[sudo-discuss] Perimeter security (a repost)

[johanna faust]

a repost.
this document will also be available at
http://faustsstudy.blogspot.com/2013/06/sudoroom-perimeter-security.html


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*An Engineer's Diuers Obseruations Concernynge *

*Security *

*Made After Some Contemplation Of** *

*SudoRoom*

*Campus, Disposition, Maintenance, &c,*

*That Are Deserving*

*Of A Most Full *

*&*

*Rapt *

*Attention*




❝

*Crime prevention through environmental design*

*
(CPTED) is a multi-disciplinary approach to deterring criminal behavior
through environmental design. CPTED strategies rely upon the ability to
influence offender decisions that precede criminal acts. As of 2012, most
implementations of CPTED occur solely within the built environment.
Changing the areas we reside in to deter criminals from committing acts in
our communities is the main goal of CPTED. With urban design and the
planning that goes into the creation of new and reformation of older
communities, citizens in these neighborhoods and places of business can
feel safer at all hours.❞  [Read
more<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_prevention_through_environmental_design>
 at Wikipedia]
*




*(1)*

*The Overhead Light In The Entryway*


The Landlord MUST replace this light and make sure that its operational.
There should be no hesitation:  you ask, he replaces.  It should have been
done yesterday.


*(2)*

*The Trees Across The Street*


Get the City of Oakland to trim back the trees (hopefully) just around the
street-lamps across the street.  There are three lights up on the building
across the street, meant to light the street:  it could be much better
lit.  See the double-plus-good discussion on Anti-Blight, below.


*(3)*

*The Parking Deck Next Door*


The building owner may be the owner of the parking deck.  If he does,
getting the lights that are busted fixed is as easy as it was in number
(1).  He is required to do it. And he should know this, if he has owned
property for more than a month. Because he should know first or secondhand
that if he does not fix it there is a damn good possibility (based on
precedent in case law) that he will be financially liable for damages
resultant from any further criminal activity.


*if he’s not the same owner, then it’s a research question whether a
property owner owes a duty of care to next door neighbors. I guess that
would be why there are blight laws, huh?*


*which means, if he does nothing, SRers may have a case against him for
what has already occurred (?).*


If it’s things like lights in the alley then there are 10 lights.  There
were 7 that  were spaced at regular intervals as you go down the alley,
mounted 15- 20 feet up on the wall of the parking deck.  If they were there
they would be shining light down into that darkness from where they are no
longer mounted about 20 feet up. Only one non-functional one remains. Once
you see it you’ll be able to see where the others were.


Then there are the three lights whose bulbs are burnt out where the bank
drive thru is (was?) down at the other end of the alley.


*(4)*

*The Intersection Of 22nd & Broadway*


Street-lamps each have two super bright bulbs by means of which they light
up the night.  This in turn enables people to see other people at a greater
distance than they would otherwise, and avoid interaction if that is
prudent.


At the intersection of 22nd & Broadway one of the streetlight's bulbs is
out.  On the SR side of the street.  This does in fact make things more
dangerous.


The city has to replace it, and pronto -- same deal -- we need to bug the
fuck out of them until they do it.


*Conclusion*


Three different departments and one council-person; one or two building
owners.


Call them once a day until its done.


it is a principle of sound design that good lighting is essential to a
secure building.  building codes are written stemming from, and
reinforcing, this.  There are, consequently, social, political, and legal
mechanisms whereby certain actions that prevent and/or counteract blight
can be taken.  The point is to do so with the least amount of delay or
opportunity for that action to devolve into inaction, which leads to more
blight, and directly and indirectly may result in harm to people or
property.  Which we do not want.  Which is the point.


*Further Instruction*


Is it a part of fire code?  The fire department requires trees be trimmed
back so that people will not be able to break into other people's houses
without being seen...


*A Note Concerning Insistent Constituents*


 Without delving into the ethical underpinnings, that ism, without agreeing
or disagreeing with this social principle, one can see that it is
empirically true that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  Applying this to
the situation at hand, the axiom becomes:  if you keep bugging them, they
will do it.


