INTERVIEW: MCC: fight or flight?

By Christine Carrie Fien on January 31, 2012

You can say what you want about the perception of crime in the City of Rochester versus the reality. But 200 young people marching down to the Liberty Pole, itching for a fight - or to watch a fight - is not a matter of perception; it's brass knuckles to Rochester's tender jaw.

And it gives MCC officials more ammunition when they say that the college has to move out of downtown's core because it's not safe.

For the record, the Rochester Police Department says the Liberty Pole fight reported by local media a few weeks ago has been blown out of proportion. The youth were headed there, a police spokesperson says, but the RPD intervened before anything major happened.

And a closer look at MCC's argument reveals that it, too, is exaggerated, says John Klofas, professor of criminal justice at Rochester Institute of Technology. MCC officials want to move the campus from the Sibley Building downtown by the Liberty Pole to partially vacant State Street properties owned by Kodak. Student safety is a main reason cited for the proposed move. In an open letter to the community in December, MCC President Anne Kress said there are six times as many police calls at Sibley than at Kodak.

First off, Klofas says, a straight-up public-safety comparison of the two sites is disingenuous. Sibley is in the heart of downtown, while the Kodak property is partially vacant. So it's hardly a surprise, he says, that the area around Sibley would have more calls for police service.

Secondly, Klofas says, MCC officials are probably fooling themselves if they think the Sibley problems won't follow them to Kodak.

But it's Klofas's third point that is the most intriguing. Doesn't MCC have a responsibility, he asks, to help address the problems its board and its president are complaining about? The answer to that question, Klofas says, has implications for the community as a whole: Do we work together to tackle persistent urban issues like disruptive youth and aggressive panhandling? Or do we separate ourselves if we can?

In addition to being a professor of criminal justice at RIT, Klofas works with Metropolitan Forum, an organization that promotes metropolitan perspectives in the analysis and solution of community problems. He serves as director for the Center for Public Safety Initiatives at RIT and is a nationally respected and often consulted expert in criminal justice and public safety issues. He has also written extensively on the subjects.

Klofas talked about MCC's decision to move to the Kodak site in a recent interview. An edited version of that discussion follows.

CITY: What's your reaction to MCC officials citing student safety as a big reason why they want to move away from the core of downtown?

Klofas: A lot of people have cited the crime issue. That's not an analysis that makes any sense to me. You can't compare a place that's a vital, peopled place with something that is a parking lot of a business that's half empty. You simply can't make that kind of comparison. It's not logical to make that kind of comparison.

The other thing I'm troubled by is the politics of it, with a small "p": the idea that if people are concerned about safety questions, even though the data on serious crime downtown is not significant, the idea that you would abandon property for that reason rather than either adjusting people's perceptions of this or adjusting the circumstances they find themselves in by addressing those problems.... The idea that you could say, "We're going to leave the downtown area and move to an area that has nobody in it because we think it's safer somehow."

There may be lots of other justifications [for the move] space wise, architecture wise, expansion wise. But the one that seems to be getting the play today is the comparative safety question which, I think, doesn't make any sense. Does the data show fewer calls for service at Sibley than at Kodak? Well, there's nobody to pick up the phone at Kodak.

And I think the idea that we would give up public space because of that concern is one that doesn't say very good things about the way we plan and how we address public policy issues.

So you're saying you're troubled that MCC would rather move than participate in cleaning up the problems or perceived problems?

Exactly.

Two things: Cities are vital places. Cities all over the country and all over the world have to address these same sorts of issues, and people don't turn and run as a result of that.

And the reality is you've got to be able to address these things. There are universities in downtown areas or in neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty in places all over the country. You're talking New York City. Places in Chicago or Milwaukee. And those places have tried to put their energy into developing and improving circumstances.

It's not the kind of problem that you can simply say, "This is a problem that is somehow independent of us. It doesn't make sense to say, "We're going to walk away from this."

That's what worries me about this whole thing: the extent to which we're imposing a vision of the world that is not a vision of an urban world at this point in time. The people who have expectations about what a college in a city would be like are somehow having a vision that doesn't include what a city is like. These are problems that should be addressed. They're not beyond being addressed. We've seen problems like this resolved in many places for a long, long period of time.

Which approaches do work in resolving these issues? MCC officials say students often encounter disruptive youth, open drug use, harassment, and other issues in the area around the Sibley Building.

I think a lot of things work in addressing problems like these. And they're exactly what you think would work: improved security, improved surveillance through cameras, better response to problems when people come in to complain, dealing with the anxieties and fears of people who are concerned about all of this and helping them understand what are real risks and what are not real risks. I think that whole gamut of things is what proves to work in populated settings anywhere.

Is it unreasonable for MCC officials to expect the safety problems to go away when they move to Kodak?

