What's the difference between a riot and a "150-person brawl"?

Sounds worse than Newark.

What's interesting is in today's Oregonian the Portland Vision study indicates folks on the outer east-side would be satisfied if more public transportation, bike paths, and side walks were available with the densification of their neighborhoods. Those fighting densification, like me, should maybe just raise the white flag and think of ways to subvert this onslaught at the personal level. Maybe an electric powered bike is one way of keeping one's freedom of individual transportation. Still when the weather turns ugly even an electric powered bike is probably a bit frustrating. Wish I could move west to new frontiers but I guess I'd end up in the ocean. :(

move west to new frontiers

Tillamook awaits you.

Riot: "A wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people."

What's the difference between a riot and a "150-person brawl"?

Hmmm.... I'd think that a brawl would be when the 150 people are engaged in fighting each other, while a riot is when they're engaged in destroying property and/or fighting the police.

Of course, that's hardly the point. 150-people engaged in any sort of violence is a bad thing. I'd think it'd be newsworthy, though, which makes the radio silence very odd.

One last note: Jack, why is it a "MAX riot" when it was two blocks away from the station?

My route to work includes Halsey to Powell via 162nd or 148th. I have seen more police. My son is playing "fall ball" baseball on Sundays at the PAL center on 172nd N of Burnside.

"Riot" and "brawl" seems like loaded words, though it probably an apt description of what is taking place.

The time of the day I cruise through there I see adults waiting for the Max to take them to work, and students to school. They are my neighbors.

Rather than villify the area, let's pray for our neighbors. Let's stand up for our neighbors.

Jack, why is it a "MAX riot" when it was two blocks away from the station?

I just go by what the police sergeants say in the paper. It may have been two blocks away from the station, but it was zero blocks from the tracks, and the station was closed to stop it from getting worse.

BTW, do you send your clients a bill after you post comments like those?

Ditto what Troy said. I ride the MAX back and forth past 160th on my daily commute. I sometimes ride after 9pm, when work keeps me late. I have never had any problems. It's too bad if these incidents scare people off. The reality is that crime happens everywhere, not just on & around the MAX. I agree with what others have said - the system needs to move to a "closed" system, where you MUST PAY to ride. They also need a lot more security presence than currently exists. Those simple steps would solve most of the crime problem on MAX, and the former would pay for the latter.

166.015 Riot. (1) A person commits the crime of riot if while participating with five or more other persons the person engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.

(2) Riot is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §218]

This might get things going.

BTW, do you send your clients a bill after you post comments like those?

Posted by Jack Bog | September 23, 2007 7:31 PM
-------

Ouch!! But I would love to see his answer.

Does Kari bill by the hour, or by the quip? How much does a good blog quip pay these days? Must be good money, where does a guy apply for such a job, as an internet quipster?

Um, what client? I don't work for Tri-Met...

Oh, and my question was a serious one. I have no doubt that there's LOTS of crime on MAX stations and on MAX trains and whatever...

I was just curious what this riot/brawl had to do with the trains. Have the cops said that this particular incident was transit-related? I haven't heard either way.

(FWIW, your link doesn't answer my question. It's about a story about regular crime on the MAX that was posted before the riot/brawl.)

Be sure to copy Earl on your comments. He'll be glad to know that you're sticking up for his precious trains.

The far end of the east side MAX line is an acknowledged crime magnet, so designated by the police in the area. Now there are riots there twice a month. Maybe the two have nothing to do with each other. But I doubt it.

Critical mass? A cluster of high density housing for non-owner occupants that is sufficient to overwhelm the hopes dreams and stability of the rest of the community. Or -- a vision of the ultimate end game of landlord subsidies that are sold as affordable housing.

I tried for a short time to farm (in the real estate sense) the area south from Main to Division west of 162nd, 25 years ago as construction began on MAX. It was little more than an idle curiosity at that time, to most folks and to me too.

Police action, even a brutal authoritarian sort of oppression, WILL NOT overcome this growing problem.

Frank -- "The reality is that crime happens everywhere, not just on & around the MAX."

That is far too broad a rebuttal to the link between MAX and high density housing and crime and the irreversibly progressive nature of the transformation of the community away from that of safe and stable toward sustainable chaos. The hassle factor of simply avoiding MAX, for the folks that I have met, would be far cheaper than imposing a cost on them to cover the security implications of problems that are not of their own creation, nor does it contribute to their for-profit bottom line.

Imagine if every apartment/rental in the area required tenants to post a security deposit equal to three months rent? (Without public subsidy for such security.) If a city can get away with threatening a landlord with loss of their property for knowingly allowing a drug dealer to operate out of their rental perhaps the city could make a landlord deliver the three-month-rent security deposit of a renter to the city upon some finding of guilt by the occupant. Or at least demand that a landlord impose such a security deposit?

Let the landlords deal with THEIR problem.

Would anyone wish to attack my supposition that the victimizers are very highly unlikely to be from any of the local families that have lived in owner-occupied housing for at least five year's time?

Transit oriented development, by definition, does not include detached single family housing. Does it?

(The above is, apologetically, somewhat exclusionary of regional immigrants. I'd rather attack monetary policies and the notion of construction for the sake of construction as a form of "development" that creates inherent instability in communities.)

Of course Kari is a client os the status quo.
BIG TIME. He's one of the lead cheerleaders.

As far as the Eastside MAX is concerned, it came up when the Rockwood Urban Renewal Dsitrict was in the making. ONe of the objectives for the district is, and this is a quote, "To deal with the crime and blight along the MAX line".

An amazing piece of reality which Kari et al have helped obscure from the public as more MAX lines are planned, funded and built with countless millions and the pack of lies about "spurring development".

Brian Newman and Deborah Barnes championed the recently funded Milwaukie light rail line with all the same old BS. The legislature just rolled over and bought the BS with $250 in lottery backed bonds.

Later and also recently Steve Duin criticized the use of lottery dollars but left out the big chunk now headed for light rail.
It's all very sick.

Watching the 205 MAX under construction is also a sick sight. There one can see large bridges being built along side the freeway to allow MAX trains to cross over the side street thoroughfares.

That new MAX will severely hinder a future widening of the freeway. Marvelous.

Milwaukie light rail will require a new bridge new bridge over the Willamette.

New bridges for light rail while the Sellwood Bridge, Columbia River crossing, Sunrise corridor, I-5/99 connector, Dundee/Newberg by-pass, widening 217 and hundreds of millions in deferred road maintenance wait forever.

"That new MAX will severely hinder a future widening of the freeway. Marvelous."

That's kind of the whole point of a MAX.

Sorry pal, that "point" is part of the fraud of MAX.

That somehow MAX negates the need to add capacity for the ever increasing population, commuters and commerce.

It's complete BS. There isn't a measurable reduction in vehicle use from either MAX or TODs or the bike frenzy, period.
To have more MAX lines sitting as number one priority is official malfeacence.
IMO

Of course Kari is a client os the status quo. BIG TIME. He's one of the lead cheerleaders.

...An amazing piece of reality which Kari et al have helped obscure from the public as more MAX lines are planned, funded and built with countless millions and the pack of lies about "spurring development".

What?! OK, I'm pretty sure I haven't blogged a damn thing about MAX lines and whether they spur development.

Seriously.

I get the criticism about whether my client list influences what I write (and we can argue about that all day long) -- but let's not going making up stuff.