Senator Checks In On Clinton Hill Drug Trade

So what if the drug dealing has "resumed"? Are the sellers forcing their product down your, or anyone's, throat?

There is a remedy to this "problem", you know: end prohibition.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 9:25 AM

Opinions about real estate are one thing; now you have descended to irresponsibility. How can you print the state senator's letter in its entirity without even acknowledging Dep. Insp. Cosgrove's response dated October 25, 2006. That letter states, in part, "I have researched the locations you complained of.... For the period of July 1st through October 14th, 2006 there were a total of three (3) 911 calls for service at 132 Cambridge Place. Of these two were for [minor non-drug related offenses]. At 134 Cambridge Place there were zero (0) calls for service." This thread is nothing more than the digital equivalent of a public pillorying and should be removed from this site immediately.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 10:02 AM

oh yes, let's continue the slander-fest! if I was an owner or resident of either of these properties, I would print the website and sue Brownstoner for slander or libel.

hey Mr. B', who is your source for these letters? let's sue their ass too!

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 10:30 AM

two of the fundamental principles of public discourse, points on which the New York State Public Officers Law is premised, is that discussion is open to the public (which a weblog is) and that all active participants and observers can know who is speaking, which these anonymous comments do not allow. while perhaps legally defensible, I find this thread morally reprehensible.

the senator should be ashamed of herself. you would think after decades in office, she would have a better sense of how to conduct herself as a public official.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 10:52 AM

Brownstoner is dead on. Something has to be done about the rampant drug dealing and crime in the southeastern section of Clinton Hill, in particular the Grand-Classon corridor of Fulton Street. And to add more fuel to the fire, the Lefferts Place hotel, after being shut down by court order since July, just opened up again last week! Everyone knows that the hotel is under strict surveillance so thus far the dealers, prostitutes and johns have not returned. I'm sure that won't last as the hotel isn't making any money at all as a legit establishment. It's only a matter of time before Moses Fried and the Prince Hotel Group return to their criminal ways and start running the place as a whorehouse again. And when they do I hope the Brooklyn DA throws the book at them, confiscates their building and shuts them down permanently. Already the hotel is running afoul of the stipulation agreement with the city by discontinuing the court mandated 24 hour uniform security detail at the hotel! The 88th should definitely ramp up their foot and squad car patrol near the hotel and make sure that the hotel is honoring the stipulation agreement.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 11:05 AM

Maybe they should turn the block back into a gated community.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 11:08 AM

what did the senator do wrong? nothing.

anon. 10:52 must have a vested interest in one of these properties

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 11:09 AM

thanks, loser for jumping into the fray with your bed-sty bashing. are you really saying anything that we don't all already know. try to contribute something substantial next time.

brownstoner is a renegade, rock on dude.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 11:37 AM

let's support the lefferts hotel. maybe if our relatives and friends stayed there when they visited brooklyn the proprietors would realize that there is real money to be made from running a legitimate business.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 11:39 AM

I don't see the slander fest or libel. these people are simply stating the obvious.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 11:43 AM

it's a tough call.
mistakes are costly.
I would be less worried about being "criminally indicted and publicly flogged by the likes of Al Sharpton" and more concerned about killing or wounding an innocent bystander.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 12:03 PM

I do not hesitate to call 911 if there is a real reason to do so. The community policing officer told us that manpower is alotted based on several metrics, including the number of 911 calls.

No one wants to live on a block with drug dealers and I don't feel any compunction to play hostess so that they don't move somewhere else. Poor people's kids matter and my kids matter. Drug dealing and the violence that goes with it are unsavory in any neighborhood and neighbors have to fight it everywhere.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 12:13 PM

give it up C.H., 12:13pm did say that "neighbors have to fight it everywhere."

Stop being an advocate for complacency.

Either form your own block association to make sure the dealers don't come your nabe or convince your dealer friends (if you have any) to take their business off the streets and run it from within the confines of their homes.

I personally am tired of hearing about the wild wild west shoot outs on our streets. Either end the prohibition or get the dealers off the streets.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 12:28 PM

Well now I know where I can score some drugs.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 12:43 PM

You people sound like a real bunch of hypocrites. I believe that C.H.'s point is that we should address the root causes of the drug trade instead of simply shifting it around from one location to another. And for God's sake don't pretend that poor areas don't ALWAYS get the shaft when wealthier areas begin to relocate their drug traffic.

