By now, people in Milwaukee are convinced that Mayfair Mall is a dangerous place that needed a clampdown by police. Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, after all, instigated a get-tough policy to review and prosecute habitual offenders. And Mayfair announced a new policy whereby people younger than 18 must be accompanied by a parent or adult over age 21 after 2 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays.
But the facts in this situation turn out to be very different than imagined. Matt Hrodey, a UW-Milwaukee journalism student and a regular contributor to Milwaukee Magazine, did an analysis of crime at Mayfair and Southridge Mall and found the real problem is at Southridge.
Over the last five years, Southridge had 4,015 arrests for theft versus 1,842 at Mayfair. Southridge had twice as many arrests for disorderly conduct (842) as Mayfair (426), three times more arrests for vandalism (128) than Mayfair (43), three times more weapons crimes (58) than Mayfair (16), and comparable numbers for sexual assault, assault and robbery. But Southridge has 30 percent less visitors than Mayfair, so on a per-person basis, the crime rate is higher in every instance than at Mayfair.
Hrodey did find some increase in incidents at Mayfair in 2006, but the rate of arrests essentially returned to levels seen there in 2002 and 2003. Hrodey also compared the violent crime index (crimes per person or per visitor to the malls) and found Mayfair was safer than such cities as Brookfield, Pewaukee and Shorewood.
Hrodey, by the way, did his story for Frontpage Milwaukee, an energetic new Web site created by UWM students under the direction of journalism professor and conservative columnist/radio talker Jessica McBride. McBride had the idea for the story, Hrodey says, and her interest in getting the facts is admirable.
Contrast this to the ranting by radio talker Mark Belling. The tone of his invective is suggested by his column entitled “Drive thugs out of Mayfair.”
“The corpses of Capitol Court and Northridge are profound symbols of what happens when thugs, violence and crime infiltrate a shopping center,” Belling wrote. “Mayfair managers have refused to … enact policies to keep hoodlums out … If the toxic atmosphere at the mall isn’t fixed, it will lose ALL of its business.”
Belling warned Mayfair it had better close its movie theater or restrict it to adults. The radio talker is reminiscent of the crabby old man in the neighborhood that every kid hated. But his incessant intolerance has far more impact.
I understand that Mayfair is a business and must take steps to ensure that customers feel good about going there. But it is partly reacting to community perceptions, perceptions fueled by Belling and other commentators.
The reality is that Mayfair has suffered a few isolated incidents. The reality is it’s a very safe place to shop, much safer than a “whiter” shopping center like Southridge. The reality is that a clampdown on crime by the DA would accomplish more in other cities and other shopping malls than at Mayfair. Perhaps it’s time to adjust our perceptions and our policies to the facts.
The Journal Sentinel Asleep on the Supreme Court Race
Covering a hotly contested, liberal-versus-conservative campaign can be a tricky task for the Journal Sentinel. It’s a cinch that talk radio will accuse the paper of liberal bias, even if the paper goes down the middle. Liberal bloggers, meanwhile, will scream bias from the other direction.
Thus the newspaper has given readers a very mushy, down-the-middle view of the race for state Supreme Court between Annette Ziegler and Linda Clifford. Recent headlines have included “High court race nastier than usual” and “A costly, bitter campaign.” The stories suggest an equal exchange of attacks: on Ziegler for conflicts of interest on cases she handled; on Clifford because her husband is a medical malpractice lawyer, which could someday pose a potential conflict should she face a case involving the legal cap on malpractice claims.
But are these really comparable situations? Clifford’s “problem” is merely speculative. If the Supreme Court did hear a case on the malpractice claims cap, she would have to decide whether to recuse herself. Judges do this on occasion, and it’s considered the height of ethical behavior.
By contrast, Ziegler did not recuse herself on a huge number of cases where she had a conflict, and here is where the Journal Sentinel has soft-pedaled the damage. The Wisconsin State Journal has reported that Ziegler ruled on 46 cases involving West Bend Savings Bank, though her husband sits on the bank’s board of directors, which is a violation of the state judicial ethics code. The JS has reported just 24 such cases and has since referred to “dozens.” If 46 is the correct number, don’t readers need to know this? Or if the State Journal (which scooped the JS on this story) is wrong, doesn’t the JS need to explain why?
The State Journal has reported that Ziegler presided over another 22 cases involving other companies in which she owns $50,000 or more in stock, once again without withdrawing from the cases or notifying parties to the disputes of her conflict. The JS has referred to nine such cases or has simply noted such cases without specifying the number. Don’t readers need to know the true number is 22, or why the State Journal is wrong?
The State Journal has reported that Ziegler’s husband owns a real estate company which leases space to West Bend Savings Bank, adding a further conflict for any of her rulings involving the bank. The State Journal got confirmation from Ziegler’s campaign manager, Mark Graul. The JS has never reported this information.
My recent column reported the fact (which liberal opponents to Ziegler had first unearthed) that the Zieglers have borrowed millions from West Bend Savings Bank. Graul confirmed this, telling me the Zieglers currently have $2 million in loans from the bank. James Alexander, executive director of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, told the State Journal that $50,000 in stock is a “big number,” suggesting it’s something a judge should disclose to parties in a case. Alexander has also told Milwaukee Magazine that loans judges receive also pose a potential conflict. A $2 million loan is one heck of a conflict.
Yet, the JS has never reported on these loans.
I understand the paper’s dilemma. It would rather not credit other journalists for breaking these stories. But its mission is to serve readers. Instead, the state’s largest newspaper has been left behind by a host of print and broadcast journalists who have offered a more complete accounting of Ziegler’s conflicts.
Short Takes:
– Republican Scott Walker is off the hook. The County Executive was under investigation by U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic. At issue was a sweetheart deal the county gave to Bear Stearns. A company vice president, Nick Hurtgen, had arranged an Illinois fundraiser for Walker. Hurtgen was under federal investigation for a separate messy deal in Chicago, and it’s likely Biskupic had been waiting to see if some plea deal would induce Hurtgen to finger Walker or some other politician. But Hurtgen’s case was dismissed last week, and I think we can assume the Walker case is dead.
– Does it sometimes seem that every developer in Milwaukee wants a subsidy? Compass Properties LLC is asking for help to restore the historic building it owns at 735 N. Water St. But the building was built by the legendary Daniel Burnham and could be eligible for state and federal historic preservation assistance. Companies often avoid this route because it forces them to comply with preservation standards. But if the company truly intends to restore the building’s deteriorating cornice, why should those standards be a problem? More to the point, why should a city TIF be given to every developer with a hand out?
And don’t miss critic Ann Christenson’s Dish on Dining.
