Quit burning my old neighborhood down!

Status
Not open for further replies.
DarkAudit

DarkAudit

This is a purely local story, but what got my attention is that these vacant houses that have burned, have had second and even third fires set after they were already heavily damaged the first time.

So in the space of about 2 weeks, there have been 5 suspicious fires in two houses about 2 blocks from one another. It's a bit unnerving because there's another vacant, mostly abandoned house right next door to one of the arsons. The front and back yard of *that* one is a virtual forest. If *it* goes up, there could be major collateral damage if the trees catch too. They're abutting occupied houses on either side.

Now really, is it all that common for *more* fires to be set in a house where an arson has already happened? Talk amongst friends from the old neighborhood is that this is likely a neighborhood kid with emotional problems because it's in such a small area of town.
 
I

Icarus

Heh, all the witch hunts for child molesters but none for pyromaniacs and it's amazing how often entire buildings go up in flames because of them. Last night several Belgian post trucks got wrecked by fire which was nearly certain caused by arson. And what about those huge forest fires that cause the death of several people not to mention burn down tons of acres of forest and loads of houses?
 
L

lafftaff

The same thing is happening in Houston in the Heights area. There have been something like 9 different house fires all within a couple blocks of each other.
 
L

Laurelai

Either a pyro...... or a developer. You'd be amazed how many times a new building goes up where an old one burned.
 
strawman

strawman

DarkAudit said:
Now really, is it all that common for *more* fires to be set in a house where an arson has already happened?
Click to expand...
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixing_Broken_Windows#The_book

Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.
Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars.
Click to expand...
It's a pretty well accepted theory, and one on which Guiliani used to 'fix' bad portions of new york (among other things):

A successful strategy for preventing vandalism, say the book's authors, is to fix the problems when they are small. Repair the broken windows within a short time, say, a day or a week, and the tendency is that vandals are much less likely to break more windows or do further damage. Clean up the sidewalk every day, and the tendency is for litter not to accumulate (or for the rate of littering to be much less). Problems do not escalate and thus respectable residents do not flee a neighborhood.
The theory thus makes two major claims: that further petty crime and low-level anti-social behavior will be deterred, and that major crime will, as a result, be prevented. Criticism of the theory has tended to focus only on the latter claim.
Click to expand...
Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his police commissioner Howard Safir also adopted the strategy more widely in New York City after Giuliani's election in 1993, under the rubrics of \"zero tolerance\" and \"quality of life\". Thus, Giuliani's \"zero tolerance\" roll out was part of an interlocking set of wider reforms, crucial parts of which had been underway since 1985. Giuliani had the police even more strictly enforce the law against subway fare evasion, and stopped public drinkers, urinators, and the \"squeegee men\" who had been wiping windshields of stopped cars and demanding payment. Rates of both petty and serious crime fell suddenly and significantly, and continued to drop for the following ten years
Click to expand...
-Adam
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top