Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [EchoElysianNCForum] Update on Ficus Trees Posted for removal

Expand Messages
  • Tad Yenawine
    Yay! ... -- Tad Yenawine VTS/Visual Understanding in Education www.vtshome.org *ôIgnorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even usually
    Message 1 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Yay!


      On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:10 PM, cp00733 <peterscp007@...> wrote:
       

      Hello all,

      CD 13 had a meeting yesterday with Bureau of Street Services. We reviewed the original plans presented to the community and requested that the 4 Ficus on Sunset between Logan and Echo Park Ave be removed from the list. Those trees wil be trimmed and root pruned, and the tree wells enlarged. There is a small chance that once the pruning happens IF one of the trees on the North Side is compromised and considered unsafe, they may have to be removed at a later date. The one very large Ficus at McDuff in fron of Dr. Perez's office will remain posted. It was determined to be too large to safely root prune and not risk tipping over. It will remain posted. The other trees posted for removal in CD 13 are mostly the failing Chitalpas, the rogue Olives and Redbush, and one rogue Banana. Those are all part of the original plan and will be replaced with either Pistache or African Fern Pine. These plantings and removals along with the streetscape improvements will likely begin in January.

      Any posted trees on the South of Sunset, east of EP Ave are in CD 1. So if you are filing protests please contact their office as well.

      I personally witnessed the posting being removed from the Logan/EP/Sunset Ficus this morning.

      Field office for CD 13 is
      323-957-4500.
      Adam Bass is the EP Field Deputy and is briefed on this issue <adam.bass@...>

      Let me know if you have further questions

      CP




      --
      Tad Yenawine
      VTS/Visual Understanding in Education
      www.vtshome.org

      “Ignorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even usually surpassing knowledge.”  EJ Potter, RIP 2012
    • Tad Yenawine
      Hello All, First I want to say that my former job as CIO of GEPENC made it necessary for me to forward postings by community members, which may have given the
      Message 2 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello All,
        First I want to say that my former job as CIO of GEPENC made it necessary for me to forward postings by community members, which may have given the impression that I had an opinion or agenda about what I was passing on.  I did not offer an opinion at the time, but will feel free to do so now.

        Trey, no one wants more crime.  I think others have correctly pointed out that crime has dropped significantly, which from every point of view is accurate.  To say you have zero tolerance for crime is perhaps noble, but unrealistic.  If you are relying on the police to prevent those crimes from occurring, with or without special injunctions, that unrealistic expectation becomes more of an insane expectation--not going to happen, ever.

        The idea of catching criminals and punishing them is reactionary and will never solve the problem of crime.  Preventing crime, from a scientific point of view, means educating people, providing jobs, a supportive community and encouraging an inclusive culture, instead of divergent cultures. If you are not interested in supporting the things that prevent crime, stop talking about zero tolerance or injunctions.  If you want to yell loudly in support of injunctions and giving police additional tools to fight crime, be prepared to either support other solutions, or keep living in a world that is far from free of crime, and most likely keep yelling about it.

        In America, the depression proved that good people will do anything to feed their family.  That resulted in a social safety net that people cry about to this day. The miracle of welfare is that a very small amount of money prevents a huge amount of crime and essentially prevents the advent of class warfare, occupy movements not with standing.  Paying people to do nothing?  You bet, and worth every penny.

        Gangs formed to protect communities that did not get equal protection under the law and from the police.  Arguably, about the time the police reformed, the economic infrastructure of this country changed to privatize and off shore a whole lot of jobs that used semi skilled labor, like the port of Long Beach.  The resulting economic vacuum created an opportunity within the street gangs, supported by declining education and racist policies going underground.  Ignoring the roots of educational and economic inequality has sustained gangs and created entirely self sustaining black market economies, and parallel cultures to support them.  All of this independent of a mainstream that continues to find the tools to create social and economic equality controversial, while spending huge amounts of money to deal with the fall out.  Add to this that there is absolutely nothing rehabilitative about the penal system, and gang injunctions start to look like a pretty poor response to a serious problem.

