Passing the buck

Interviews with Madison Mayor Paul Soglin regarding the issue of homelessness in the city have become something of a broken record.

He says he wants to help, that he sympathizes, but that the city is simply too strapped for cash and resources to do anything more to help. He blames the Walker Administration and the state and federal level destruction of social welfare programs. He says that's where we should look if we want to place blame for the steady increase in the number of people left out in the cold, and certainly Walker Co. has been no friend to sane, compassionate projects.

An article in today's Capital Times does a good job of looking at the current state of affairs as regards the homeless population in Madison. In it, there are quotes from Soglin that could have come from any number of interviews he's given on the subject over the last year or two:

"I’m flattered that people as usual think that their city government, the most responsive and accessible unit of government, is expected to solve the problem," he says icily. "But certain problems, because of cost and mobility issues, cannot be solved at the local level." Advocates for the homeless should instead direct their complaints to Gov. Scott Walker and Republican members of Congress, Soglin says. "We’re watching at the state and federal level the wholesale breakdown of support systems," he says.

I think we're all too prone to passing the buck when things get hairy, and especially when there's a big ol' bureaucracy involved. No, Madison government can't solve all of the problems. But the fact of the matter is that is is possible to make positive change even in small, incremental ways if we just set our minds to it.

Take the Little Houses project that's being undertaken right now, and the initiative to allow private landowners to allow a certain amount of camping on their land. Everything helps. Sitting around throwing our hands into the air does not.

It's not just Soglin, of course, and his flaw seems mostly to be that he's terrible at talking about the issue (I don't doubt that he cares, deep down). There are a lot of people in this city, many of them well-placed within government, neighborhood associations, and the business community, who are actively stymieing efforts to make real change, and that would rather sweep the problem under the proverbial rug than deal with it head-on.

This is not what "community" is supposed to be about.

We should know by now, too, that ignoring a problem like the wholesale disenfranchisement and displacement of an entire class of human beings only leads to bigger problems for everyone down the line. We should know by now that a rising tide does lift all ships. But we make the same mistakes, over and over again.

Perhaps it's time we redirected some of the millions of dollars earmarked for something like the controversial Judge Doyle Square development project to, say, finally building that new shelter.

Heck, even providing a storage locker facility would go a long way toward alleviating some of the immediate needs of folks without permanent addresses.

Oh and, maybe don't gut funding for the Tenant Resource Center while we're at it.

I'm somewhat heartened by the inclusion in the 2014 Capital Budget of funding for a project that could provide permanent housing to 100 homeless individuals. I really and truly hope it goes through and gets done. It shows there are people thinking about and working on this issue at the city level, and that we do have the capacity to act when we want to.

Regardless, while those of us with roofs over our heads continue to argue, too many of men, women, and children continue to go without.

Madison handgun laws

Inspired by today's ruling by the Supreme Court overturning the handgun ban in Washington D.C., and by all the talk about how much litigation will come of it, I decided to find out what Madison's current gun laws are, especially in regards to handguns.

I know, riveting research.

As seems to be the case with gun laws nationwide, what I've found so far is a complicated and confusing patchwork of laws and ordinances, and no clear answer. Of course, I'm no legal scholar, so if anyone with some knowledge of this wants to chime in and clarify things for me, it would be much appreciated.

According to today's decision, an outright ban on the sale and ownership of handguns was deemed unconstitutional. However, Justice Scalia, in his majority opinion, did note that,

“It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Justice Scalia wrote.

The ruling does not mean, for instance, that laws against carrying concealed weapons are to be swept aside. Furthermore, Justice Scalia wrote, “The court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

So this issue is far from being resolved. One could reasonably assume, however, that any other city or state with an outright ban on handguns will have to do away with such laws.

But what is the law in Madison? A friend of mine keyed me in to the fact that Madison has an outright ban on the sale of handguns within city limits, and that the City Council also passed an ordinance banning their possession.

Section 25.01(11a): It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, association, or corporation to sell, give away, trade, or transfer any handgun to any other person, firm, association, or corporation within the corporate boundaries of the City of Madison.

Wisconsin state law, however, has something different to say:

Except as provided in subs. (3) and (4), no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.

