Subtitled: Criminals are Dumb.
We got a voicemail from the CLO yesterday with some rather interesting information. He'd called in response to JoAnn's call and email about the "confrontation" by the neighbor. Now, we haven't heard back yet from the CLO as to his inclination on the information he passed along, or even why he passed it on, but it seems pretty clear to me: when the CLO had stopped and talked to the guy, the guy said he'd talked to the owner and the owner had indicated they'd had trouble with nosy neighbors across the street. When pressed for who, he suddenly did not know which house, and the CLO told him they are getting calls from multiple people.
The problem with the guy's statement is two-fold: with the owners, we'd talked to them only a handful of times the entire time they lived here. They kept to themselves, we kept to ourselves. Our kids played together once or twice. There were never any problems with them or between the families. The other issue is this: the CLO talked with him a couple days after the attack on our van (across the street from the house) and recently came to us to "confront" us. He obviously had in his mind that we were this neighbor...(which I do not believe the owner said).
That's the thing with criminals...they often think they are smart, but they eventually trip up in their web of lies. That part has begun.
Subtitled: Movie Rights for Sale. Inquire Within.
Yesterday's sonic booms--that from south Tacoma sounded like (and shook the house like) explosions-brought everyone who was home at the time out into the neighborhood. Including the guy, who decided to come across the street to chat, or in his words, "confront" us.
He denied that he's selling drugs, but admitted to using. He said the visit from the Community Liaison Officer has been stressing him out and creating drama that he doesn't need...yet he admitted that he understood how the things we've seen could be interpreted the way they have been, but that with teenage kids in the house, people are always dropping by, even for just a couple of minutes. He talked about his past and some trouble he got into when he was 17, but that he'd grown up, learned from his mistakes, and that he'd paid his debt to society. He said he wouldn't be selling dope because he wouldn't risk losing custody of his daughter. He said he was in Idaho fishing when the attack on the van took place, so he has no knowledge of it or of who the two people from his house were that were in the backyard area when the attack took place. There were even tears, which he made a point (one too many times) of pointing out how big of a man it takes to do in front of two strangers. Told him I appreciated him coming over, but that we're still going to be watching...and that we are not the only ones doing so, and told him about the neighborhood groups on our side of the street and his.
My heart wants to believe him. But as I've thought about it since, I am resolute in what I have seen. Here's what I believe to be the whole truth, but I would be ecstatic to be wrong: He was selling...or perhaps his definition of selling isn't ours, but he was exchanging dope for cash. The Thursday before the attack on the van there was a particular event that disturbed me enough that I emailed the CLO directly from my phone. It was a sell where a vehicle pulled up to the house, the guy came out of the house, but rather than greeting the guest, went around to the driver's side of his car, did a dead stare at me (I was on the porch holding Maddie who'd fallen asleep from one of our backpacking walks), then opened the door, grabbed something from the center console or near it, and then went to greet the person, who by that time had gotten out of the vehicle. They met at the front of the other vehicle, which also happened to be right where the tree on our property blocked the view. However....the lower branches split right at the area where the hand exchange took place, so I saw it.
This particular episode is important because of the timing (late afternoon on the Thursday before the van got smashed) but also because he specifically saw me, and saw that I was watching. I think he then arranged for the attack, and if he truly was out of town, made that happen so that he had a solid alibi. The attack was to intimidate and silence us. But when the CLO came to have a talk with him a few days after that, he realized that things were far more advanced than he thought. I think he was scared for all the reason he told us, and I do believe he wants the drama to end. But I think his talk yesterday was a cover.
So in the continuing saga of the neighborhood and dealing with the dope peddler, an officer had a chat with him the Friday after our van incident, essentially telling dope dude that he [the officer] thought that he [the drug seller] was selling dope, and that he needed to stop or he'd be out.
Sounded pretty bold, I thought. Impressive.
There's been a drastic decrease in the traffic to the house, but more frequent outcalls. Great, right?
Sure, except for:
1. It put increased suspicion on us for being the ones reporting.
2. We're told that the owner won't evict unless they are caught doing something illegal at the house.
So the drug-selling continues, they stay put, and we stay at-risk for more damage to our property or ourselves. Fantastically efficient.
There is an ever-increasing likelihood that WE will be the ones leaving. Fleeing. Becoming refugees of Tacoma. No neighborhood is worth the risk, especially not this one.
It's been a week and a half since the attack. I call it an attack now because that's what it was: not just a message sent by the dope peddler intent on intimidating us, but an attack on the minivan, on our property, on our economic well-being, and on our sense of security.
It's been ten days of interrupted, broken sleep. Ten days of waking up each morning wondering if my car was busted up, and now that we have the minivan back, whether it was left alone last night, since it was parked on a side street in front of a neighbor's house, directly under a street light. Ten days of weighing the options of whether to stay and risk further damage to our property or worse, risking the safety of the family, or leaving and caring less about the effect on our good credit scores. Ten days of dealing with the reasons and excuses of why the Tacoma Police Department didn't and wouldn't have responded. Ten days of feeling alone in this fight.
With two exceptions.
I had reached out to a client of mine the day that the attack took place. He's heavily connected in the mortgage and real estate industry in the area, and I ased for his professional opinion on the situation. I got a call within a few hours that morning, even though he is a newer client, and even though he was in Alaska. He understood the safety concern, and one of the very first things he did was offer a "cabin" he had down in Lacey (more on that in a bit).
Tuesday morning I got a call from a friend who was not only sympathetic, but gave wise counsel and offered not only to help financially but to come stand guard--and recruit others--if needed. The call was a needed relief.