If you want to fight drug trafficing, then attack its causes. Don't simply shove it down someone else's throat.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 1:03 PM

I think that by 'root' s/he is referring to the rampant poverty, lack of jobs, etc. that drives(???) people to drug dealing.

I can understand that argument but I'm less concerned with the drug dealing and more concerned with the fact that black men (an already endangered species) are turning against each other and killing one another in defense of a drug territory or whatever other reasons there may be.

It's a hydra-headed problem that requires multiple solutions but I still believe that the first step is to get the dealers off the streets (everywhere).

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 1:41 PM

1:24 PM, while we're off topic, mistakes are costly. True, a lot of mystery surrounds the case. But the fact remains that one person died in the shootout (a groom attending his bachelor's party). And for all practical purposes he might have been an innocent victim.
Not knocking the police dept, they do a great job, more or less, within my nabe but, mistakes are costly. It's not the same thing as screwing up some paperwork at work.
We can't afford mistakes where human lives are concerned, especially when police are trained to fire no more than 3 bullets at a moving car. If five cops were involved, there shouldn't have been more than 15 bullets fired, not 50.
Any cop who gets 'spooked' or has a knee jerk reaction and ending up emptying their cartridge should really get prosecuted and sent to jail.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 1:51 PM

"I'd like to address the root causes of murder too, but if I see someone get shot, I'm going to call the cops"

The question isn't whether you'll call the cops. The question is whether, when the cops arrive, you'll insist that they locate the poorest possible victim for the killer.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 1:56 PM

"Ok, so what's your plan then? Invite the dealers in for a counseling session? Maybe some hugs?"

Even that would be more productive than simply buying them a cab ride to the next nabe.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 1:57 PM

also 1:24 PM, they do know how many bullets each officers fired because they can certify which guns were unloaded completely and which ones had remaining rounds.
Any cop who completely guns down a vehicle that is moving away from him shouldn't really be on the force and he shouldn't be receiving suspension pay or a pension either.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 2:03 PM

anon 1:24 PM I don't understand how you could say something like that. A groom was killed on the night before his wedding. If this had happened to a bunch of white kids I doubt you'd be so sympathetic to the cop's 'MISTAKE'.

C'mon, enough with the double standards already. Human lives are not more dispensible just because one's skin tone is darker. I really don't understand how you could make such a statement. And you wonder why black folks have a 'chip on their shoulders'.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 2:12 PM

Is the Lefferts Hotel back to offering its classic line of goods? I was thinking of buying my father-in-law a night with a courtesan and figured that the Lefferts offers good holiday deals.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 3:15 PM

The area is getting worse and i have been scared walking in the nightime.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 3:33 PM

"It is actually possible for crime in a city to decrease overall--as it has in NYC--and citizens' involvement is just one way it can happen."

True. Perhaps the most effective way to make this happen is to push the crime outside the city boundaries, out where the poor and the black people live.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 3:43 PM

Anon 3:33, where do you live that you're scared to walk around?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 3:45 PM

Opps, i fired my gun 51 times, stopping only briefly enough to reload. My bad...

And the best folks can say is mistakes happen.... That a bunch bullshiiiiiiiiit!!!

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 4:15 PM

anon 3:49. I don't know whether those cops should be exonerated or not I'll let the courts decide. But people have a choice in the jobs they do. I fully support the police but someone who cannot handle the pressure and dangers that come with the job should pursue a different line of work.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 4:45 PM

Which poster came up with this piece of nonsense: "shouldn't call the cops about drug crimes because you're just transferring the crime to poor communities" In America even poor people have phones. They can call the police and stop crime in their neighborhood like anyone else.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 4:49 PM

You guys are right. I am SICK AND TIRED of poor people constantly sticking it to the rich and powerful. Damn them! Damn them all!

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 4:53 PM

"Doctors, Firefighters, pilots, nurses, drivers etc, etc, etc - people make mistakes that cost lives ALL THE TIME and they arent prosecuted and dont get sent to jail."

That's a bunch of baloney and you know it. Doctors and nurses get sued for malpractice if someone dies. Pilots, if they survive the crash, would probably lose their license.
Firefighters try to save lives; they try to prevent accidents already in progress.
Are you suggesting that cops who break the law by unloading their cartridge shouldn't be prosecuted????
Wow, I hope no cops ever kills your brother, son, husband or boyfriend accidentally and then says 'Ooops

Double standard indeed.

