activity is a recent phenomenon), Revere, Lynn, East Boston, Chelsea and Winthrop have long experience in dealing with gangs.
"Every police chief I speak to says (anti-loitering legislation) is not the way to go about preventing gang violence," said state Sen. Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge), whose district covers Chelsea, Revere and part of Somerville.
Chelsea, for example, recently has been holding hearings on its own anti-loitering measure. Yet even its principal sponsor, City Councilor Paul Nowicki, now seems dubious. And with a strong anti-gang program already in place, police Chief Frank Garvin is skeptical about anti-loitering laws.
So too is Boston's police commissioner, Paul Evans, who worries about "knee-jerk" reactions to crime. "We have little use for laws that target young people," he says. "That's not the way we do things in Boston."
The reason is that anti-loitering laws undermine community policing, the highly successful strategy that has revolutionized law enforcement over the last decade.
The old model of policing saw cops as something like a paramilitary force. Oftentimes, that alienated residents, turning crimefighting into an us-vs.-them confrontation.
The idea behind community policing was to reverse that and make public safety a collaborative process - one that involved the entire community. It meant getting police out of their vehicles and onto the streets where they could get to know residents. It meant working with local churches, charities and other nonprofits to identify troublemakers and try to steer them in a different direction. It meant taking seriously small matters so that they wouldn't escalate.
For many in law enforcement, the newly proposed anti-loitering laws feel like a reversion to the bad old days. They have the potential of pitting the police against the people. They weaken the trust that has been built up between the cops and Latino and other communities. And, they don't do anything to address the underlying causes of why kids join gangs in the first place.
Are there other approaches? Sure. Chelsea's Councilor Nowicki and police Chief Garvin tick off possibilities: Increase penalties for minor crimes, such as graffiti, when they are committed by gang members. Hold parents responsible for their children's behavior. Evict public housing tenants if they commit crimes as part of a gang. Focus on dampening gang recruitment.
But anti-loitering laws? That approach, says Boston's Evans, "only gets you into trouble."
Tom Keane can be reached at tomkeane@tomkeane.com