The “L” word and civil rights

by Michelle Ryan

The following article is the first in a series about safer neighborhoods, presented by the FORUM newspaper. With the exception of Chicago, no names of individuals or municipalities involved, or who participated in the research will be published.

We have all seen news reports where concerned residents march through their neighborhood holding signs, and vowing to take their streets back. Apparently, the neighborhood lost control of their streets somewhere along the way. It doesn't happen overnight. There are always warning signs.

The first red flag I noticed in my neighborhood was in the summer of 2004. Throughout July and August, a group of kids would hang out in the street, on the corner, and on other people's lawns. It would start off with just a few, but sometimes escalated up to 30 kids all over the place. Tempers flared as drivers tried to navigate around the crowd.

Neighbors called police as the situation got out of hand. Vehicles and homes were damaged. Most disturbing was how many times the police were called, and there was no legal action taken. The kids quickly learned that there were no consequences, and regrouped as soon as police left. It was embarrassing to have friends or relatives come over.

The concern was brought up at community police meetings. I presented a petition to the village to direct kids to a nearby park that was not being utilized, and met with village officials on 3 different occasions. I was told that every year it was a different corner. Instead of taking corrective action, the problem was just moved along. Something was clearly wrong here. We were losing control.

Because of an anti-loitering lawsuit that the city of Chicago lost, the word 'loitering' was forbidden. Hence, the “L” word. Village officials removed our anti-loitering law because they were afraid of violating the civil rights of minors. No one else's rights mattered, and that in itself, is a civil rights violation. The fate of the village was sealed.

With no protocol to deal with congregating in public, the problem has spread throughout the village. Residents are encouraged to call the police immediately, and they will shag the crowd. The shag routine has proven to be inefficient. Police brass have advised residents to confront the crowd in a respectful way and try to reason with them.

A resident can always file a peace disturbance, but has to go to Markham court on a date determined by the court. This is not encouraging to the responsible citizen who may have to take a day off from work. It may or may not result in a penalty. This is one of the ways that villages lose their decent residents who are replaced by troublemakers looking for a place that tolerates them.

In 2007, a south suburb made headlines when they successfully enforced an anti-loitering law when youths were blocking a public road and walkway, where pedestrians felt intimidated. At the same time, a few neighbors and I racked up hours of unpaid babysitting, as we had to monitor our street and sidewalks that became a playground. After a mob scene turned violent, and police charged no one despite evidence, it was time to get outside help.

The suburb that was able to maintain law and order sent a copy of their ordinance. Other suburbs were also aware of Chicago's lawsuit, and revised their loitering ordinances as needed. 9 south suburbs, and the city of Chicago participated in my research after explaining the trouble we were having. 6 suburbs sent copies of their ordinances. Only one other suburb interviewed, was also in a potential pickle.

The Department of Children and Family Services also clarified some important concerns. Although a child as young as 13 can be left alone and in charge of other children, the 13-year-old must provide supervision. If the behavior is such that police need to be called, the parents can be charged with improper supervision either by local ordinance, or the DCFS can investigate, and charge parents under state law.

By spring, 2008, Chicago has been all over the news as violence and blood spills into their streets. One effort to protect children was moving their curfew back a half hour. A Chicago police sergeant involved with CAPS, and who used to patrol the district next to my village, stressed the importance of following their lead with the curfew. The sergeant emphasized that police can only enforce laws, not create them, and a grass roots approach toward elected officials was best.

It was time to come out of the closet. I had amassed enough evidence to present to the village board, and asked around for a 'go see'. Members of our community policing group met with Public Official A. The evidence was impressive enough to warrant another meeting including business owners affected by loitering leading to mob scenes.

E veryone reviewed, and agreed on ordinances of other suburbs to tailor fit a proposal to present to the village board.

There is an opportunity here for a village that is well on its way to being sucked into the abyss of Chicago, to be an example of a village that transforms itself. This will be a challenge, but it can be done. At least one other suburb is interested in what we come up with.

To be continued in the July 16th issue.