Chapter Ten: Children - Providing a Strong Foundation
Chapter Twelve: Competing Perspectives - Preparing for the Future"Everybody knows about Trinity Court, everybody's afraid of Trinity Court."
- Resident
Our initial introduction to the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities involved, in part, a debriefing from county and local service agencies on the status of crime and safety in the community. The picture that many service providers painted of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park was a grim and dangerous depiction based on fear. One service provider told us, "There is a level of violence that doesn't exist at some of the other housing projects." Another provider spoke about her own experience with Trinity Court, "I have a very high threshold, but Trinity Court is one of the few places I visit that can be scary… The supervisors wanted us to go to Trinity Court in pairs because of safety concerns, but because of time restraints that's not feasible… I felt very vulnerable there."
On the other hand, when we began to speak to residents another vision of the safety of the community began to emerge. Other than safe play areas, few of the residents had safety concerns for themselves or for their children. One resident explained to us that, "Everyone but the residents think it's bad." Another said, "[It's a] really nice neighborhood to live in. Not bad like they say. Before I moved here, drugs, shooting. Not now." Residents repeatedly stated that they feel comfortable and safe in the community. There is a general feeling that people look out for one another in Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. One resident mentioned that she does not need to lock her door because "No one would go in [my apartment] without asking."
With two competing views of Pritchard Park and especially Trinity Court, which is normally the point of reference for service providers, how can the myth be separated from the reality? And how can an objective opinion about the safety of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park be constructed to more judiciously classify the communities?
The difference in opinion about the safety of the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities is not only witnessed between service providers and residents. There is also a degree of disagreement between those residents who live in Trinity Court compared with those who live in Pritchard Park. Pritchard Park residents view Trinity Court as a more dangerous neighborhood than is their own. Many of the Trinity Court residents agree that Pritchard Park is a relatively safer place to live; however, the residents of Trinity Court do not see their own neighborhood as quite as dangerous as the residents of Pritchard Park are wont to characterize it.
When we asked about safety, a resident from Pritchard Park declared: "Pritchard Park - yes [it is safe] and Trinity Court - no. If I lived down there [Trinity Court], my kids wouldn't be outside." Another Pritchard Park resident said, "It's rougher down there. Pritchard Park used to have just as many problems as Trinity Court. Now it's better in Pritchard. It's because of drugs in Trinity Court. There's more of a drug problem in Trinity Court." A resident from Trinity Court concurred, "Pritchard Park is not as bad. [The] police aren't there as much. Older people mostly live in Pritchard." Still, many Trinity Court residents said that their community is safe, even for the children.
When we spoke with service providers about the differences between Trinity Court and Pritchard Park, most of the providers did not feel as if they knew the communities well enough to say what differences existed. One provider who has had a great deal of contact with the two communities explained that, "Trinity Court is the starting point of housing, so the least desirable people live there - especially young moms. Therefore there's more immature types of behavior. The risk is higher for drug trading. Pritchard Park looks down on Trinity Court." This lack of consensus with primary data makes it difficult to assess the reality of the situation.
The most important and relevant way for the police department to develop their perspective on community safety is to generate a crime report on the reported miscreant activities. As summarized in this document in Chapter Five: Crime, six arrests were made from July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998. Also, there were reports of seven assaults, four gunshots, one sex offense, one stabbing, six breaking and entering, nine fights, and 13 drug informants. There was also one missing person, one overdose, one runaway, two suicide attempts, and two acts of vandalism (Chapel Hill Police, 1998). During the months of our involvement with the communities, there were three drug incidences, a shooting, and an alleged hostage situation that created a 12 hour "stand off."
As explained in Chapter Five: Crime, the crime that occurs in Trinity Court and Pritchard Park is notably higher than what occurs in Chapel Hill as a whole. The community policing initiative which places police officers in Trinity Court and Pritchard Park reaffirms the idea that the police need to be present there (Service provider, personal communication, December 9, 1998). Crime, however, is relative. For Chapel Hill, the number of incidents that occur in Trinity Court and Pritchard Park is disproportionately high, and therefore, a legitimate concern for the police department. On the other hand, in the view of a service provider, "Crime is relative and not bad compared to Raleigh or Durham." It is also important to consider that a large percentage of the crimes that are committed in Trinity Court and Pritchard Park are the acts of outsiders that are entering the communities uninvited, rather than the acts of residents (Service provider, personal communication, December 9, 1998).