        Additionally, kids that are starting to become involved with gangs might benefit from a different form of intervention than police harassment, no matter what they have been up to.  It might be worth a few minutes of our time to discuss things with some people with some actual insight.  Homeboy industries was founded down the street, and injunctions had nothing to do with it, but jobs do...

        Just saying.
        Thank you for your time.
        Tad

        --
        Tad Yenawine
        VTS/Visual Understanding in Education
        www.vtshome.org

        “Ignorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even usually surpassing knowledge.”  EJ Potter, RIP 2012
      • pbspeedo@sbcglobal.net
        You said it best. ... You said it best. On Aug 17, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Tad Yenawine wrote: Hello All, First I want to say that my former
        Message 3 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          You said it best. 

          On Aug 17, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Tad Yenawine <strictlyty@...> wrote:

           

          Hello All,
          First I want to say that my former job as CIO of GEPENC made it necessary for me to forward postings by community members, which may have given the impression that I had an opinion or agenda about what I was passing on.  I did not offer an opinion at the time, but will feel free to do so now.

          Trey, no one wants more crime.  I think others have correctly pointed out that crime has dropped significantly, which from every point of view is accurate.  To say you have zero tolerance for crime is perhaps noble, but unrealistic.  If you are relying on the police to prevent those crimes from occurring, with or without special injunctions, that unrealistic expectation becomes more of an insane expectation--not going to happen, ever.

          The idea of catching criminals and punishing them is reactionary and will never solve the problem of crime.  Preventing crime, from a scientific point of view, means educating people, providing jobs, a supportive community and encouraging an inclusive culture, instead of divergent cultures. If you are not interested in supporting the things that prevent crime, stop talking about zero tolerance or injunctions.  If you want to yell loudly in support of injunctions and giving police additional tools to fight crime, be prepared to either support other solutions, or keep living in a world that is far from free of crime, and most likely keep yelling about it.

          In America, the depression proved that good people will do anything to feed their family.  That resulted in a social safety net that people cry about to this day. The miracle of welfare is that a very small amount of money prevents a huge amount of crime and essentially prevents the advent of class warfare, occupy movements not with standing.  Paying people to do nothing?  You bet, and worth every penny.

          Gangs formed to protect communities that did not get equal protection under the law and from the police.  Arguably, about the time the police reformed, the economic infrastructure of this country changed to privatize and off shore a whole lot of jobs that used semi skilled labor, like the port of Long Beach.  The resulting economic vacuum created an opportunity within the street gangs, supported by declining education and racist policies going underground.  Ignoring the roots of educational and economic inequality has sustained gangs and created entirely self sustaining black market economies, and parallel cultures to support them.  All of this independent of a mainstream that continues to find the tools to create social and economic equality controversial, while spending huge amounts of money to deal with the fall out.  Add to this that there is absolutely nothing rehabilitative about the penal system, and gang injunctions start to look like a pretty poor response to a serious problem.

          Additionally, kids that are starting to become involved with gangs might benefit from a different form of intervention than police harassment, no matter what they have been up to.  It might be worth a few minutes of our time to discuss things with some people with some actual insight.  Homeboy industries was founded down the street, and injunctions had nothing to do with it, but jobs do...

          Just saying.
          Thank you for your time.
          Tad

          --
          Tad Yenawine
          VTS/Visual Understanding in Education
          www.vtshome.org

          “Ignorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even usually surpassing knowledge.”  EJ Potter, RIP 2012

        • Trey Baskett
          What is unrealistic and naive in your reponse Tad, is to expect entrenched criminal groups and some of their members, who chose crime as a lifestyle, to
          Message 4 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            What is unrealistic and naive in your reponse Tad, is to expect entrenched criminal groups and some of their members, who chose crime as a lifestyle, to respond to hugs and social programs. Regardless of how some gangs came about; the truth is that some of today's will only respond to enforcement.

            That said, did you happen to read the entirety of the thread?. In my responses I made clear my belief in the value of a multifaceted approach to the problem. My resume includes a stint in social services. I strongly advocate alternatives to enforcement while wholeheartedly supporting this injunction.  

