When I decided to set my novel in Baltimore I wasn't aware of the particulars of that city's crime statistics, though I knew it was pretty bad. Still, as the writing progressed, I got to thinking "damn, my murder rate in my fictionalized Baltimore is off the damn charts", so I decided it might be better to tone it down. I started inventing reasons to not kill off characters for the sake of some semblance of realism.
Now, come to find out, the novel might have been mild in comparison with actual recent statistics, even with the bombing at Johns Hopkins University Hospital and the marijuana laced with embalming fluid subplot thrown in for good measure.
500 year old vampires and baby eating vultures aside, Baltimore is a fucking horror story in its own right. So, what to do, hon?
There comes a time in the course of human events when things get so fucking bad that you have to do something about it, and that time seems to be now for the city of Baltimore.
Here is the story of Nicole Sesker, stepdaughter of former Baltimore Police Commissioner Hamm. Miss Sesker, a heroin addict and prostitute, is no longer among the living, strangled and murdered, her body discovered on one of those streets where she plied her trade for several years.
The real story though is the scope of the heroin problem in Baltimore, which according to various estimates has anywhere from 45,000 to 65,000 heroin addicts. Going by the more conservative estimate, that is roughly one out of every sixteen Baltimore residents.
You might wonder how one city could become so bad, that only halfway through the year there have been more than one hundred murders in a city with a population of under a million. Miss Sesker makes 108.
For a good blog devoted to keeping track of the dreary crime statistics of the city, this one pretty well tells the story.
Assuming the residents of Baltimore are not engaged in some bizarre endeavor to see their city crowned the next murder capitol of the world, something seriously is amiss. The city has fallen apart. I could conceivably point to an unhealthy alignment of the stars and, using this explanation, draw a correlation to the way the Ravens fell apart after their 2000 Superbowl win, but I seriously doubt that has much to do with anything.
A better idea might-mind you, just might-involve taking a good look at the way the elected and appointed leaders of the city run it. I have an idea Baltimore might prove a textbook case of how NOT to run a major American city.
Do I really have to point out that the Democratic Party has had a lock-more like a death grip, it seems-on running the city since at least the time of the Civil War? Somebody might want to point out to them they have a record that Robert Mugabe would probably find appalling, but I somehow doubt anything will change, unless and until Baltimore residents finally demand accountability-but I wouldn’t hold my breath for that to happen either.
Whether the problem is one of policy, of lax enforcement, or just plain incompetence, or some combination of these and other factors, it is unlikely to change. Baltimore residents may not want that title of murder capitol, but the majority of them, at least, might well deserve it.
2 comments:
Okay, I'm confused here. You've said that you're leaning more conservative these days because the government tends to be inefficient and intrusive with the more power it is given, which I would generally agree with. So, how are they supposed to reduce rates of individual heroin use without becoming more intrusive, powerful, and inefficient?
See I grew up in the area and Baltimore has always been really sketchy. And DC too. But with DC, people kept calling for the government to "do something!" So, they cordonned off neighborhoods and banned handguns and did a whole lot of other crap that didn't help.
Don't get me wrong, I understand why conservatives get annoyed when liberals cry "someone has to do something!" about poverty or racism or hurt feelings. But I don't understand why conservatives who want to "get government off our backs" will turn around and cry that "someone's got to do something!" about drugs and hookers, and radicals, and people who won't speak English. At some point, I think it's better to err towards the side of less goverment.
I tend to agree with your sentiments, but government does have some legitimate functions, and they (the city) have to do something about runaway crime such as Baltimore currently is experiencing. Plus, heroin addiction is not only a major contributing factor to that runaway crime, it is also a public health issue. It contributes to the spread of hepatitis and HIV Aids, etc.
Also, note I am not suggesting the Feds do something about this issue, nor necessarily even the state of Maryland. I am mainly saying the city government should do something, as it is their duty to protect their citizens.
They are obviously doing something wrong, and it needs to be fixed, within constitutional limits, of course. I don't say they should enforce some set of Draconian laws and adopt a mini-police state posture, but surely they can look seriously at the problem areas they have and see what they can do more efficiently.
One thing I didn't point out is the potential level of corruption involved in the availability of heroin. I didn't say it in the post partly because it is unprovable as of now, but when hard drugs like heroin run this rampant, there's at least a slight chance somebody is benefiting, and in many cases some of those people benefiting the most have the added benefits of city expense accounts.
In other words, there might well be a significant level of corruption in the city that is getting in the way of progress. If that is the case, then it might become necessary at some point for the state of Maryland, or even the Feds, to get involved. No, I hope it don't come to that, but it well might.
One thing I know the city is doing that might be a contributing factor to at least a slight degree is too complicated to go into right now. I'll do a post on it before long probably, but I'll say this much-it's actually an example of government exceeding it's legitimate bounds and actually being too obtrusive and far too heavy-handed.
Sometimes doing too much is worse than not doing enough, in fact it almost always is. That is the problem with Baltimore, in at least this regard. It is doing way too much in certain respects, and making things far more difficult than they should be for average citizens. It got so bad at one time people were leaving in droves. I think that leveled off for a while, but now I think they're losing population again.
Post a Comment