Public Spaces
Teens and young adults aren't mosquitoes
If you're under 25, you're not quite welcome in Chinatown. A new "Mosquito" device at the street level of the Metro entrance at 7th & H Streets in Chinatown is emitting shrill noise at 18 KHz, a high frequency that only young people can hear.
Photo by aliciagriffin on Flickr.
Similar devices have been installed in Britain with the same purpose of discouraging young people from congregating outside shops. According to Councilmember Jack Evans, the founder of the Gallery Place development had the device installed on his company's Gallery Place building.
These devices are wrong and most likely illegal as well.
This device was placed at a popular Metro entrance and just a few feet from a popular bus stop. Toddlers, teenagers, and young adults waiting for the bus or emerging from the Metro will now have to endure a shrill screech purposely aimed at annoying them and driving them away. WMATA's Lisa Farbstein voiced concerns about this to the Post.
Though I too am concerned about the incivility and criminal behavior that occurs in Chinatown, police supervision is the proper response. Though I'm 25 now, as a teenager I strongly resented our society's habit of treating young people as criminals and nuisances.
Before the age of suburban development and private shopping mall, cities always included grand public spaces for relaxation and socializing. Sometimes these spaces were formal, grassy parks and sometimes these places were paved plazas like the piazzas in Italy.
Unlike private shopping malls, which serve as the de facto gathering places in most suburbs, public streets, squares, and parks in cities are by their virtue open to the public. With the bright lights, movie theaters, restaurants, and ample seating space on the steps of the museum, Chinatown is a unique attraction for nightlife of all ages. The fact that it sits atop three Metro lines makes it accessible and a convenient meeting place for people coming from all over the city.
Criminal behavior and ill-behaved teenagers do reduce the enjoyment of the space for everyone else, including the vast majority of well-behaved teenagers. This must be addressed through police patrols; Chinatown's popularity and importance warrants a continuous MPD presence the way the NYPD constantly patrols Times Square.
Even still, public spaces by definition are open to the public and must remain that way. Part of the charm of Chinatown is that it is unpredictable and boisterous. Its liveliness, let's remember, is largely owed to the liveliness of excited, but law-abiding, youth.
Just as teens skateboarded in Silver Spring's plaza because they had no better place, if young people are hanging out in Gallery Place, the better approach would be to give them a better place to go that meets their needs instead of just trying to annoy them away somewhere else.
More importantly, this device probably violates the law.
The DC Human Rights Act makes it illegal "to deny, directly or indirectly, any person Unequal treatment is illegal if it is "wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based on the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, source of income, or place of residence or business of any individual." (Our emphasis)
Whoever installed this device clearly did so with the intention of driving away young people who have an equal right to be at the Metro entrance. The device's manufacturer doesn't mask the age-discrimination motivation of the Mosquito and even markets it as "a simple, safe and benign way to disperse crowds of anti-social youth." There's no explanation as to how the device knows who is "anti-social" and who isn't. Few people would describe a toddler or infant as "anti-social", but the device doesn't care for such nuance.
The ethical problem with the device is clear: it purposely aims to annoy and deny equal use of public accommodations to law-abiding people solely on account of their age. All insidious forms of discrimination derive from desire to withhold one's goodwill from a person for characteristics that don't merit distinction.
Several papers are reporting the installation, but few are addressing the civil rights aspect of it. Young people are equally entitled to use these public places lawfully and social interaction in the public sphere is a key part of urban life, even if it occasionally gets rowdy. Police patrols are a more effective means of maintaining order in Chinatown as they can address activities that are actually illegal.
The developer probably doesn't care much for the ethics of the matter, but the DC Human Rights Act makes its use illegal. An investigation by the city's Office of Human Rights is a call the developer will hear loudly.
Eric Fidler has lived in DC and suburban Maryland his entire life. He likes long walks along the Potomac and considers the L'Enfant Plan an elegant work of art. He also blogs at Left for LeDroit, LeDroit Park's (only) blog of record. 
Comments
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- Redeveloping McMillan is the only way to save it
- DDOT agrees to repave 15th Street cycle track
- Vienna Metro town center won't have a town center
by Keith Ivey on Sep 2, 2010 11:30 am • link • report
by Paul C on Sep 2, 2010 11:32 am • link • report
Great post.
by Amin on Sep 2, 2010 11:33 am • link • report
by Lou on Sep 2, 2010 11:34 am • link • report
Also, I am fairly sure teenagers and the various unemployed 20 year old do not contribute anything to the "liveliness" of the place. That has to do with the paying customers, all of whom are staying away from the area. My GF refuses to go out in Chinatown anymore, and she doesn't bring her other gf there as well.
by charlie on Sep 2, 2010 11:34 am • link • report
The following words and terms when used in this chapter have the following meanings:
§ 2-1401.02. Definitions.