            It's about saving lives...of all races. Not real estate comps.
            Trey

            ------------------------------
            On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 7:06 PM PDT pbspeedo@... wrote:

            >You said it best.
            >
            >On Aug 17, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Tad Yenawine <strictlyty@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hello All,
            > First I want to say that my former job as CIO of GEPENC made it necessary for me to forward postings by community members, which may have given the impression that I had an opinion or agenda about what I was passing on. I did not offer an opinion at the time, but will feel free to do so now.
            >
            > Trey, no one wants more crime. I think others have correctly pointed out that crime has dropped significantly, which from every point of view is accurate. To say you have zero tolerance for crime is perhaps noble, but unrealistic. If you are relying on the police to prevent those crimes from occurring, with or without special injunctions, that unrealistic expectation becomes more of an insane expectation--not going to happen, ever.
            >
            > The idea of catching criminals and punishing them is reactionary and will never solve the problem of crime. Preventing crime, from a scientific point of view, means educating people, providing jobs, a supportive community and encouraging an inclusive culture, instead of divergent cultures. If you are not interested in supporting the things that prevent crime, stop talking about zero tolerance or injunctions. If you want to yell loudly in support of injunctions and giving police additional tools to fight crime, be prepared to either support other solutions, or keep living in a world that is far from free of crime, and most likely keep yelling about it.
            >
            > In America, the depression proved that good people will do anything to feed their family. That resulted in a social safety net that people cry about to this day. The miracle of welfare is that a very small amount of money prevents a huge amount of crime and essentially prevents the advent of class warfare, occupy movements not with standing. Paying people to do nothing? You bet, and worth every penny.
            >
            > Gangs formed to protect communities that did not get equal protection under the law and from the police. Arguably, about the time the police reformed, the economic infrastructure of this country changed to privatize and off shore a whole lot of jobs that used semi skilled labor, like the port of Long Beach. The resulting economic vacuum created an opportunity within the street gangs, supported by declining education and racist policies going underground. Ignoring the roots of educational and economic inequality has sustained gangs and created entirely self sustaining black market economies, and parallel cultures to support them. All of this independent of a mainstream that continues to find the tools to create social and economic equality controversial, while spending huge amounts of money to deal with the fall out. Add to this that there is absolutely nothing rehabilitative about the penal system, and gang injunctions start to look like a pretty
            poor response to a serious problem.
            >
            > Additionally, kids that are starting to become involved with gangs might benefit from a different form of intervention than police harassment, no matter what they have been up to. It might be worth a few minutes of our time to discuss things with some people with some actual insight. Homeboy industries was founded down the street, and injunctions had nothing to do with it, but jobs do...
            >
            > Just saying.
            > Thank you for your time.
            > Tad
            >
            > --
            > Tad Yenawine
            > VTS/Visual Understanding in Education
            > www.vtshome.org
            >
            > “Ignorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even usually surpassing knowledge.” EJ Potter, RIP 2012
            >
          • Judith Raskin
            What about other trees marked for removal?  I worked at the Edendale Library book sale today, which was set up in front, on the Sunset Blvd. side.  The two
            Message 5 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              What about other trees marked for removal?  I worked at the Edendale Library book sale today, which was set up in front, on the Sunset Blvd. side.  The two shade trees out front made it possible for the ELFs to have some shade and to protect the buyers from the heat of the sun.  Why are these marked?  They can't be that old or dangerous.
               
              Judy Raskin

              From: cp00733 <peterscp007@...>
              To: EchoElysianNCForum@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 6:10 PM
              Subject: [EchoElysianNCForum] Update on Ficus Trees Posted for removal
               
              Hello all,

              CD 13 had a meeting yesterday with Bureau of Street Services. We reviewed the original plans presented to the community and requested that the 4 Ficus on Sunset between Logan and Echo Park Ave be removed from the list. Those trees wil be trimmed and root pruned, and the tree wells enlarged. There is a small chance that once the pruning happens IF one of the trees on the North Side is compromised and considered unsafe, they may have to be removed at a later date. The one very large Ficus at McDuff in fron of Dr. Perez's office will remain posted. It was determined to be too large to safely root prune and not risk tipping over. It will remain posted. The other trees posted for removal in CD 13 are mostly the failing Chitalpas, the rogue Olives and Redbush, and one rogue Banana. Those are all part of the original plan and will be replaced with either Pistache or African Fern Pine. These plantings and removals along with the streetscape improvements will likely begin in January.