SR has a landlord, who may or may not be the building owner.  It also has a
council-person, and a person who runs the department responsible for the
city's control of urban blight, and a person who runs the department
responsible for the city's trimming of trees. A month of hearing from
someone every daywill probably motivate the necessary action.   They are
limited in the resources that they have, including attention. A kindly
daily reminder/report of status will help focus that attention.


 as far as organizing the once a day calling


*it’s important to actually reach them*

*[what if you can’t? –ed] [i would be willing to go in person –ed] *


come up with talking points or even specific phrases,

( like republicans do) such as “constituent service”


remind them that there have been “five events in the past month *[accuracy
check, please –ed] *requiring police intervention at SR”* [as i/we
understand it -- i do not have all the details myself –ed]*


*- the pepper spraying incident *

*- the car break-in*

*- the stolen ipad*

*- the being held up at gunpoint*

*- the guy messing with the keypad trying to get in*


maybe give a status report such as X,Y and Z await action; A is scheduled
for <day>,<date>; B is underway; C has been promised, but no date has been
scheduled/estimated/committed to


* a secondhand bit of info, FWIW: where SR is, at the edge of Koreatown
Northgate, or KoNo, there are no beat cops because supposedly Northgate has
the lowest incidence of violent crime -- but this is only because the city
does not count armed robbery as a  violent crime.  KoNo has the highest
incidence of armed robbery.*


*[fontsize emphasis mine –ed]*



*Notes On Finding Property Owners*


Get APN


zoom in on map (assessors map at http://www.acgov.org/assessor/maps2.htm)
to get the parcel # (APN) then you can get more details here also


take APN and/or other details and feed them in to http://rechart1.acgov.org


I forgotten the exact  method of feeding the APN into the link above to
find the current owner, mainly because I can’t remember right now what the
right combo of leading, trailing, and extra middle zeros to trim is, but
we hack right? 3 quick ideas


*1. Brute force – *

try the different combinations of zeroes etc


*2. Use knowledge that you have of a property already – *

and feed it in to retrieve that property’s info to backward engineer the
right format


*3. Go to courthouse – *

and look on their property info computers. They rarely have a queue and
seem to be available for just this kind of use by the public. Unrestricted
access 8:30-2:30 or 4 except for passage through the courthouse entrance:
metal-detector for your person and the x-ray machine for your effects.


*[following are the results of the Speaker's engaging in the above research
technique –ed]*


Parking deck

8-648-16-3

 [Owned by “exempt public agency” per Assessor’s,

so very likely city of Oakland]


Parcel of SR building

8-648-1


Parcel facing Broadway at other end of block from SR

8-648-18


Middle of block and alley next to SR building

8-648-17


Having found out that the City of Oakland owns the parking deck next door,
and they’re responsible for its blight makes me both more and less
optimistic about whether they alone will fix the blight depending on my
estimation of their willingness to fix their own problems. OTOH, since they
are responsible to the citizenry in general, and they have geographic
knowledge of problems via mapping crime and they are the landlords of the
blighted property they arguably already have the kind of legal liability
for what has happened recently, the kind that was mentioned above only in
prospect for SR’s landlord. As I understand it, it’s established law that
if a government is performing a function that isn’t unique to government
(the set of which seems to be shrinking), that it has no sovereign immunity
for doing it poorly.


Please forgive the upcoming caps: WARNING: GO TO AN ACTUAL LAWYER IF YOU
WANT A LEGAL OPINION RENDITIONED RENDERED. I only offer my opinion which is
not withheld pending ransom retainer. (Sorry for the caps –CYA.)

The point is court action possibly offers another stick (but it is a blunt
instrument). A carrot might be to offer to help correct the situation, but
that would be poisonous to relations with city unions, probably, even if a
qualified person could be fielded. The greater point you already know well
and practice: to think (sideways or whatever direction) to the extent you
believe the issues are salient. Hope my modest thought offering is helpful.



*see also wikipedia:*

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_prevention_through_environmental_design*

*and its reading list:*

• International CPTED Association

• European Designing Out Crime Association

• Stichting Veilig Ontwerp en Beheer (the Netherlands)

• California Designing Out Crime Association

• Crime prevention and the built environment.

• Washington State University CPTED Annotated Bibliography. Url last
accessed May 6, 2006.

• Oscar Newman, *Creating Defensible Space* (pdf) (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development
and Research, 1996). Url last accessed May 6, 2006.

• CPTED LinkedIn Discussion Group

• SmartCode Module on CPTED

• Secured by Design (UK)




*N.B.: These are the near verbatim notes I took of an impromptu talk.  They
have been reviewed and edited by both the Scribe and the Speaker, & unless
bracketed & followed by attribution, (as in "[...in respect of
actionability alone these ideas are robust indeed.  –ed.]") represent the
ideas mostly in the exact words of the Speaker.*
*
*


-- 
*Be seeing you.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130626/580c23ce/attachment.html>