So is Madison's current ordinance already trumped by state law, and we're just kind of ignoring it? Or is Madison's law somehow "similar to state statute"?

While I'm puzzling all of this, I can't help but ponder the greater fact that a large chunk of the problem with gun laws in the United States is that they are so fragmented and confusing. I'm a strong proponent of good regulation: background checks, wait periods, bans on assault and other insane-o weapons, proper training, and that sort of thing. In theory, a lot of that already exists--the trouble seems to be mostly in how we do or do not enforce them. That's where the most work remains to be done.

In the meantime, I don't necessarily think that SCOTUS' decision was wrong (bad, maybe, but not wrong). The same friend I mentioned earlier made the argument that the decision reflected judicial activism on the majority's part, but noted that that didn't necessarily equate wrong or bad. It was an intriguing idea--in the end, isn't the point of having learned scholars sitting in judgment to interpret the law as it applies to ever-changing, modern circumstances? And isn't that exactly what alleged "strict constructionist" Scalia and co. just did?

After all, if we went with the original meaning of the amendment, it's like that 1) individual's would have the right to own guns, but 2) the government would then have the right to inspect those weapons at-will, to make sure they were being properly maintained and "well-regulated," should they ever need to call up the owner for active duty in a militia. Something tells me neither side of the debate would much enjoy that.

GPS, 9-1-1, and you

Kids, don't prank call 9-1-1. Seriously. We have enough trouble making sure the people who really need emergency services get them, and the dispatchers are already working hard enough that extra calls really are harmful to the community.

That said, this recent Dane County press release certainly grabbed my attention:

At approximately 2:30 am, Dane County Sheriff's Deputies were dispatched to an area east of 2349 Williams Point Drive, in the Town of Pleasant Springs, for a 9-1-1 hang up call from an unsubscribed cellular telephone. Unsubscribed cellular telephones can still dial 9-1-1, but can not be called back. Because the location of the 9-1-1 hang up could not be pinpointed, an extensive search of the area was conducted by deputies, with the assistance of the Stoughton Police Department.

With the help of the 9-1-1 Center providing latitude and longitude coordinates, the on-scene Sheriff's Office Sergeant was able to input the coordinates into the GPS program on his squad computer and narrow the search to 300 feet. Deputies were then able to locate two prank callers who were staying in the group campground at Lake Kegonsa State Park. A chaperone with the group discovered the students misusing the cellular telephone and placed a call to the 9-1-1 Center as the deputies were arriving in the campground.

The two pranksters, ages 12 and 13, were part of a group of Madison School District students participating in a camping trip at the park. Charges of False Reports to the 911 System were referred on the two juveniles, who were then released to the chaperone. The two also admitted to making an earlier prank call at 7:25 pm, on Tuesday, June 3, 2008. Deputies, who do not have the GPS capabilities in their individual squads, were dispatched to this earlier call, but were unable to locate the caller, or anyone in need of assistance.

So, the 9-1-1 Center was able to provide latitude and longitude, and the Sergeant was able to punch them into his on -oard computer's GPS system to pinpoint the location of the call to within 300 feet?

Interesting.

It's also worth noting that, apparently, deputies don't have GPS capabilities in their squad cars, only, if I'm reading this right, the Sergeant. Might this be something that could be easily corrected? As far as I'm aware, all squad cars are equipped with a police-specific laptop. I'm sure getting GPS installed wouldn't be a huge hassle, and even if it was, wouldn't it be worth it?

I'm also curious as to exactly how long this ability to track coordinates between the 9-1-1 Center and police has existed. Might that not have been useful in the case of the Brittany Zimmermann call? While we're at it, I'm still waiting to find out how police were able to use a cell phone to locate the body of Kelly Nolan.

Unfortunately, even after everything that's happened, nobody's talking.

Meanwhile, the Dane County Board's Executive Committee just approved the second audit in five years of the 9-1-1 Center. This despite the fact that recommendations from the last audit have not been fully implemented, and a $450,000 data collection system installed two years ago to monitor how well the center is functioning is only just now being used.

How any of this makes sense is beyond me.


(photo from PNLH)