              Any posted trees on the South of Sunset, east of EP Ave are in CD 1. So if you are filing protests please contact their office as well.

              I personally witnessed the posting being removed from the Logan/EP/Sunset Ficus this morning.

              Field office for CD 13 is
              323-957-4500.
              Adam Bass is the EP Field Deputy and is briefed on this issue <mailto:adam.bass%40lacity.org>

              Let me know if you have further questions

              CP

            • cp00733
              I m with you Trey. Charupha Wongwisteri died because she had the nerve to cook dinner with her mom in her kitchen, while 2 rival gang members shot at each
              Message 6 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                I'm with you Trey.

                Charupha Wongwisteri died because she had the nerve to cook dinner with her mom in her kitchen, while 2 rival gang members shot at each other outside her home. She died, and they are walking the streets because the shooting was "self defense". Michael Lezay died in the alley behind then EXP leaders home, (now dead, shot in his own front yard in broad daylight on a Sunday afternoon.) Mikey was a young teen who deserved better. He comes from a good family, who still live here and still miss him, and DO NOT understand why he had to die. Roberto Lopez's was 4 yrs old. never even got to go to school...all of Court St. mourned him...there are more names and stories.

                We'll all have to agree to disagree on this one as people with guns, are not victims. They are the bad guys. EXP gang members are not victims, and not the product of forming due to not having equal opportunities. They have a long generational history in the area...

                Anyway, we have a chance to stop future stray bullets killing another innocent...

                cp


                --- In EchoElysianNCForum@yahoogroups.com, Trey Baskett <gcbthree@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > What is unrealistic and naive in your reponse Tad, is to expect entrenched criminal groups and some of their members, who chose crime as a lifestyle, to respond to hugs and social programs. Regardless of how some gangs came about; the truth is that some of today's will only respond to enforcement.
                >
                > That said, did you happen to read the entirety of the thread?. In my responses I made clear my belief in the value of a multifaceted approach to the problem. My resume includes a stint in social services. I strongly advocate alternatives to enforcement while wholeheartedly supporting this injunction.  
                >
                > It's about saving lives...of all races. Not real estate comps.
                > Trey
                >
                > ------------------------------
                > On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 7:06 PM PDT pbspeedo@... wrote:
                >
                > >You said it best.
                > >
                > >On Aug 17, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Tad Yenawine <strictlyty@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > Hello All,
                > > First I want to say that my former job as CIO of GEPENC made it necessary for me to forward postings by community members, which may have given the impression that I had an opinion or agenda about what I was passing on. I did not offer an opinion at the time, but will feel free to do so now.
                > >