We haven't needed to take up the offer of the latter yet...though the financial help would be more than welcome. But the former...we actually went and took a look at it last evening. This is the view from outside:
The kids were almost immediately willing to sacrifice, understanding that we'd be far enough from friends that we couldn't see them every day, but close enough that we could still arrange occasional dates.
I was, for the first time in ten days, at peace. It was like all the weight was taken off of me. I was relaxed. I was happy.
Now, we still have to find out terms and whether or not we can do this, so it's far from a done deal, especially since we'd still need to deal with the house and the bank and determine the course there, whether to try to short-sale it or do a deed in lieu of foreclosure.
But it's a start.
Today's not been the best of days. Not that there's been anything bad that has happened today, but because the stresses of the things that have happened recently are coming to the forefront. (Just peruse previous posts over last couple weeks...).
The unexpected bills, the expected bills, and a slow start to the month (after coming out of a slow Q2 and just beginning to recover from that)...and the possibility of having to cancel the planned vacation over Labor Day weekend (haven't had one in 2 years)...along with the strain of wondering whether or not to stay here and fight for the neighborhood or pack up and leave is all heaped on me.
But just now someone in my timeline posted on twitter:
My God, I trust in You. Do not let me be disgraced; do not let my enemies gloat over me. Psalm 25:2
Is the stress there, and real? Oh, yes. But does that mean there is not trust? Not at all.
Would you be willing to help?
Ok, back to the other issue at hand in the household...the lead and the work on the house.
Today's lesson is on the Davis-Bacon Act. Short version is this: it was a Republican-sponsored bill in 1931 that requires paying "prevailing wages" on public works or other federally-funded projects over $2000. Sounds as decent as most government matters, no? The issues with it are numerous, and you can read a summary of some of them here. I won't delve into that, because this is a math lesson, not a history lesson.
In our case, we have available an $11k grant and/or a $20k (or so) low or no interest deferred loan. The grant is subject to Davis-Bacon, and if used, also makes the loan subject to it as well. But if the loan only is used, it is not. And here's where things get interesting.
Let's say, conservatively, that Davis-Bacon adds 35% additional cost (or, a better way of thinking about it, is that it reduces the spending power of the sum by 35%).
Grant: $11,000-35%=$7150 effective
Loan: $20000-35%=$13000 effective
Total=$20150 effective, essentially makes the grant money meaningless while funneling the funds into union hands when I'd rather support smaller businesses.*
We've chosen to proceed using only the loan.
*Ok, so maybe I clued you in on one of my objections to Davis-Bacon. The problem is this: as opposed to 1931, we now have fairly strict building codes, inspections, and enforcement...furthermore, those writing the contracts can just as easily add in whatever tougher requirements desired that must be met, and then let it be bid or, rather than arbitrarily be inflated. In times like these, requirements like Davis-Bacon kill off small construction businesses. Ironically, the grant money was a part of the "stimulus" funds that are designed to "maximizes job creation and economic benefit"...and it does neither.
Sept. 23, 1989...a day that should have lived in infamy in Tacoma. On that day, a group of off-duty Army Rangers engaged drug-selling gangsters. Over 300 shots were fired, and fortunately nobody was killed.
The News Tribune published some great articles about it last fall, here and here.
The event took place because Tacoma would not respond to the problem. Many have called it the catalyst for reform in Tacoma policies, yet it should never have happened.
Ironically, one of those News Tribune articles wrote:
Along the way, police learned what was to become conventional law enforcement wisdom: that keeping close tabs on the small stuff is an effective way to control the big stuff.Unfortunately, Tacoma seems to have forgotten this lesson. In a major way.
We've lived here in South Tacoma for 11+ years...and during that time we've had cars broken into, we've had cars hit by hit-and-run drunk drivers (twice, with one being totaled), and we've had windows smashed out. We even had a stroller stolen off our porch (that we recovered from a consignment store)...and during that time, only one time was there a response by the police. And that was probably only because our car was hit so hard that it was in the neighbor's yard. We're so used to this response that we'd stopped reporting things for many years.
Until the drug dealing. Enough is enough.
I understand the dispatching is running through LESA, and I understand that Tacoma has very little control. I understand that agencies are dealing with budget cuts. I understand that officers are often overrun by reports.I understand that the people I've talked to in the Police Department and City Council are probably doing what they can, but they have to operate within the system as it is. But here's the thing: in the end--in the bigger picture--none of that matters. The reasons, the policies, the excuses...none of that is going to protect my property or my family, nor is it going to pay the $500 deductible of what will probably end up being a $1500-$2000 repair bill.
Ultimately, in the absence of action by the police, it is not only my right, but my moral duty to protect my property and my family. As written in one of the articles about 1989...
Law-abiding citizens don’t take matters into their own hands until they’ve lost faith that police and city officials will help. The shootout is the cautionary tale that should ensure that the city continues to take neighborhood concerns seriously.Tacoma: you have forgotten this lesson...it is time to take issues like ours seriously, and not just in words.
PS Let me clarify: I am not writing, either explicitly or implicitly, that our situation would devolve into something similar to 1989. I'm too passive-aggressive for that kind of action. Read into that what you will.
So it comes to this.
After a rough few months of unexpectedly discovering lead in the house, out-of-pocket medical bills, a slower second quarter, the fiasco with the van, and the coming expenses of being out of our house once work starts...we need help. Help to not add to debt. Help to stay here. Help to make sure the drug dealer doesn't win. Help to save the neighborhood.
Will you help?
ChipIn uses PayPal for secure processing...
