Trespassing at site of old Tiger Stadium

[Huggybear]

Articles like the one in the paper often muddle simultaneous altruistic and antisocial behavior - with the suggestion that they somehow cancel each other out. People in Detroit for decades have maintained property that belongs to the city - things like mowing the medians in residential boulevards, plowing streets, and things like that. And that's now branched out into parks and other places. But this article makes the suggestion that if one group of people comes onto the Tiger Stadium site and plays baseball, that it's somehow OK because that group might also mow the lawn. I would think twice before signing off on that conclusion.

If the choices are [[a) a weed-choked field that no one enters or [[b) a neatly manicured field in which people trespass to play ball, there are circumstances that would actually make the weed-choked field preferable. If you believe that the rule of law is important, you might conclude that access to the site has to be controlled - because that is what the law says, and it has to be enforced.

To say that the city has "better things to do" than enforcing trespassing laws on vacant lots is the same form of situational ethics that rationalizes an array of behaviors that are sadly everyday issues in Detroit: running red lights, drinking from open containers on the street, wandering onto a ball field and playing there, exploring abandoned buildings, vandalizing other people's property, dumping tires in vacant lots, stripping architectural details, pursuing drug and sex addictions in the city, and burning vacant houses. The patronizing refrain — often heard from the blue-eyed constituency confronted in flagrante delicto — is that the police should be pursuing "real" crimes. Well, all of these are still real crimes, even if they are often committed by white people and there is no specific and immediately identifiable human victim.

Everything that is on the books is there because democratically-elected officials decided that they should be there. That is what society has decided is the norm. When you start to depart from that because you [[personally) think it's pointless to obey the law, you're not just flouting the law - you're also telling your neighbors [[and representative democracy) to go to hell. And you would have no legitimate reason to complain when someone puts a brick through your car window to steal something because he thinks that petty larceny is excusable. A lot of what has happened here came about because everyone treated the city's law as optional and the city itself as disposable. Where there is no respect for [[or awareness of) the limits between your property and rights and those of others, the result is far worse than a couple of acres of un-mown ball field.

And come now, is the cop driving down Michigan Avenue really confronted by a choice between stopping a rape in progress and stopping what he's seeing going on right then and there?

"Um, Adam-12, we have a rape in progress at Seven Mile and Gratiot."

"Uh, copy that, um... can't do; I have to bust a bunch of crackers playing Ty Cobb at Michigan and Trumbull."

The whole argument is a canard. And there is a deterrent value in busting suburbanites [[or Detroiters) acting like they own a place when they don't.

Considering the city's lack of resources to maintain the site, it is absurd that they would chase these people off the field. This is precisely the kind of dedication needed to help improve the city, and the city has needlessly put a damper on the whole thing. Someone should really try to get the attention of a council member or the mayor.

[cman710]

Huggybear, I completely understand your concern with law and order, and I agree that the city needs to step up enforcement on certain quality of life crimes. I believe that "broken window" theory policing works, and I am in favor of enforcing the rule of law.

That said, I think that we need to approach these issues realistically. All the other things you mention have obvious negative consequences. Running red lights can cause someone to be killed [[whether pedestrian or other driver). Drinking open containers on the street does not necessarily hurt anyone directly, but hurts the quality of life, and if rampant, would lead to other problems. Exploring abandoned buildings has some negatives - someone could get hurt, plus urban explorers are sometimes destructive of other people's property. Dumping tires in vacant lots not only creates a potential fire hazard, but reduces the quality of life of anyone nearby. It also encourages further illegal dumping. Stripping architectural details hurts us all because we lose part of our shared heritage, besides the fact that it is stealing. Drug and sex addictions clearly have awful negative effects, as do burnt out hulks.

How could you compare that to trespassing on an open field, mowing the lawn, and playing a baseball game? The reality is that the city has finite resources with which to combat crime. Those limited resources should be employed to address the worst quality of life crimes first. Moreover, do we really want to discourage people from doing things like cleaning up parks and other city-owned property?

[Detroitej72]

Everything that is on the books is there because democratically-elected officials decided that they should be there. That is what society has decided is the norm.

Like this: http://detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?t=6467

[MCP-001]

Everything that is on the books is there because democratically-elected officials decided that they should be there. That is what society has decided is the norm. When you start to depart from that because you [[personally) think it's pointless to obey the law, you're not just flouting the law - you're also telling your neighbors [[and representative democracy) to go to hell. And you would have no legitimate reason to complain when someone puts a brick through your car window to steal something because he thinks that petty larceny is excusable. A lot of what has happened here came about because everyone treated the city's law as optional and the city itself as disposable. Where there is no respect for [[or awareness of) the limits between your property and rights and those of others, the result is far worse than a couple of acres of un-mown ball field.

And we as the people who put those elected officials there in the first place, are the final arbiters of whether or not those laws are really what we want.

http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_state_la...lification.pdf

If the land in question was private property, then your argument would have merit.

The thing here is [[at least last time I checked anyway), the land is city property, and literally a vacant lot.

No one is being harmed by people playing baseball. The property is not threatened by people playing baseball. So your argument about damages being incurred is moot.

[Huggybear]

Wow. Glad I didn't cheat off you in Government class. Citizens elect legislators who make the laws, and judges and juries enforce them. Aside from voting, individuals have no role [[in any modern society) as the arbiters of laws [[they don't even have that role on juries, where they can only decide facts). Citizens do not have any right to bypass the system by deciding what laws they should and should not obey. If you accept that premise, you would also have to accept that someone could murder you and walk because he concluded "[i] as the [person] who put those elected officials there in the first place, [am] the final arbiter[] of whether or not [the law against homicide is] really what [i] want." Have fun with that, Judge Dredd.