MCC will transport to a place that now has very few people. And the people who are there are coming and going. There's a distinct limit to what they're using that space for. And MCC is going to put people there who are hanging around studying, attracting other people.

The idea that somehow there's going to be a magical difference between Sibley and Kodak - it seems unlikely. It seems much more likely - if they're wise - that they're going to confront the same set of security questions that they confront downtown. And they'll have to handle them the same way they'd have to handle them at Sibley: through increased security and police presence, surveillance with cameras, checking people in and out of places. That's the reality today.

I don't think it's going to be any different there.

What's missing from this discussion? What are we not talking about?

I haven't heard anything about who these students are who are going to use this place. And I haven't heard anything about the urban mission of the college.

One of the justifications you heard a lot of when MCC opened up in Sibley was that they were going to serve a population that was going to be downtown, and live close to downtown. And they were reaching out to a whole different sort of student population, and the programs were going to be designed, scheduled, and focused on meeting the needs of a population that wasn't going to jump in the car and drive out to Brighton.

I do think this is a very significant decision for this community in many ways. It comes down to how we're going to respond to these kinds of issues and problems, how we think about the community we live in, and the extent to which people would rather sort of not address them: to think of the urban mission of universities as not having to deal with urban issues. Do we think we can just walk away from major portions of downtown? Do we think we can move somewhere and not have a similar set of concerns?

Where MCC ends up is the least significant portion of this whole thing.

The MCC situation is almost a caricature of a whole set of issues. It's the dynamics of this community sort of writ large. Are we going to be a community that separates itself as 19 school districts to maintain individuality, with major concentrations of very poorly integrated all-white neighborhoods and all-black neighborhoods? With major concentrations of poverty and minority populations?

I don't blame people for the decisions they make about any of this sort of stuff, but I think that as a community, you can start thinking about how we approach these kinds of issues. And this is probably not, so far, an approach that we should be very happy with. The conversation is not a good one at this point in time.

Facebooking fights

East High students, administrators, and others reportedly found out about a planned fight from Facebook a few weeks ago. Police disrupted the plans, and the youth headed to the Liberty Pole instead.

The incident has people asking whether it should be illegal to use social media to plan fights. John Klofas, professor of criminal justice at Rochester Institute of Technology, says it's a complicated question.

"If you're saying you think you've heard there's going to be a conflict somewhere, is that the same as committing some kind of offense that is supporting that conflict?" he says. "Would you then indict newscasters for saying the news?"

People can also find ways around the law, Klofas says, like using coded language on social media, instead of coming right out and saying what they're planning.

"The effort to legislate that stuff is always there somehow," Klofas says. "It's just that legislating it in a way that makes sense and that's meaningful can be hard."

Comments for "INTERVIEW: MCC: fight or flight? " (14)

City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these comments. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove comments at their discretion.

Larry Champoux said on Feb. 01, 2012 at 4:55pm

If recent allegations are true, the person endangering MCC may in fact be MCC Board Member John Parrinello. Until the MCC Board insists on his resignation for this and his past outrageous behavior, I can not take seriously Anne Kress's fake concerns about violence. The big difference of course is that Parrinello is white (and Republican). Additionally, as long as more MCC students come from the City of Rochester than any other community AND as long as City taxpayers pay a disproportionate share of taxes in support of MCC, there is a quite natural expectation that MCC should take quite seriously Mayor Richards' concerns.

Heidi Friederich said on Feb. 01, 2012 at 9:42pm

A great article! Thanks to Prof. Klofas for stating the problems and suggested solutions so succintly. And thanksalso to Larry for his thoughtful comments.

Kwai San said on Feb. 02, 2012 at 2:24pm

Seems to me that Klofas has a bent attitude towards Kodak - no one picks up the phone? Uhhh Hello! I know they are Chapt 11 but it isn't like there is no one there. Klofas need to leave the RIT campus and OBSERVE what he PERCEIVES to be no people there - I drive by this area several times a day and to characterize the are a as "empty" is just plain wrong. Ask the 3K plus Kodak workers is the place is empty? Ask the 2K plus Carestream workers if the place is empty. There are many folks here and there is indeed crime in that area too! Klofas projects an interesting perspective of his own on this situation.

Will Condo said on Feb. 02, 2012 at 2:40pm

Prof. Klofas is certainly correct in stating that a "community can start thinking about how we approach this kinds of issues", meaing the perception of crime and specifically, MCC's relocation to State Street. But perhaps the professor should start with the isolated, suburban, sprawing RIT campus, which has little connection to urban Rochester and its problems. And in the current issue of the RIT student publication Reporter, there is an article about students leaving the "bubble" of the RIT campus to experience city living, but who express concerns about crime. Now the Kodak site that MCC is considering is a 10 minute walk from the 4 Corners, is easily walkable to a number of economically distressed neighborhoods located to the West, North and East and is served by the RGRTA #1 bus along State Street/Lake Ave. It is actually closer to inner city neighborhods that the Sibley Bldg..And there is nearby access to I-49 and the Inner Loop for those students who drive. So while the Professor offers some admirable perspectives to help resolve urban issues, perhaps he should start with an effort at RIT. They would certainly be welcome tenants in a repurposed Sibley Bldg..