It doesn't matter if the cops were white, black or purple...they should all be prosecuted because they broke the ordinances of their own department. They are trained to only fire 3 shots at a moving car if no other weapon than the car is present.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 4:57 PM

Bravo 4:53PM!

lol

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 4:58 PM

I'm with you 4:53. In fact, when you look at it that way, poor people deserve to live in drug infested nabes. It's simply payback for their subjugation of the wealthy.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 5:04 PM

but the point linusvanpelt is that loser rarely has anything to say at all if he isn't bashing bed-stuy.
He merely states and restates the obvious. which doesn't really contribute at all to the dialogue.
I believe that most people by now are aware that Bed Sty has problems with regards to crime. No one is refuting that. Anyone who is willing to plop a million down on a townhouse in bed stuy is well aware that the neighborhood has its share of problems. Real estate agents often refer clients to the police stats when they inquire about the 'safety' of the nabe. So I don't think anyone is going into this blindly. And when they personally encounter dangerous situations, they do like brownstoner and try to bring it to the attention of the precinct, their neighbors, block association, etc.
Park Slope, Fort Greene and Boerum Hill all had there share of rampant crime at one point in time. But a bunch of civic minded and constructive people (including the police force) got together and helped to turn the situation around.
I find little value in the continous bad mouthing of neighborhoods east of flatbush, which is essentially all that loser cares to do.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 5:13 PM

and your point loser is that...
the cops, if they're found guilty should walk away free and clear because they had an 'oops' moment.
Or are you saying that the city should pay out some settlement if this was indeed an 'oops' episode.
Do you think they should remain on the force? Because, for all we know, you or I could be next victim of an 'geez, I really didn't mean to do that' accident.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 5:42 PM

5:35 PM, it's still 50 shots instead of 15 shots.

I'm flabbergasted.

Why are you trying to derail the discussion anyway. The thread is about drug dealing activity on downing and cambridge. Are you trying to suggest that the only way to stop the drug dealers is to kill them all in cold blood? Is this the only way that you would attempt to remedy the situation?

Last time I checked, the problem was fixed on Grand without any shots being fired.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 5:53 PM

but if a doctor or nurse continues to kill his or her black patients, or is consistently more negligent with patients of color, would you still think that a malpractice lawsuit would suffice?

I think the underlying problem that many people have with this is the racial profiling and the cover-ups.
See:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15925314/

The cops tried to get someone to lie and say that they had bought crack from the 92 year old grandmother.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 6:04 PM

it doesn't matter. Why are you so hung up with race and color?

If the doctor is repeatedly killing patients, is it simply a case of malpractice and negligence or is it criminal activity?

Should this doctor be allowed to keep his license. Should she retire with a pension (if such things exists for doctors). Should he or she be suspended with pay?

I don't buy the 'accidents happen all the time argument'. You don't repeatedly take the lives of innocent victims and then shrug your shoulder.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 6:11 PM

what do you do when the police ARE involved in the drug trade? when they are being paid off and hence the continuation of the activity? i used to call 911 and 311 but why? so they can have your phone number, name and address? so, they can harrass you and cause problems for your family?

cosgrove doesn't care, james doesn't care, montgomery doesn't care. NONE of them do because if they did, something would be done and unfortunately, nothing has been done.

today while going to pick my kids up from school, 4 police cars sped down grand avenue, to arrest someone. i have seen it before...two hours later i drove by again and the "fella's" were back out there, in fact there were more of them. i guess they were gearing up for the evening rush.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 6:16 PM

Thats true, if it happens multiple times then suspension normally occurs.

I'm "hung up on race" to the point that your question was loaded. I would suggest that you are actually hung up on race in this matter.

Now, please quote me one time in the above posts of mine (and a full quote, not lifted) where I have given an opinion one way or the other on this shooting being justified or reprehensible. I haven't. BTW, accidental is not synonymous with justified, so please don't go there.

You have no idea of my opinion on the incident. Like I said before, I don't think anyone wasn't shocked by what happened.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 6:21 PM

6:16 PM, how do you know that the first officer to fire was black? I don't recall reading that anywhere. But even if that were the case, if he was one of the guys that emptied his gun then he probably ought to get jail time if the courts found him guilty.