                > > Trey, no one wants more crime. I think others have correctly pointed out that crime has dropped significantly, which from every point of view is accurate. To say you have zero tolerance for crime is perhaps noble, but unrealistic. If you are relying on the police to prevent those crimes from occurring, with or without special injunctions, that unrealistic expectation becomes more of an insane expectation--not going to happen, ever.
                > >
                > > The idea of catching criminals and punishing them is reactionary and will never solve the problem of crime. Preventing crime, from a scientific point of view, means educating people, providing jobs, a supportive community and encouraging an inclusive culture, instead of divergent cultures. If you are not interested in supporting the things that prevent crime, stop talking about zero tolerance or injunctions. If you want to yell loudly in support of injunctions and giving police additional tools to fight crime, be prepared to either support other solutions, or keep living in a world that is far from free of crime, and most likely keep yelling about it.
                > >
                > > In America, the depression proved that good people will do anything to feed their family. That resulted in a social safety net that people cry about to this day. The miracle of welfare is that a very small amount of money prevents a huge amount of crime and essentially prevents the advent of class warfare, occupy movements not with standing. Paying people to do nothing? You bet, and worth every penny.
                > >
                > > Gangs formed to protect communities that did not get equal protection under the law and from the police. Arguably, about the time the police reformed, the economic infrastructure of this country changed to privatize and off shore a whole lot of jobs that used semi skilled labor, like the port of Long Beach. The resulting economic vacuum created an opportunity within the street gangs, supported by declining education and racist policies going underground. Ignoring the roots of educational and economic inequality has sustained gangs and created entirely self sustaining black market economies, and parallel cultures to support them. All of this independent of a mainstream that continues to find the tools to create social and economic equality controversial, while spending huge amounts of money to deal with the fall out. Add to this that there is absolutely nothing rehabilitative about the penal system, and gang injunctions start to look like a pretty
                > poor response to a serious problem.
                > >
                > > Additionally, kids that are starting to become involved with gangs might benefit from a different form of intervention than police harassment, no matter what they have been up to. It might be worth a few minutes of our time to discuss things with some people with some actual insight. Homeboy industries was founded down the street, and injunctions had nothing to do with it, but jobs do...
                > >
                > > Just saying.
                > > Thank you for your time.
                > > Tad
                > >
                > > --
                > > Tad Yenawine
                > > VTS/Visual Understanding in Education
                > > www.vtshome.org
                > >
                > > “Ignorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even usually surpassing knowledge.” EJ Potter, RIP 2012
                > >
                >
              • suzigaukroger
                A perspective from the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-echo-park-20130818,0,2673257.story ... From: cp00733
                Message 7 of 19 , Aug 18, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  A perspective from the LA Times:

                  http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-echo-park-20130818,0,2673257.story

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: cp00733 <peterscp007@...>
                  To: EchoElysianNCForum <EchoElysianNCForum@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Sat, Aug 17, 2013 11:35 pm
                  Subject: [EchoElysianNCForum] Re: Gang injunction/repost

                   
                  I'm with you Trey.

                  Charupha Wongwisteri died because she had the nerve to cook dinner with her mom in her kitchen, while 2 rival gang members shot at each other outside her home. She died, and they are walking the streets because the shooting was "self defense". Michael Lezay died in the alley behind then EXP leaders home, (now dead, shot in his own front yard in broad daylight on a Sunday afternoon.) Mikey was a young teen who deserved better. He comes from a good family, who still live here and still miss him, and DO NOT understand why he had to die. Roberto Lopez's was 4 yrs old. never even got to go to school...all of Court St. mourned him...there are more names and stories.

                  We'll all have to agree to disagree on this one as people with guns, are not victims. They are the bad guys. EXP gang members are not victims, and not the product of forming due to not having equal opportunities. They have a long generational history in the area...

                  Anyway, we have a chance to stop future stray bullets killing another innocent...

                  cp

                  --- In EchoElysianNCForum@yahoogroups.com, Trey Baskett <gcbthree@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > What is unrealistic and naive in your reponse Tad, is to expect entrenched criminal groups and some of their members, who chose crime as a lifestyle, to respond to hugs and social programs. Regardless of how some gangs came about; the truth is that some of today's will only respond to enforcement.
                  >
                  > That said, did you happen to read the entirety of the thread?. In my responses I made clear my belief in the value of a multifaceted approach to the problem. My resume includes a stint in social services. I strongly advocate alternatives to enforcement while wholeheartedly supporting this injunction.  
                  >
                  > It's about saving lives...of all races. Not real estate comps.
                  > Trey
                  >
                  > ------------------------------
                  > On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 7:06 PM PDT pbspeedo@... wrote:
                  >
                  > >You said it best.
                  > >
                  > >On Aug 17, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Tad Yenawine <strictlyty@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Hello All,
                  > > First I want to say that my former job as CIO of GEPENC made it necessary for me to forward postings by community members, which may have given the impression that I had an opinion or agenda about what I was passing on. I did not offer an opinion at the time, but will feel free to do so now.
                  > >
                  > > Trey, no one wants more crime. I think others have correctly pointed out that crime has dropped significantly, which from every point of view is accurate. To say you have zero tolerance for crime is perhaps noble, but unrealistic. If you are relying on the police to prevent those crimes from occurring, with or without special injunctions, that unrealistic expectation becomes more of an insane expectation--not going to happen, ever.
                  > >
                  > > The idea of catching criminals and punishing them is reactionary and will never solve the problem of crime. Preventing crime, from a scientific point of view, means educating people, providing jobs, a supportive community and encouraging an inclusive culture, instead of divergent cultures. If you are not interested in supporting the things that prevent crime, stop talking about zero tolerance or injunctions. If you want to yell loudly in support of injunctions and giving police additional tools to fight crime, be prepared to either support other solutions, or keep living in a world that is far from free of crime, and most likely keep yelling about it.
                  > >
                  > > In America, the depression proved that good people will do anything to feed their family. That resulted in a social safety net that people cry about to this day. The miracle of welfare is that a very small amount of money prevents a huge amount of crime and essentially prevents the advent of class warfare, occupy movements not with standing. Paying people to do nothing? You bet, and worth every penny.
                  > >
                  > > Gangs formed to protect communities that did not get equal protection under the law and from the police. Arguably, about the time the police reformed, the economic infrastructure of this country changed to privatize and off shore a whole lot of jobs that used semi skilled labor, like the port of Long Beach. The resulting economic vacuum created an opportunity within the street gangs, supported by declining education and racist policies going underground. Ignoring the roots of educational and economic inequality has sustained gangs and created entirely self sustaining black market economies, and parallel cultures to support them. All of this independent of a mainstream that continues to find the tools to create social and economic equality controversial, while spending huge amounts of money to deal with the fall out. Add to this that there is absolutely nothing rehabilitative about the penal system, and gang injunctions start to look like a pretty
                  > poor response to a serious problem.
                  > >
                  > > Additionally, kids that are starting to become involved with gangs might benefit from a different form of intervention than police harassment, no matter what they have been up to. It might be worth a few minutes of our time to discuss things with some people with some actual insight. Homeboy industries was founded down the street, and injunctions had nothing to do with it, but jobs do...
                  > >
                  > > Just saying.
                  > > Thank you for your time.
                  > > Tad
                  > >
                  > > --
                  > > Tad Yenawine
                  > > VTS/Visual Understanding in Education
                  > > www.vtshome.org
                  > >
                  > > “Ignorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even usually surpassing knowledge.” EJ Potter, RIP 2012
                  > >
                  >

                • Trey Baskett
                  The injunction does not prevent family members in a gang from associating with one another. ... pretty
                  Message 8 of 19 , Aug 18, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The injunction does not prevent family members in a gang from associating with one another.



                    ------------------------------
                    On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 7:19 AM PDT noelgr@... wrote:

                    >A perspective from the LA Times:
                    >
                    >http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-echo-park-20130818,0,2673257.story
                    >
                    >
                    >-----Original Message-----
                    >From: cp00733 <peterscp007@...>
                    >To: EchoElysianNCForum <EchoElysianNCForum@yahoogroups.com>
                    >Sent: Sat, Aug 17, 2013 11:35 pm
                    >Subject: [EchoElysianNCForum] Re: Gang injunction/repost
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >I'm with you Trey.
                    >
                    >Charupha Wongwisteri died because she had the nerve to cook dinner with her mom in her kitchen, while 2 rival gang members shot at each other outside her home. She died, and they are walking the streets because the shooting was "self defense". Michael Lezay died in the alley behind then EXP leaders home, (now dead, shot in his own front yard in broad daylight on a Sunday afternoon.) Mikey was a young teen who deserved better. He comes from a good family, who still live here and still miss him, and DO NOT understand why he had to die. Roberto Lopez's was 4 yrs old. never even got to go to school...all of Court St. mourned him...there are more names and stories.
                    >
                    >We'll all have to agree to disagree on this one as people with guns, are not victims. They are the bad guys. EXP gang members are not victims, and not the product of forming due to not having equal opportunities. They have a long generational history in the area...
                    >
                    >Anyway, we have a chance to stop future stray bullets killing another innocent...
                    >
                    >cp
                    >
                    >--- In EchoElysianNCForum@yahoogroups.com, Trey Baskett <gcbthree@...> wrote:
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> What is unrealistic and naive in your reponse Tad, is to expect entrenched criminal groups and some of their members, who chose crime as a lifestyle, to respond to hugs and social programs. Regardless of how some gangs came about; the truth is that some of today's will only respond to enforcement.
                    >>
                    >> That said, did you happen to read the entirety of the thread?. In my responses I made clear my belief in the value of a multifaceted approach to the problem. My resume includes a stint in social services. I strongly advocate alternatives to enforcement while wholeheartedly supporting this injunction. Â
                    >>
                    >> It's about saving lives...of all races. Not real estate comps.
                    >> Trey
                    >>
                    >> ------------------------------
                    >> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 7:06 PM PDT pbspeedo@... wrote:
                    >>
                    >> >You said it best.
                    >> >
                    >> >On Aug 17, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Tad Yenawine <strictlyty@...> wrote:
                    >> >
                    >> > Hello All,
                    >> > First I want to say that my former job as CIO of GEPENC made it necessary for me to forward postings by community members, which may have given the impression that I had an opinion or agenda about what I was passing on. I did not offer an opinion at the time, but will feel free to do so now.
                    >> >
                    >> > Trey, no one wants more crime. I think others have correctly pointed out that crime has dropped significantly, which from every point of view is accurate. To say you have zero tolerance for crime is perhaps noble, but unrealistic. If you are relying on the police to prevent those crimes from occurring, with or without special injunctions, that unrealistic expectation becomes more of an insane expectation--not going to happen, ever.
                    >> >
                    >> > The idea of catching criminals and punishing them is reactionary and will never solve the problem of crime. Preventing crime, from a scientific point of view, means educating people, providing jobs, a supportive community and encouraging an inclusive culture, instead of divergent cultures. If you are not interested in supporting the things that prevent crime, stop talking about zero tolerance or injunctions. If you want to yell loudly in support of injunctions and giving police additional tools to fight crime, be prepared to either support other solutions, or keep living in a world that is far from free of crime, and most likely keep yelling about it.
                    >> >
                    >> > In America, the depression proved that good people will do anything to feed their family. That resulted in a social safety net that people cry about to this day. The miracle of welfare is that a very small amount of money prevents a huge amount of crime and essentially prevents the advent of class warfare, occupy movements not with standing. Paying people to do nothing? You bet, and worth every penny.
                    >> >
                    >> > Gangs formed to protect communities that did not get equal protection under the law and from the police. Arguably, about the time the police reformed, the economic infrastructure of this country changed to privatize and off shore a whole lot of jobs that used semi skilled labor, like the port of Long Beach. The resulting economic vacuum created an opportunity within the street gangs, supported by declining education and racist policies going underground. Ignoring the roots of educational and economic inequality has sustained gangs and created entirely self sustaining black market economies, and parallel cultures to support them. All of this independent of a mainstream that continues to find the tools to create social and economic equality controversial, while spending huge amounts of money to deal with the fall out. Add to this that there is absolutely nothing rehabilitative about the penal system, and gang injunctions start to look like a
                    pretty
                    >> poor response to a serious problem.
                    >> >
                    >> > Additionally, kids that are starting to become involved with gangs might benefit from a different form of intervention than police harassment, no matter what they have been up to. It might be worth a few minutes of our time to discuss things with some people with some actual insight. Homeboy industries was founded down the street, and injunctions had nothing to do with it, but jobs do...
                    >> >
                    >> > Just saying.
                    >> > Thank you for your time.
                    >> > Tad
                    >> >
                    >> > --
                    >> > Tad Yenawine
                    >> > VTS/Visual Understanding in Education
                    >> > www.vtshome.org
                    >> >
                    >> > âIgnorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even usually surpassing knowledge.â EJ Potter, RIP 2012
                    >> >
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.