Secure in their Persons

When we first moved to Denver, East Colfax Avenue was a little unsavory. Nothing too crazy, but you know, we tried not to go to Pete’s Kitchen when we had a bunch of suitcases visible in the back of the car say. And if Dan went in to pick up take out, I locked the doors in the car, and grew eyes in the back of my head. There were just enough “shady” characters around to be wary.

I mean Pete’s Kitchen itself was perfectly safe, by the simple expedient of giving free meals to policemen, so there was always at least one large table occupied by Denver police, at all times. (Considering that in the seventies Denver Police ran a burglary ring, this might not always make things safer, but in the early nineties it did. Enough that we felt okay going there with a toddler by the hand and an infant in the sleeping basket/car seat.) We just weren’t stupid about it, and minded our six.

By the 10s the vigilance wasn’t needed and by 2015 you could see women alone walking their small dog at 10pm, which is my gold standard for “this is a safe neighborhood.) When I mentioned it to a friend who’d lived in Denver in the seventies, he said “you’re kidding” because apparently in the seventies and eighties, it was… not safe for anything not large and male, and even then… I caught echoes of this, before we discovered Pete’s Kitchen (remember, we lived in the Springs, and when the kids were little our trips to Denver were usually day trips to hit the mystery bookstore (Murder by the Book) and maybe go to the natural history museum. It was only when the kids were older, like elementary/middle school age that we started spending weekends and actually exploring.) which we did when oldest was three or four. I read a series of articles in the paper about large men who could hold their own forming “Angels on Colfax.” Trying to extricate victims and people in trouble. I have absolutely no idea how that worked, btw, just the vague memory of articles several decades ago.

Anyway, the gentrification I’d seen seemed to me — I’m simple that way — a good thing. I liked all the little shops and eating places that sprang up once the place was mostly safe. Later the places became pricey, but I enjoyed being able to walk along, hit the Tattered Bookcover, meet friends from out of town at Pete’s without giving them full instruction on how to protect themselves, etc.

So imagine my surprise when late night browsing brought up a video on how the gentrification of East Colfax was the worst thing ever, because it pushed “low income people” out.

First I was shocked. Then I was incoherently angry.

I’m seeing parts of the city I live in now making the same trajectory, and also some of the smaller/cheaper/ethnic neighborhoods starting to attract outsiders and become “kitchy and interesting.” … Honestly, the later since ICE started shipping bad hombres out and curtailing cartel activity. And I haven’t looked but I’m sure there is the same sort of lamenting documentary out there about this.

There are posters anti-gentrification, for sure, and I catch conversations of people throwing fits over it, and–

And it makes me see red. As red as if someone waved the hammer and sickle in front of my eyes, which is never a good idea.

Why angry, you’ll say? Because the people who want to keep areas “authentic” and “affordable” for poor people seem to think that poor people want to/need to/are happy in high crime environments. It’s like “be raped and murdered, you dumb proles! It’s what you deserve!” You can add a soupcon of racism, since in most cities the “proles” being pushed into those areas are also ethnic.

Okay, you’ll say, but Sarah, if people can’t afford to live in a place that’s not crime ridden, they are homeless.

Meh. Only because when a place first becomes gentrified there’s a inrush. And because there is a premium on safe places. Trust me, I know. Part of the dance of the houses we engaged in was to ensure parts of our family were not in a rapidly-becoming-unsafe area. There were other reasons, too, but that was one of them. I’ve felt the safety tax directly in my pocket this year.

But if most places are decently safe, then some will of necessity be cheaper. It’s not like we’re making more well off people in a factory to take over the gentrified places. Places that are less fashionable, or less convenient to fashionable/convenient spots will naturally be cheaper. Smaller places, too. Little working-man cottage type neighborhoods aren’t bad places, if you don’t have to worry about the meth house next door, and you’re not afraid a cartel will shiv your kids.

Look, I know this. I grew up in a place of no great comfort which was not fashionable at all (It no longer exists, having disappeared under countless cement stack a prole apartments and an influx of outsiders. Also a few turnpikes.) The old village, as was, and its surrounding areas had an accent so interesting — interesting — that the first time I opened my mouth in college, in a linguistics class, the prof made a face like he’d sucked on a pickle, and said “Ah… Aguas Santas.” For the rest of my time in that class I was known as “the young lady from Aguas Santas.” It wasn’t a compliment. But by and large it was safe. Your clothes might get stolen from the line. (And occasionally your chickens or rabbits from the backyard pen.) But there was very little interpersonal violence. People could walk around late at night alone. Heck, mom would send me to the store on the corner, with a handful of coins to buy a pound of peanuts in shell, on those long Summer evenings, so the family could sit around snacking, having lemonade and talking. From the time I was five or so, it was perfectly safe to send me, alone. The only drawback was that I might get lost (yes, it was a straight shot, but trust me.) NOT that I’d get hurt. Also trust me on this, the housing wasn’t expensive. I suspect some of the smaller, older houses, rented for “I let you live here, and you do daily cleaning woman stuff for me.”