"Mistakes happen, Cops get scared, sometimes they think there is a gun and there isnt"
Maybe those cops shouldn't be cops at all.

Also, why do you insist that deadly force is necessary in stemming the drug activity on Cambridge and Downing? I don't recall hearing that deadly forced was used on Grand to stem the drug trade there. Once again, I think you're trying to derail the discussion and turn it into a black and white issue. Or even worse, some sort of forum on the recent shooting in queens.

According to your analysis, every situation in which a cop is needed, from robberies to murder, is a lose/lose scenario. So it sounds like you're advocating that cops shouldn't do anything at all but push paper all day long. I really don't get your point.

City officials continue to do the work that they were commissioned to do, regardless of public criticism or imminent threats of jail time. If they're doing their job correctly and are adequately trained I don't see the need to worry.

Would this griping even come up if you were the commissioner for a quiet, sleepy suburban town? No, you would just do the job that you were paid to do.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 6:56 PM

Central Brooklyn needs a community court like the one they have in Red Hook. The model focuses on low-level offenders by providing alternatives to jail for offenders that need drug treatment and other social services. An on-site clinic monitors compliance. Drug dealers are made to do community service and are monitored for the term of their sentence. Failure to comply will result in jail. While this court uses jail less, you get more jail time if you fail. The Judge actually knows the community. He goes to meetings and there is real accountabilty to the community because he sits next to the police and prosecutor at meetings -- everyone in the room who can address crime is there (including the community) See: http://www.courtinnovation.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=572.

While there is still drug dealing in RH crime is down 65% in the past 13 years. There was an indy film about it as well: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/redhookjustice/

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 8:52 PM

Okay. Let's get back to the issue at hand. First, I'd like to commend Brownstoner for his efforts in the community. You are so awesome brah. Keep up the good work. I live in Clinton Hill and trust me the advantages and pluses far outweigh the negatives. I couldn't be any happier than to live in this neighborhood. With that being said, I think that it's important that we continue to embark upon continuous improvement; whether it's crime, safety or enhanced goods and services in the community.

Now Brownstoner could easily have chosen to take the blind eye approach and deny any negatives in his/our hood (e.g., in the interest of property values, etc.) but he didn't because he, like many of us homeowners/community activist rather take one step back in order to take two steps forward. It's imperative as a community that we wash our dirty linen in public in an effort to openly address those pertinent issues that adversely impact us; this way we can easily identify the problem and work quickly on formulating viable and long lasting solutions.

Yes, drug and crime is indeed a critical issue in the neighborhood and we, members of the community, along with the 88th Precinct and Captain Cosgrove, are working feverishly to address these problems. For those who live on Grand-Putnam or near the Lefferts Hotel, we can attest to the effectiveness of the recent quality of life crackdowns in the area. IMHO, this has been the best summer in decades.

Moreover, I think that Captain Cosgrove is a rising star in the NYPD and has his sights on a much higher role in the department - perhaps Commissioner. He knows more than anyone else that his career will be judged, for better or worse, on how Clinton Hill turns out. He's either going to be known as the police head who oversaw the great transformation of Clinton Hill from ghetto/fringe nabe to a tier 1 Brownstone Brooklyn community or the guy who blew the game winning lay up because he lacked the courage and ability to meet the basic challenge of crime reduction in the area. I don't know about you guys but I'm pulling for Cosgrove!

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 9:04 PM

What a pathetic series of comments that have detracted from a very important issue:

(1) unless drugs are being "forced down your throat" you have no right to an opinion - how very enlightened of you, anonymous,

2) "Mr. B., who is your source for these letters": Mr. poster, if you took the time to VOTE, perhaps you would have also received a copy, given that the mailing was to registered voters in the community,

(3) "the senator should be ashamed of herself": are you kidding, she should be ashamed of herself for tryiing to eliminate drug dealing and quality of life issues in her district? pulease

(4) neighborhoods come "as-is": yeah, and blacks and women couldn't vote for much of our country's history; what an idiotic comment *that* was,

(5) brownstoner is single-handedly displacing drugs to poorer neighborhoods - enough said by Linus et.al.

I can't even read any more of the thread past this afternoon's comments. I'm sure further nuggets of wisdom lie therein, but I'll pass for the evening.