The following words and terms when used in this chapter have the following meanings:
...
(2.) “Age” means 18 years of age or older.
by jcm on Sep 2, 2010 11:34 am • link • report
by Keith Ivey on Sep 2, 2010 11:36 am • link • report
However, I'm pretty sympathetic to the merchants involved here. Gallery Place has a real problem. Police enforcement can only do so much. A great deal of the offensive behavior is not illegal, just obnoxious and aggressive.
Teens don't need a "better place" to hang out. They should be able to hang out here, take in a movie, and do all the other stuff that draws people to Gallery Place. However, they need to behave themselves by not starting fights; heckling women, white people, and perceived gays; blocking sidewalks; etc. This is all behavior I've seen there, not some misplaced "oh my gosh, black kids are hanging out, what shall I do".
Any suggestions on modifying behavior? The mosquito is not the answer. What is?
by TimK on Sep 2, 2010 11:38 am • link • report
by Jed on Sep 2, 2010 11:38 am • link • report
Cops on the beat. That's how other cities like NYC have dealt with these problems.
by Phil on Sep 2, 2010 11:42 am • link • report
Anyway, that said, I think they should just use the time-honored suburban 7-11 practice of playing classical music through the loudspeaker, instead. It's proven effective elsewhere for decades and doesn't annoy anyone except people who think classical music is uncool.
by Jamie on Sep 2, 2010 11:45 am • link • report
Those who are against this may have a soft heart but must not frequent the area. Also there are plenty of common spaces (perhaps not as grand as a piazza) but I think the mall and the hundred or so other parks in this city are pretty good. No need to congregate on the sidewalk / street.
by berk on Sep 2, 2010 11:48 am • link • report
@jcm: People under 18 aren't the only ones who hear it. People who have the hearing of an average 25-year-old or under can hear it.
Furthermore, there's additional legislation, both local and national, that gives human rights to people under 18. Not the same rights, I'm sure, but rights nonetheless.
by Tim on Sep 2, 2010 11:49 am • link • report
Deliberately annoying and alienating teenagers is not going to solve any of the District's perceived social problems. If anything, this is pouring fuel into the fire.
And, seriously... What sort of city-dweller is actively fearful of large crowds? The chaos that occurs after an event at the Verizon Center is far, far worse than occasional loiterers by the Metro entrance.
(On the other hand, the other half of Charlie's comment rang true... When people complain about loiterers, it's usually about black people)
by andrew on Sep 2, 2010 11:49 am • link • report
by JustMe on Sep 2, 2010 11:52 am • link • report
If more cops is the answer, then what happens when allegations of police racial profiling and harassment are raised? Or is the answer more money for "youth programming" so that kids will be doing whatever it is that occurs durng programming, rather than hanging out at Gallery Place and acting like idiot teens?
If the Mosquito is a violation of the DC Human Rights Law, then surely when a bar offers "ladies night" drink specials, that too must be a violation of the law because of it's discriminatory effect.
Likewise, if I'm trying to get into a fancy trendy club wearing shorts and sandals and the bouncer says I'm not getting inside because of the dress code, is that also a Human Rights Law violation?
If you're going to make a legal pronouncement, then you need actual legal citations and arguments, rather than simply self-righteousness.
by Fritz on Sep 2, 2010 11:55 am • link • report
http://www.quizlaw.com/blog/oh_its_a_ladies_night_oh_what.php
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-8-2007/sexual-stealing
by David Alpert on Sep 2, 2010 12:00 pm • link • report
All of them? Really?
Is this the new version of "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded"?
by neff on Sep 2, 2010 12:00 pm • link • report
by Carrie on Sep 2, 2010 12:00 pm • link • report
What if DC deployed a bunch of these next time the anarchists came for the World Bank protests? I bet most of those people fit the "spectrum" that this device targets. Is that defensible?
by Lou on Sep 2, 2010 12:01 pm • link • report
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5434687
by Carrie on Sep 2, 2010 12:05 pm • link • report
This device is set so that people off all ages can hear it:
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Anti-Loitering-Device-Installed-at-Gallery-Place-101903703.html
It is anti-loitering device. It is absolutely legal to be annoying within the confines of the law. They are not targeting teens.
As long as it does not violate the sound ordinance (it doesn't appear to), then the company has a right to be just as annoying to the people gathered as the people have a right to gather.
by trian on Sep 2, 2010 12:06 pm • link • report
It's not large crowds that bother me. It's small groups of kids who deliberately threaten people and have no problem getting into fights publicly.
I'm fed up with abusive behavior. That doesn't make me a racist. Or even a suburbanite.
by TimK on Sep 2, 2010 12:08 pm • link • report
Basically, DC needs to extend their "Drug Free Zone" law to incorporate non-drug related violence (including sexual harassment that includes cat-calling).