Andy Reed said on Feb. 03, 2012 at 8:42am

Maybe MCC officials want to move to EK because it is, overall, a better deal. MCC has no more of an obligation to help reverse our downtown's downward trajectory than any other local entity. If they want to move, then they should be allowed to move.
Deal with it, city and other local officials. Your bullying attempts to keep MCC where it is in order to recover from your repeated (past) screw-ups will only backfire on your. Or at least I hope so.

Margarita said on Feb. 03, 2012 at 9:24pm

I found Klofas's comments to be infuriating and disingenuous. He totally ignores the real issue- the busses dumping off all those RCSD kids near the Sibley building with nothing better to do than pick fightsand harrass people. I avoid that area like the plague and I would never allow a daughter of mine to attend the Sibley campus. MCC's primary responsibility is the safety and well-being of its students, not reclaiming one PARTICULAR downtown site. He acts like MCC wants to move the campus to Pittsford. The Kodak site is still downtown, and probably more convenient to the majority of urban students who will have access to parking as well as avoiding the teenage drama that goes on at the Liberty Pole.

Rochester born and raised said on Feb. 04, 2012 at 9:28pm

Does Mr. Klofas know his Rochester history? A little study would find it is his employer, Rochester Institute of Technology that fled the urban environment. Ever hear of 50 West Main St? I think the Kodak site is a win-win. Everyone agrees that all the teenagers at Main and Clinton have been a problem for years. Why concentrate more? It's not as if State St. at High Falls is Siberia! It's the best of both worlds. Parking, buildings that were designed for occupancy of this sort (bathrooms on every floor, central elevators, cafeterias), the baseball field next door, an infusion of students and faculty into High Falls to support restaurants and retail, and best of all, a quick 15 min walk and you're in the center of downtown. The city turning its back on struggling Kodak, that has done so much for this town, in favor of a gain for some Boston developer seems ridiculous. Forgiveness for the Wilmorite Tax cheats is the icing on the cake!!!

sean said on Feb. 06, 2012 at 6:45am

At least this publication doesn't make things up, like our newspaper of "record". I despise the D+C for its "official" line. Remember during the MCC debacle, that the D+C bought Maggie Brooks' line and tacked on interest. This paper may be preditably progressive and trample on "free" speech, but at least they bother to ask the other side's opinion before declaring there was a riot of over 200 young people... oh wait, that never happened. You would get more actual news, watching Jon Stewart. At least you'd get a laugh. Oh wait, you get that here too.

Julie White said on Feb. 06, 2012 at 12:11pm

I respect Dr. Klofas' lifelong career in criminal justice; however, as an employee at the Damon City Campus, I can say that there are many inaccuracies in his article.

Even more frustrating, though, is that City did not do their due diligence in this article. This is an article based on the opinion of one person. Why didn't City speak to any MCC officials or DCC students?

To paint MCC as disengaged with the community is to truly be in an ivory tower. Didn't City think to interrogate that viewpoint?

City, I expected better.

MCC graduate said on Feb. 06, 2012 at 3:59pm

Let's see... I think MCC President Kress has shown herself to be truly disengaged from the community when she advocated for Mayoral Control of the City Schools. There is reason that initiative is failing: the community does not want it. What was Kress thinking? She further proved that MCC is disengaged when she sought to use inaccurate claims about crime as a wedge issue. After all, the young people she is trying to make the community fearful of are the same young people she wishes to attend MCC. So yes, there are real issues about MCC's commitment to our community. Further, MCC appears to be in decline in terms of its academic credentials, which is the its greatest obligation to our community. At one time, MCC was considered among the very top community colleges in the nation. But that is no longer the case. Last year, the D.C.-based non-profit Aspen Institute ranked the nation's top 120 community colleges. MCC was not on the list, but Niagara County Community College was and so was Erie and Corning and a few other NYS community colleges. Why was MCC not there? Washington Monthly ranked the top 50 community colleges. MCC did a little better was still only 44th. (North Country Community College was #22.) This is not good enough. So for starters, MCC needs to bring up its standards up to a level that our community can be proud of and then, if its president and board concentrate less on sniveling politics and more on education, in another decade or so, MCC may be back on track to excellence. MCC: the community expects better.