Brownstoner has posted today on a relevant, important topic to the Clinton Hill community and Brooklyn at large. I for one thank him for his efforts despite the nonsense of the ensuing posts. Keep up the very imporant, and very much appreciated, hard work, Brownstoner.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 11:33 PM

With respect to the police shooting in Queens, I think that even though the incident could be categorized as (1) an accident; (2) an error in judgment; (3) negligent homicide; or (4) depraved indifference to human life, an innocent person did in fact die as a result of poorly trained law enforcement. And to this end, the officers involved, the NYPD and the City must be held accountable. Realistically, there will be massive media attention on this case but in the end the officers, unjustly or not, will be exonerated. The family, however, will most likely win a multi-million dollar wrongful death suit in civil court and get some form of justice in this manner.

As for the actually shooting incident, police officers must be better trained when engaged in undercover work in high risk areas. They MUST understand that when undercover cops, especially black and Latinos, are attempting to blend into a particular scene (e.g., subway train and hot street corner) that it often occurs to the point that they are indistinguishable from the common perp on the street: they're adorned with the same baggie jeans, timberland boots, hooded pullovers, puffy jackets and baseball caps.

If I was Sean Bell I would've mistaken the officer for a hit man too! Just think about it: (1) you come out of a strip club at 4am in the morning; (2) you're probably drunk and tired; (3) you just had a huge verbal altercation with another group of men outside of the club and threats are made on both sides; (4) you and your friends walk around the corner and get inside your vehicle; (5) it's late November and all of the windows are up; and (6) most likely everyone is talking about the night and the car stereo comes on immediately blasting the previous played tune. Under these circumstances, no one is truly alert. Now Sean Bell is attempting to just pull his car out of his parking spot and out of the corner of his eye, he spots a man, dressed in bagging blue jeans and hooded sweat jacket, with a huge automatic pistol drawn and aimed directly at the driver's side window, fast approaching the vehicle on his left. His heart pumps, he flinches and he's engrossed by fear because for all that he knows one of the homies from the club has followed them and is about to pump a barrage of bullets into his car. With all of the confusion and noise inside the car, he doesn't hear the officers and have enough time to discern the badge necklace from a hip-hop medallion chain. In the split second that he has to make up his mind as to what to do, he has to rely on the glimpse of an unknown man charging his vehicle in a menacing way with weapon drawn. So he does, the natural thing (I certainly would've done the same), he floors the gas pedal and attempts to get the car and its occupants out of firing range. Meanwhile, the undercover police officer interprets this as an act of violence against him but he shouldn't have given the circumstances stated above. He then proceeds, in violation of department rules, to pump an entire clip into the car as the vehicle was already by him. As the other officers arrive on the scene in unmarked police vehicles and proceed to block in the Mr. Bells car from both the front and the back, they've descended upon a vehicle with a panic and confused driver whose head is probably buried between his legs and under the steering, frantically attempting to use the last moment of his life to avoid being gunned down by a perceived group of gun toting criminals. When 51 shots are going off in 10 seconds, no one hears "It's the Police don't move" or sees the fact that it's undercover officers. At this point, it's complete chaos and mayhem and unfortunately an innocent person lost his life because the NYPD failed to follow the books.

First, the officers should have all been inside their unmarked vehicles and used their sirens to identify themselves as police officers from a safe distance and pulled over the car like in any other traffic situation. To have a lead undercover cop attempt to ambush a car of men, single handedly at 4am in the morning under the above circumstance was downright foolish and negligent. Was it criminal? Probably not, but very close. Was Sean Bell justified in reacting the way that he did? Hell yeah! I would've done the same! The number one rule in the hood when faced with a dangerous situation, get out of harm's way and ask questions later. I'm a big supporter of law enforcement but this case simply breaks my heart - it was just a massive fuck up and unfortunately all of the affected families will have to pay the price for one officer's stupid "mistake".

Posted by: Anonymous at November 30, 2006 6:48 AM

Don't like drugs?

Fine.

Don't use them.

Don't like the sale of drugs?

Fine.

Don't buy/sell them.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 30, 2006 10:45 AM

just for the record, cosgrove got promoted to deputy inspector for the job he did as commanding officer of the 88th precinct and was reassigned a couple weeks ago to a tougher precinct, which wouldn't happen if the department didn't think he had done a good job in his last post. there are jobs in the department for good administrators that just aren't that good at reducing crime. cosgrove didn't get one of those.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 1, 2006 7:35 PM