Even liberal San Francisco got so fed up with violence, that they instituted a very specific loitering law:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-05-09/bay-area/17201323_1_chicago-anti-loitering-nightclub-ordinance
Such laws have to be conducted with the utmost recognition that they are treading into First Ammendment territory, and therfore must be crafted carefully. But when an entire metro area becomes wary of visiting an area because of real violence (verbal harassment, 70 person brawls), then the municipality must take action to protect its citizens.
Plain and simple, if people don't feel safe going to Gallery Place on weekends evenings, the city has a responsibility to fix the problem. They haven't despite repeated requests.
The business decided to take action. They are annoying. They may annoy real potential customers and hurt their business. But the fact is, they see that potential as being less problematic than the current one, so they are trying this.
If it doesn't work, they will stop using the device.
by trian on Sep 2, 2010 12:09 pm • link • report
Could one of the supporters of this device explain exactly why it's okay that a 25-year-old who's waiting at the escalator to meet friends to go to a movie and bothering no one should be subjected to this?
by Keith Ivey on Sep 2, 2010 12:10 pm • link • report
by tom veil on Sep 2, 2010 12:12 pm • link • report
When I'm out in public, I only like to see people like me. If the result is that _all_ people, well behaved or otherwise, not like me can't go about their business and enjoy themselves, so be it.
by HM on Sep 2, 2010 12:12 pm • link • report
If you don't count people under 18 as real people (with real rights), you're still annoying the tons of people in their early 20's who live in Chinatown. And, I bet those early 20'ers spend more money in Chinatown than anyone else. If you're worried about scaring anyone away you should be worried about the early 20's population, and their free-spending happy hour ways.
by Jersoph on Sep 2, 2010 12:14 pm • link • report
I fully agree that it doesn't work, which is the real issue. But I don't have any sympathy for the "rights" argument.
by charlie on Sep 2, 2010 12:16 pm • link • report
by Keith Ivey on Sep 2, 2010 12:16 pm • link • report
Police don't care, and can't do anything when there are 30-40 people or more there - you can't prove who spat at me (or my girlfriend, filthy bastards) unless you're looking up and that's a recipe to get spit in the eye and who knows what kinds of shit is in their saliva.
Bring the "Mosquito" on. More of them. Until the little bastards leave us to commute in peace.
by varun on Sep 2, 2010 12:17 pm • link • report
by Keith Ivey on Sep 2, 2010 12:21 pm • link • report
by Redline SOS on Sep 2, 2010 12:24 pm • link • report
@ Jersoph; early 20's? I wish...try early 30s. Look at some of those HH prices?
by charlie on Sep 2, 2010 12:27 pm • link • report
by aaa on Sep 2, 2010 12:28 pm • link • report
by ZZinDC on Sep 2, 2010 12:29 pm • link • report
And don't forget gay bars that prohibit all "persons" wearing high-heels.
by Steve s. on Sep 2, 2010 12:30 pm • link • report
If the Mosquito thing is set to a frequency that everyone can hear - and I'm not a teen, yet I can hear it just fine - then the "discrimination" case falls flat rather fast. The question then becomes whether it's within the noise control laws, which MPD apparently thinks it is.
On the bigger issue of crowds of unruly teens, the answer may be more police presence. But that would come with the undoubtedly ensuing claims of racial profiling and, once again, age discrimination for the cops hassling the loitering teens.
The DC loitering statute is, I believe, rather weak and hard to enforce (thanks Phil Mendelson!).
And the DC disturbing the peace laws are also very weak and hard to enforce (thanks again, Phil Mendelson!).
So what's the solution if you're the property management company and owners of the development? Is your concern focusing on what the city's bleeding hearts will say? Or is your concern focused on what your stores' patrons and condo residents' quality of life is?
by Fritz on Sep 2, 2010 12:31 pm • link • report
by Bossi on Sep 2, 2010 12:34 pm • link • report
by Lamont Prince on Sep 2, 2010 12:36 pm • link • report
I don't think that distinction is really important for the purposes of the legality of this.
You can sit on a public street corner and yell about Jesus through a megaphone all day, can't you?
by Jamie on Sep 2, 2010 12:37 pm • link • report
Those unruly teens will just go somewhere else and bother someone else. The point is that we need better policing, not just a way to push the problem off on someone else by removing an entire class of people away from our public areas.
And this is a public area. These metro stops were funded by the taxes of all teens parents. If my tax money paid for a subway stop I would want my child to be able to use it without being subjected to an ear assault. And I would want to be able to use it without being harassed by thugs.
What is the unemployment rate in the metro area? Hire some security guards.
by esther on Sep 2, 2010 12:37 pm • link • report
But they lost today....