It’s false logic to say “if we make a place safe, it will become expensive.” That only happens because we let places be ridiculously unsafe and hell on Earth.

Look, I understand there is a balance between justice and mercy. It’s impossible to make the world a perfectly safe place. It’s impossible to make a city perfectly safe. Even a 99.9% safety is impossible without taking enforcement measures that are unpalatable to a free citizenry. I know that. Again remember I come from a country where, once upon a time, the police could arrest you for swearing in public (note I only know this from mom reenacting of scenes she’d seen. She was very funny and she did voices. By the time I was old enough to swear, that law was a thing of the past. or I’d have lived in jail.) Or for going barefoot. (The later was actually important and it was to curb the spread of TB in a country in which it was endemic and people spit on the ground a lot. But still. Police. Looking at your feet. Arresting you if you’re barefoot. Again, not by the time I was an adult, and occasionally went barefoot (usually because I’d broken a shoe heel or because I had a blister, but still.)) I don’t think Americans would put up with that. Even with good reason. Also for people like me it would have an immediate effect of making us want to speak only in four letter words and walk around barefoot with our toenails painted stop sign red. And that would be weird, particularly for the straight males among us.

But not policing people’s language is not the same as letting people shoot up on the corner, follow or menace strangers, camp on the sidewalk, defecate on the sidewalk, or the never end of unsavory shit (literally) that we’ve seen in the last ten years.

There used to be a concept of “basic law and order.” And while the lawless elements will always live among us, and some people will be violent, it doesn’t mean giving the violent the right to do as they will at the expense of others is the right choice.

I’ve lived in a lot of places where the basic right to be secure in your person while going about your lawful activities was degrading, and the pattern is almost always the same. Some politician, some mayor, some police chief, decide to be “compassionate and understanding” to the insane, encroaching and violent. They’ll call standing on the corner, weedling on yourself and shouting profanity like some sort of tourettes machine “a victimless crime.” And are “understanding” with the perpetrator who is, nine times out of ten, drugged out of his mind, and the tenth time floridly insane.

But to say it’s victimless is to ignore the business that people are no longer patronizing, as they take a WIDE path to avoid the crazy and who knows, potentially violent person.

In the Springs when things started to get out of control downtown it went from there being virtually no crime downtown and a ton of little mom and pop shops to places closing because the free-floating “homeless” would go into the little delis and threaten customers, go into the used bookstore and piss on the books, rob high school kids at knife point, etc. etc. etc. rinse and repeat. These places then got replaced by bigger/better financed places who could afford to guard the entrances and keep scary people out. A lot of them expensive bars and restaurants, mind. I think that trajectory has reversed now, but I haven’t lived there in ten years so I can’t swear to it.

The problem of “unsafe neighborhoods” is that they don’t have to be. The decay in basic order; the toleration of the violent (often connected with revolving door arrest and release), the toleration of property destruction: all of it has been proven to be a choice. Giulliani cleaned NYC by going after basic disruptions in law and order pattern.

So why are we tolerating it? Other than the fact that politicians imagine this makes them look good? Or that they’re being compassionate? Or that it creates places that “people can afford?”

WHY should poor people be forced to live in unsafe and violent neighborhoods? Who profits by it except idiots consumed with nostalgie de la boue?

We’ve tried this “Let a million crimes flourish and it will get better.” It doesn’t work. Abolishing the police and “social working” and understanding the bad elements just makes things worse.

No, I’m not making a plea for a policeman in every corner making sure you don’t swear and are wearing both shoes.

But people who are dangerous, people who commit crimes, should be arrested, and arrangements should be in place whereby they can be kept away from law-abiding humanity who just wants to walk to the corner store at 9 pm, unshivved, you know?

Yes, I know that shades into a lot of things, particularly mental health. So?

It’s high time we rolled up our sleeves and made a concerted effort to make our cities safe again. Safe for the well off, sure, but also safe for the people who just want to rent a cheap apartment and save to maybe one day rent a slightly bigger cheap apartment.

We’ve tried being only compassionate. Kindness to the cruel is cruelty to the kind. It’s time to bring out the cudgel, too.

Because if this goes on much longer, what comes after is everyone open carrying and shooting anyone who steps out of line. And frankly after the last ten years, it’s starting to sound really good. Even though I know it wouldn’t be.

So, let’s roll up our sleeves and start by shoving the politicians “compassionate measures” up their noses.
Maybe it will reach their vestigial brains.