Would a Detroit Neighborhood or Block Club hire a private security force?

**Danny** · April-19-14, 10:06 AM

Today most Detroit Neighborhoods fell through years of crime and blight. Long ago some Detroit sub-divisions had private security forces. Now it's been reduced. Since urban street crime is rampant, Detroiters being vigilant and Detroit Police force reduced, would hiring a private security force keep street crime down? Anyone have thoughts on this matter?

**Király** · April-19-14, 10:09 AM

Palmer Woods already does this.

http://www.palmerwoods.org/palmer-woods-association

**Spartan** · April-19-14, 01:28 PM

Boston Edison has a private force as well. I think Sherwood Forest, and maybe Indian Village too.

**Bobl** · April-19-14, 10:19 PM

"Coppers Canyon", on the east side, self patrolled their neighborhood, for a while. Many police and firemen lived in the area. Didn't last long.
I wouldn't be surprised to see more private security firms hired, though.

**sumas** · April-20-14, 03:40 AM

Yep lived in the past in Copper Canyon. Private security is wildly expensive though.

Very surprised to find I now live in a high crime district. I walk where I want, area children and teens are very respectful. I have great neighbors. I feel very safe.

Hoping our DY friends still want to porch sit with us. This is how we know our neighbors. Have all new to us stuff this year for great porch seating.

Sometimes those crime numbers get distorted. Hey everyone seems to hate Detroit.

Our police response is excellent. I truly love my home, my neighborhood, my access to things I care about.

**Zacha341** · April-20-14, 09:35 AM

The PW system is working so far. I have a friend that lives there and came home to find her alarm malfunctioning and what seemed to be window tampering. The private security force quickly came out, did a full sweep of her house, all floors, closets and crawl spaces, while the alarm company reset her alarm. She was very pleased with the service and not having to take the risk of doing the security sweep herself or waiting for DPD.

Originally Posted by Király

Palmer Woods already does this.

http://www.palmerwoods.org/palmer-woods-association

**Danny** · April-20-14, 10:20 AM

When I was living on Lawton St. between Puritan and McNichols St. [[Six Mile Rd.) in the 1980s, Palmer Park and University District had 24 hour security patrols all round every block to keep the riff-raffs out. Today the patrols are there but almost non-existant.

**sumas** · April-20-14, 10:38 AM

Good Lord that's easy. Every resident is supposed to contribute a small sum of money, when they do not, service becomes limited.

**EastsideAl** · April-20-14, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by sumas

Good Lord that's easy. Every resident is supposed to contribute a small sum of money, when they do not, service becomes limited.

And that's usually the biggest difficulty.

Indian Village has gone back and forth on this issue over the years. First of all, there have always been doubts about the actual effectiveness of such a service. Beyond its psychological value, there really isn't that much evidence that it does all that much to deter or combat crime, particularly in a place like IV where entrance to the neighborhood can't really be restricted.

Secondly, as you said a few posts ago, private security of this sort is actually quite expensive. And to even try to be significantly effective there would have to be more guards and cars than people could reasonably be expected to pay for.

As it was, there was always a huge "free rider" problem. Homeowners who said they wanted the service in surveys wouldn't pay up for it in reality. Seeing this, others would stop paying as well. So the service came to be funded by an ever declining number of homeowners, even as it became more expensive. In the end, this always ended up with the termination of the security service, until it would come up again a few years later and everyone would swear again to pay for it.

And then there's the sensitivity issue, which is always ready to rear its ugly head, particularly here in Detroit. People are always happy to have a security service stop and question people, and call the police for suspicious activity, until it's them or their friends, relatives, and children who are on the receiving end. Then comes the discussion of under-trained, intrusive, over-zealous, or insensitive security guards. Multiply that by enough people who come to see the security service as more of a intrusive inconvenience or threat than a benefit, and you quickly lose sufficient support to continue the service.

**sumas** · April-20-14, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

And that's usually the biggest difficulty.

Indian Village has gone back and forth on this issue over the years. First of all, there have always been doubts about the actual effectiveness of such a service. Beyond its psychological value, there really isn't that much evidence that it does all that much to deter or combat crime, particularly in a place like IV where entrance to the neighborhood can't really be restricted.

Secondly, as you said a few posts ago, private security of this sort is actually quite expensive. And to even try to be significantly effective there would have to be more guards and cars than people could reasonably be expected to pay for.

As it was, there was always a huge "free rider" problem. Homeowners who said they wanted the service in surveys wouldn't pay up for it in reality. Seeing this, others would stop paying as well. So the service came to be funded by an ever declining number of homeowners, even as it became more expensive. In the end, this always ended up with the termination of the security service, until it would come up again a few years later and everyone would swear again to pay for it.

And then there's the sensitivity issue, which is always ready to rear its ugly head, particularly here in Detroit. People are always happy to have a security service stop and question people, and call the police for suspicious activity, until it's them or their friends, relatives, and children who are on the receiving end. Then comes the discussion of under-trained, intrusive, over-zealous, or insensitive security guards. Multiply that by enough people who come to see the security service as more of a intrusive inconvenience or threat than a benefit, and you quickly lose sufficient support to continue the service.

Every word you said is so true. My favorite though is neighborhood watch?? Old farts [[of which I am one now) cruising in private cars with CB and flashers. Not working for me at all and never did. The only way I would do that duty is to make sure people [[women and seniors) got into their homes safely in the dark..

**wolverine** · April-20-14, 02:55 PM

Anyone ever know the success of randomly gating neighborhood streets? It was done in Dayton, OH to cut down on crime to prevent neighborhood outsiders from randomly driving through.

I know someone pointed out that "you can't close a public street" but that's not true. Actually, residents can petition street closures in nearly every city in America. You only have to provide mandatory pedestrian and emergency access. In the case of Dayton, you could drive a car on any street, but only along a certain path that was known to residents. To outsiders, the streets would be a painful confusing maze to navigate...only easy to follow for residents. The street maze would be altered so outsiders could not figure out the pattern. Apparently it had some effect on reducing crime.