[[By the way, the suburbanites featured in the article can't even vote in Detroit, so you couldn't even argue that they are even arbiters of the law.)

And you're also dead wrong on the distinction between public and private property. That the City owns something does not mean that it is open to the public. Governmental entities [[and things like the DDA) own property just like you or I do, and they also have the right to control access. Even if you had never heard this directly, you should have been able to divine this from the fact that the City owns numerous facilities where access is restricted to certain hours or prohibited to the public. The DDA owns the Book-Cadillac garage, but you can't park there for free. In fact, Tiger Stadium was owned by the city for the last 20 or so years of its existence - did this give you the right to break in and wander around during games or after hours? The sole exceptions are areas dedicated to public use.

The "damage" is to the system - and I guess you proved my point about the lawless attitudes that Detroiters and suburbanites have.

And we as the people who put those elected officials there in the first place, are the final arbiters of whether or not those laws are really what we want.

http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_state_la...lification.pdf

If the land in question was private property, then your argument would have merit.

The thing here is [[at least last time I checked anyway), the land is city property, and literally a vacant lot.

No one is being harmed by people playing baseball. The property is not threatened by people playing baseball. So your argument about damages being incurred is moot.

[daddeeo]

I guess they take their cues from their elected officials. The old trickle down effect.

[cman710]

The "damage" is to the system - and I guess you proved my point about the lawless attitudes that Detroiters and suburbanites have.

I can understand your point, and personally, I am not approaching this issue through the framework that these people should be able to do what they want because the land is city property. In fact, I am in no way disputing the city's right to kick these people out or to cite them for trespassing. The law is the law. What I am arguing is that, in a city with an awful crime problem with inadequate enforcement, it is silly to spend resources to provide incentives againt private citizens improving a piece of land in a way that harms no one.

[MCP-001]

Wow. Glad I didn't cheat off you in Government class. Citizens elect legislators who make the laws, and judges and juries enforce them. Aside from voting, individuals have no role [[in any modern society) as the arbiters of laws [[they don't even have that role on juries, where they can only decide facts). Citizens do not have any right to bypass the system by deciding what laws they should and should not obey. If you accept that premise, you would also have to accept that someone could murder you and walk because he concluded "[i] as the [person] who put those elected officials there in the first place, [am] the final arbiter[] of whether or not [the law against homicide is] really what [i] want." Have fun with that, Judge Dredd.

Too bad you didn't.

I aced all of my civics and Poli Sci classes, you might have actually learned something.

Try reading the link before posting next time.

[Meddle]

No one is being harmed by people playing baseball. The property is not threatened by people playing baseball. So your argument about damages being incurred is moot.

Incorrect.

If someone gets hurt out there while trespassing, the city is on the hook for their injuries and damages. The city would try and fight it saying the injured party was trespassing, but they'd lose and have to pay off in the end since the property is essentially unsecured. A few officers wandering through chasing people off costs a whole lot less than a multi-million dollar injury lawsuit.


There is absolutely NO reason at all for anyone to be on that property without proper permission. A few days in jail might get that point across. DPD should be arresting people instead of just chasing them off or ticketing them.

[manualshift]

Incorrect.

If someone gets hurt out there while trespassing, the city is on the hook for their injuries and damages. The city would try and fight it saying the injured party was trespassing, but they'd lose and have to pay off in the end since the property is essentially unsecured. A few officers wandering through chasing people off costs a whole lot less than a multi-million dollar injury lawsuit.


There is absolutely NO reason at all for anyone to be on that property without proper permission. A few days in jail might get that point across. DPD should be arresting people instead of just chasing them off or ticketing them.

You are WRONG.

I would love to hear your theory as to why the City of Detroit does not enjoy governmental immunity from personal injury lawsuits under the Governmental Liability Tort Act.

Under Michigan law, no permission is required to enter land that is not attached to farmland and marked "no trespassing" or fenced in. I.E. Not trespassing. Under Detroit law, climbing on city or private structures without permission is a crime. I would love to hear your theory why I would have to get permission to enter ANY other land in Michigan.

[MCP-001]

Incorrect.

If someone gets hurt out there while trespassing, the city is on the hook for their injuries and damages. The city would try and fight it saying the injured party was trespassing, but they'd lose and have to pay off in the end since the property is essentially unsecured. A few officers wandering through chasing people off costs a whole lot less than a multi-million dollar injury lawsuit.


There is absolutely NO reason at all for anyone to be on that property without proper permission. A few days in jail might get that point across. DPD should be arresting people instead of just chasing them off or ticketing them.

If that's the case, then Detroit should padlock EVERY baseball diamond located within the city. Why, who knows what horrible disfigurement could befall someone playing....baseball?

On your other point, jail space is at a premium right now. Would you rather have [[pick one: drunk driver, car thief, assault & battery, pedophile) locked up? Or someone committing the heinous crime of a pick-up base ball game on the corner of Michigan & Trumbull?

I like eno's idea.

Fence off the area and charge people a diamond fee to play there. They can use the revenue from that to have someone police the area and run a lawn mower over it once in a while.

Who wouldn't want to play a game of baseball where Tiger Stadium once stood?

[Detroitnerd]

Who wouldn't want to play a game of baseball where Tiger Stadium once stood?

Attachment 7012
He wouldn't. And what's good for Mikey is good for the rest of us.