Thanks for providing a copy of the Good Neighbor Agreement,
Andrew. It looks
sufficiently explicit to me as to what action will need to be taken by the
prospective buyers. Their written acceptance will show just how serious
their intentions are, in the absence of their own written plan, which would
never be likely to be forthcoming in a manner acceptable to anyone.
Especially in light of that I have a few reservations about
First, section 1b seems a little heavy handed. Metal detectors
everyone who comes in seems like a civil liberties violation. I have had a
plainclothes man who was presumable operating as a security guard frisk me
without warning while LEAVING Deano's grocery a year or two ago and I found
it to be quite intrusive. After my initial relief I wasn't being mugged,
irritation that I was subjected to a search when I was not guilty of
anything set in. Sure, this tactic offers some security, but it also further
alienates people already on the fringes of society and just plain intrudes
on people who are not. People not in prison deserve the same rights as
everyone else to patronize legitimate businesses, and we need to hold all
businesses to equal standards. Thompson's POV and Mrs. Helen's have not
required this type or search when I have patronized them and they have felt
completely safe. I really think we have to give people a little benefit of
the doubt here, kind of like our legal system is designed to presume
innocence until proven guilt. At the very least it should be up to the
business to decide whether to search their patrons, rather than a
I have a similar complaint with section 10. While I don't know
should be illegal or otherwise discouraged for businesses to put up cameras
on their own, and I certainly appreciate their value for security, I have
serious reservations about public agencies REQUIRING businesses to operate
cameras that record people on public sidewalks. We live in a time when
personal liberty and privacy are under unprecedented attack from both
technology and public policy and I think we need to be very careful about
what we are willing to give up for security's sake. There are obvious crimes
that occur on Madison near Deano's all the time that could easily be curbed
by the police doing their jobs. Cameras cannot and should not replace that.
My last issue concerns what I assume to just be a typo in section
says "any action OR inaction on the part of Deano's to comply with the terms
of this agreement will be deemed a material breach of this agreement."
Obviously we can't expect action to comply to be noncompliance, and I assume
there is just a missing word here or something.
Overall I like the agreement and am increasingly encouraged
Deano's can be
transformed into a legitimate business and asset to our community. I am,
however, against any Orwellian measures as part of our agreement with them.
Simplistic solutions that equally rob innocent and guilty people of liberty
and privacy are not the answer.
My additions would be:
1. to get an affirmative commitment to work with the community
prevention efforts. Eliminating the drug, shooting, and prosititution is in
both the community and Mr. Parker interest. I would like to see us both be
partners in this effort.
2. add something about non-business hours. Either Mr. Parker
or Dean Falls
should be doing something about what happens in the immediate area of the