Reader's Forum 
Loitering Around

– By Robert Cypher –

Like the zombies in a George Romero movie, some ideas simply will not die, no matter how deservedly. The latest proposal to emerge from the grave is a loitering ordinance, recently proposed by Councilman Gerry Seitz. This is the same proposal that was considered and killed by the Council almost two years ago.

During the fight over the Damiano Center, George Cady from the Rye Youth Council offered to contribute the funds to fully furnish and outfit a teen center. All that was needed was an additional 900 square feet more than the scaled-back proposal. Regrettably, the majority, including Seitz, rejected this modest proposal.

Having denied teenagers and 'tweens a safe place to hang out, Seitz then proposed an anti-loitering law to deal with the teenagers who would necessarily, because there was no Teen Center, have no place to go. In effect, the Council would criminalize the very behavior that it aided and abetted by the Council's own actions. A neat trick, wouldn't you say?

As the City Council liaison to the Youth Advisory Committee, I successfully prevailed upon the Council to defer consideration of the proposed ordinance until the representatives of those likely to be targeted by this law had the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed legislation. At the June 15, 2005 Council meeting, the committee chair, Alex Piscionere, a 17-year-old Rye High School junior, delivered a report to the Council detailing the proposed law's shortcomings.

The first part of the law, as she pointed out, dealt with congregating for the purposes of engaging in illegal activities.  Specifically mentioned were alcohol consumption, narcotic use and sales, and blocking pedestrian traffic. She asked: If these activities were already illegal, then why was a new law needed to prohibit them again?

More problematic was the second part of the law, which established “no go zones”: in particular, the train station, the parking lots behind the Central Business District, and other, as yet unspecified areas. Alex pointed out that this provision could target kids who were doing nothing more than hanging out in a specific area. As we have learned from other jurisdictions, these laws are of dubious constitutional merit, and can exacerbate tensions between the police and kids, as well as their parents.

As a result of Alex's presentation and the discussion that ensued, the Council dropped further consideration of the proposed law; and it was never submitted for a public hearing.

Alex has gone on to college, and I am off the Council, but the problem of safe and appropriate youth recreation, particularly in the after school hours, remains. The problem will not be addressed by a loitering law that shoos the kids out of downtown; they will just find another venue. There are some modest, positive steps that can help. Here are my suggestions:

• Rye still needs a dedicated teen center, particularly for younger teens and 'tweens, so they can safely congregate to socialize, play and listen to music, play games or watch videos. Perhaps, the Rye Youth Council or other groups can work together to find create such a space.

• Involve the police, particularly the Rye Police Association, to sponsor youth activities like the old Police Athletic League. A law enforcement explorer post, similar to the one run by the Fire Department, is another possibility.

• Co-ordinate with the schools, Rye Recreation, the Nature Center, the YMCA and other organizations to operate complementary programs on an organized basis.

The loitering ordinance is not needed because it will cause more problems than it solves, and it will alienate the police, kids and their parents from each other. Let's be sure to re-inter this proposed law once and for all. More importantly, let's work together as a community on positive approaches to creating better, safer activities for our middle and high school age children.