J said on Feb. 07, 2012 at 7:48am

Putting aside the fact that the State Street complex is a better use of taxpayer dollars (own vs. rent), and other justifications for MCC's desired move as mentioned in the article (space, architecture, & expansion), the public safety discussion is also an important one.

I too respect Dr. Klofas' lifelong career in criminal justice, and he is correct that an accurate comparison between the two locations cannot be made. However, I question his assertion that "Sibley problems will follow them to Kodak"... Is he implying that MCC students are causing problems (real or perceived) in front of Sibley? Student on student violence? Why else would problems follow them to Kodak? (I find this hard to believe). Or is it more likely people who aren't affiliated with MCC at all who are either loitering or waiting for buses that are causing problems? Nor, by Mr. Klofas' logic, will these problems move away when the transit station is built (as the mayor would have us believe) - too bad for MCC.

Suggesting that MCC should "work to tackle persistent urban issues like disruptive youth and aggressive panhandling" is missing the bigger picture. It's simply not MCC's responsibility to cure downtown's social ills - nor should it be. Nor should they be forced to tolerate anti-social behavior immediately outside of their (rented) front door. MCC's primary function and obligation is to provide a college education for it's students - students who will in turn be prepared to take on these issues themselves upon graduation (if they're so inclined) - unfortunately the current location is not conducive to fulfilling this obligation.

Apart from the public safety issue, MCC at Kodak would provide a welcome "shot in the arm" to the High Falls neighborhood. And as I've stated here before, Sibley is FAR better suited for alternative uses (retail, residential, etc.) than are the Kodak buildings -which have few redevelopment options (aside from additional office space which Rochester already has in excess) and will otherwise sit vacant. If I were Winn, I would view this as an opportunity to truly help downtown Rochester (instead of just paying lip service) and make Sibley relevant once again. A newly refurbished Sibley Building could include High-End/Market Rate Residential overlooking the Liberty Pole & East Ave., Indoor Retail/Vendors, Restaurants & Entertainment on the plaza (as opposed to a RPD substation), Local Artist exhibits, etc...

With it's proximity to the East End, Sibley has real potential (in my opinion) to become Rochester's own version of Chelsea Market or Faneuil Hall - extending East Avenue's success west along Main Street - THAT is what is needed to continue downtown's revitalization.

Will Condo said on Feb. 07, 2012 at 10:00pm

One simple thing that has perplexed me for a while regarding the "student" problems at the Libertry Pole. Couldn't this be solved by simply relocating the bus transfer points ? Is there some law that the transit transfer point should be grouped near the Sibley Bldg.. It seems to me that the RGRTA has a significant role that it could have played to alleviate the congregation problems-and that is moving the bus transfer locations. Ore could it be that the RGRTA has an edifice problem and wanted a new bus terminal( in the wrong location I might add.) And of course the City, with no urban planning criteria for downtown other than build where you want whatever you want, wne t along for the ride! Now it wants to forgice Wilmorite's back-taxes while the spend $$millions on Eastview (in Ontario County) and Greece Toen Center Mall!

Urban Explorer said on Feb. 11, 2012 at 11:26am

A few observations:

First, as a public institution, MCC DOES have a responsibility to help revitalize the city. PRIVATE educational institutions as disparate as the University of Pennsylvania and Canisius College have done more to help revitalize their neighborhoods than MCC is apparently willing to do.

The concentration of bus riders will be eliminated or greatly reduced within 5 years with the construction of the RGRTA transit center on Mortimer Street.

I find J's comments contradictory. On the one hand, he/she is saying that MCC does not have a responsibility to solve the problems at the Liberty Pole, but goes on to presume that a private developer of "high end residential, restaurants, etc." in the Sibley Building would be able to solve these very same problems. If we don't expect our public, community, institutions to help solve these problems, why should we expect a private developer to do the same?

We all know how Dr. Kress and the MCC Board feels about the location. I would like to see the results of an independent survey of current and potential MCC students and faculty to gauge their views on the matter.

Robert Leonard said on Mar. 05, 2012 at 2:23pm

I was very disappointed in the comment by CS Cavalieri. It couldn't be more distorted.
There are 64 SUNY campuses and MCC has the second lowest tuition. The dorms, etc. are not paid for by tuition. The dorms were built by the MCC foundation and paid for by room fees charged only to those who choose to live there. The athletic center was built with donated money. The bookstore helps support the college, it doesn't cost the college.
As state and county support withers, MCC tuition may have to go up to keep the doors open, but it will continue to be one of the most frugally run SUNY campuses and the most affordable higher education option in the Rochester area.
Robert Leopard
Instructor of Biology
Monroe Community College

Respond on Your Blog

If you have a City Account you can not only post comments, but you can also respond to articles in your own City Blog. It's just another way to make your voice heard.