Signs, signs, everywhere (gang) signs…

Over the last week or so, and culminating in a public forum last Tuesday, the topic du jour on the local blogosphere was the gang problem in Salisbury and how to combat it. Unfortunately, I ended up missing both sides of the Tuesday gang forum presentation due to work and a previous appointment, but I read in Justice For All? here and here that it was a very good presentation.

With that, I became inspired to make a request to my local elected official, who happens to be the famous (or infamous, if you support the so-called “Dream Team”) Debbie Campbell. It went something like this:

Dear Mrs. Campbell:

In the last few days, there’s been quite a bit of discussion about what to do about the problem of gangs in Salisbury. At the same time, you have been one pushing for more accountability in city government, and by extension, those who own or seek to develop property in the city. It’s a sad fact that only about 1/3 of the dwellings in Salisbury are owner-occupied, right now I’m one of those 2/3 who rent.

But with owning property comes responsibility, and I’ve seen a lot of instances (either in person or on local blogs) where gang graffiti (or “tagging”) is allowed to remain untouched on buildings and structures. I know one element (albeit a minor one) of preventing gangs from establishing their “turf” is to paint over these tags and symbols as quickly as possible after they are applied. Further, leaving these symbols sets a bad example for property maintenance in that locality – one tagged house or outbuilding can start bringing a whole neighborhood down and embolden the “wannabe” youths who may become inspired to join up with a local gang.

I’m sure there are ordinances on the books regarding how landlords and other property owners maintain their property. But something I think should be added is a regulation that owners (or their agents) should regularly inspect their properties and eliminate this graffiti as quickly as possible, or after a period of time the city would fix it and charge the owner to do so. (Preferably the owner would take care of it, I know Salisbury’s city employees are already overburdened.)

While I am certainly in the libertarian camp of those who favor as few restrictions as possible on property use, I also find that the current risk to public safety from gangs does outweigh the right of the property owner to use his property as he desires. Something that does not seem to be shown enough in this day and age within Salisbury (and in many other places for that matter) is pride of ownership, and it’s going to take whole neighborhoods to combat this scourge we are facing.

One caveat: I would like to see this ordinance set with a sunset date, but this is only because I believe laws (at least those subservient to the U.S. and Maryland Constitutions) should be revisited periodically in order to determine their appropriateness for the conditions present at the time. Currently I’m of the opinion that such a law is appropriate, hopefully in a decade it may not be required anymore.

Since I’m no student of the law nor do I have a copy of the Salisbury city ordinances handy, I’ll leave it up to you and/or the city’s legal department to properly word what I’m describing as either a new ordinance or as a supplement to an existing one. But I appreciate your taking a few minutes to read my concern and thank you for your service in general.

Sincerely,

Michael Swartz
(address)

I sent this out on Wednesday, so far no response from Debbie Campbell. That’s a bit surprising, I have spoken to her on one other occasion and thought her rather courteous.

That brings me to another topic peripheral to the gang subject. There was this comment on JFA? in regard to a throwaway line Hadley posted endorsing Mike Lewis for Wicomico County Sheriff (clipped verbatim):

I’ll vote for Mike Lewis before I ever vote for major doris who does nothing but campaign at the expense of the citizens of this county. Pretending to be representing the Sheriff’s Office. Righttttttttttttt.

Like I said, I did not attend the gang forum so I have no opportunity to verify this – however, I did listen to the pair of interviews given on Bill Reddish’s WICO radio morning show and read the account in the Daily Times. Nowhere on those accounts was it mentioned that Major Doris was running for sheriff. She certainly had every opportunity to plug her campaign on the two interviews she shared with Dan Daugherty, but in truth she let him do most of the talking. So I’m assuming that at the gang summits, it wasn’t made obvious that she was in the running for the post.

Now I’ll grant that name recognition is a big part of the political game, but could it be that Sheriff Nelms delegated the task of handling the gang summit to Major Schonbrunner? It’s his opinion that she should take over the job when he leaves after this term, so why not give her the responsibility of putting the event together? Makes sense to me, and it ties in with her current administrative position within the office.

I’ve had a couple opportunities to speak with Major Doris for some length, and both times I’ve found her accomodating and willing to answer questions. If anything, I think she’s quite the low-key candidate and far from political.

As I’ve said before, if you think that the Sheriff’s Department is run well, certainly there are candidates from within representing both parties. If you want to shake the place up, again, both parties have at least one person with a law enforcement background that doesn’t involve the current Sheriff’s Department. But whoever wins is going to have to put up with a gang problem that we need to solve as a community.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

3 thoughts on “Signs, signs, everywhere (gang) signs…”

  1. Hi Michael. Love your site. Especially admire your sincerity.

    Don’t expect too much from Debbie. You’ll just repeatedly feel let down — like the rest of us.

    Keep up the good work!

  2. Mrs. Campbell has been out of town for the last few days. I’m sure that a reply to your letter is forthcoming.

  3. You are both correct in a way. I did get a short note yesterday from Debbie Campbell basically thanking me for my input and that she’d forward my e-mail to John Pick and have the department heads check into the current statutes and wordings.

Comments are closed.