The problem that occurs as a result of the belief held by the police that Trinity Court and Pritchard Park are dangerous communities is felt by residents and expressed in the following comments. One resident said, "There is police harassment all the time. Partly because they don't know the residents well. But they don't have a right to harass people." Another resident stated, "Police can just sit down here and make people uncomfortable." A resident criticized the police stating that, "You can't sit outside and talk because you may be incriminated. They sit in the top [Pritchard Park] daily but are watching the bottom [Trinity Court]." Even those residents who appreciate the presence of the police had qualms about their policing methods, "The police are down there enough. [It] makes it safer. But their relationship with residents is not good at all. They sneak around in front of the kids." Another resident commented, "Yes, it's a safe place to live. My grandkids feel safe here. I would like to see the police here more. But others don't like them so much."
The role of the police in this community is to protect, and yet it seems that the officers are also using their authority to intimidate the residents. Much of the discomfort that residents feel as a result of the police presence in their communities seems to be due to cultural sensitivity. The police, according to the residents, do not respect them or their rights. One service provider mentioned that "Officers are a little overbearing. Residents don't like them. We need to train the officers not tell Trinity Court and Pritchard Park what they need." Both sides seem to have too many preconceived ideas about what the other side is like. There is a necessity for a compromise that can only be reached through communication and tolerance.
One of the issues that divides the police from the residents is the Trespass Law. This regulation was created and maintained by the Chapel Hill Department of Housing and the police department. The goal was to institute a list of individuals who are prohibited from entering public housing property because they are a danger or nuisance to the quality of life. An individual may be added to the trespass list for any of the following reasons: engaging in any criminal activity; disturbing residents' enjoyment of their accommodations; destroying, defacing, or damaging public housing property; or coming onto the property uninvited. A person can be trespassed from all housing sites or just a particular community. Most of the residents with whom we spoke told us that the Trespass Law is unfair and disruptive for residents because it often prevents family members from visiting them. According to a resident, many individuals are placed on the list because of hearsay: "You can get your ass kicked out just on hearsay." When "trespassed" individuals enter the community in spite of their "trespass" status, the residents associated with those individuals are in danger of being evicted if the person is caught on the property (Chapel Hill Department of Housing, 1996).
A resident protested, "The trespass list is really a problem. Anyone and everyone can be put on it. If they want to put you on it, they'll do it. People lose their freedom to visit their families." Another resident said, "If they're outside fighting, and you haven't seen them, don't even know they're there, you get kicked out even if they've never been in your house. We ain't trying to go to jail because they do something stupid. That's why I'm trying to get out of here."
Because of multiple unintended consequences, service providers acknowledge that the Trespass Law is a problem that needs consideration. One provider explained: "People are careful. These rules don't change behavior, but it does make people more secretive and breeds more dishonesty." One service provider has organized meetings so residents could discuss the Trespass Law. She said, "Not much can be done about the [Trespass Law], so we need to get residents to understand that by having trespassed people come into their homes, they can be evicted at the first offense. We are working for visitation rights for families in which a husband or brother or father is on the list. The main purpose of our meetings is to work out ways to work with the law, while not breaking the law."
The most indisputable results of our interviews is that there is an urgent need for facilitated communication between residents and service providers, especially the police. Because there is such disparity in the views of residents and service providers, it is not clear if Trinity Court and Pritchard Park can be defined as safe communities. Issues such as the Trespass Law and preconceived opinions create a degree of animosity between the residents and the police that is unsettling and even harmful to the communities. It is important to note that the residents do not feel that they live in a dangerous neighborhood or that their children are in danger. If Trinity Court and Pritchard Park are to continue to improve and combat their reputation as a "crime infested trap," relations among the police department and residents must improve.
|
Chapter Ten: Children - Providing a Strong Foundation |
Back to TOC | Chapter Twelve: Competing Perspectives - Preparing for the Future |