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/court-rules-ladies-nights-arent-sexist-dont-violate-constitution/19618312
In its unanimous ruling, the court's three-judge panel also said that Den Hollander "paints a picture of a bleak future, where 'none other than what's left of the Wall Street moguls' will be able to afford to attend nightclubs"
Asked Wednesday about what he thinks the odds are of the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear his case, Den Hollander told the Daily News: "About the same as some pretty young lady paying my way on a date."
It tickles me that the cheapskate whol filed the case is called Den Hollander. Apparently, it's not only being Dutch that makes one cheap. Being called "Hollander" suffices. :-D
by Jasper on Sep 2, 2010 12:46 pm • link • report
by Rich on Sep 2, 2010 12:50 pm • link • report
I've heard the noise (I'm 25). Annoying, yes. Annoying enough for me to stop going to Gallery Place, no. That's because I don't go to Gallery Place to loiter by the metro and harass people. I go to Gallery Place to go to movies, restaurants, and the bar. You can't hear the noise in there, it's been shown that the device does not discriminate in that it annoys everyone equally, so what's the big deal again? I'd rather put up with an annoying sound for a few seconds than feel unsafe going to one of my favorite areas.
by JS on Sep 2, 2010 12:53 pm • link • report
by Bossi on Sep 2, 2010 12:53 pm • link • report
I was intrigued to read that the device is used to prevent unlawful skateboarding in other locales. If so, I would really like the National Park Service to install them in Indiana Plaza and Freedom Plaza, where unlawful skateboarders have inflicted hundreds of thousands of dollars on the granite and marble surfaces. The skateboarding is also hazardous to pedestrian activity and extremely noisy. The Navy Memorial Plaza has also seen frequent stakteboarder activity, but is somewhat better patrolled by volunteers from the visitor center there. These areas are posted against skateboarding (unless the boarders remove the signs), but the Park Police can't camp out in the plazas full time to protect them. Bring on more Mosquitos!
by Penn Quarter Urbanist on Sep 2, 2010 12:56 pm • link • report
Second, they could easily shut down the people shouting through megaphones if they really wanted to. I am sure there are any number of laws they could use to do so. They can't stop people from handing out pamphlets, or even speaking publicly in loud voices, but I bet they could justify it with the volume the megaphone creates. Maybe the police think it isn't worth it, especially given a potential lawsuit (albeit one that would probably be decided in their favor).
Finally, this is questionably legal and almost certainly not a good idea even if it is. I would be shocked if there is actually nothing the police can do, but if that's the case, then the Council needs to act to give them authority to deal with the situation. Noise pollution is already so bad in much of the world that nearly everyone suffers from some degree of tinnitus. Putting more loud sounds in public spaces is not a good thing.
by Nate on Sep 2, 2010 12:58 pm • link • report
This has come up many times in the past, in particular an incident in which a homeowner who lived on the corner where one of these guys set up every day. He tried again and again, including trying to have the law changed to lower the decibel limit. Police came an measured the noise, but as long as it doesn't exceed the limit (which is pretty high) there is no legal recourse.
by Jamie on Sep 2, 2010 1:00 pm • link • report
Civil rights violation: highly unlikely
Noise violation: MPD already has said no
I'd agree that it may not be best solution, and perhaps not even a good idea. But it certainly seems legal.
by charlie on Sep 2, 2010 1:03 pm • link • report
Besides, every time I've been there on Friday or Saturday evenings there have been cops, Guardian Angels or private security on the scene. If kids are causing problems at other times then cops need to be there at those times, as well.
The lack of police patrols within the station itself also astounds me. I was in NYC this weekend and I saw cops on the subway several times. At major transfer stations on weekend evenings the NYPD seems to patrol pretty much constantly, and in some cases they even have offices within the station. Meanwhile, I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a cop on Metro.
by Phil on Sep 2, 2010 1:06 pm • link • report
by Eileen on Sep 2, 2010 1:15 pm • link • report
And I will say I have seen police presence at green line stations now.
by charlie on Sep 2, 2010 1:15 pm • link • report
by Brian on Sep 2, 2010 1:19 pm • link • report
Just tase everybody age 25 and younger. The police would be happy to practice their skills and the courts and public opinion seem to be totally on board with this form of semi-lethal "behavior modification".
Problem solved.
by Tosh on Sep 2, 2010 1:21 pm • link • report
by JTS on Sep 2, 2010 1:26 pm • link • report
by Fritz on Sep 2, 2010 1:29 pm • link • report
by carrie on Sep 2, 2010 1:30 pm • link • report
by Mike S. on Sep 2, 2010 1:39 pm • link • report
by kidincredible on Sep 2, 2010 1:39 pm • link • report
by carrie on Sep 2, 2010 1:43 pm • link • report
by Nate on Sep 2, 2010 1:54 pm • link • report
You can't say it won't help things any more than I can say for sure it would work, but it's an idea someone came up with with a valid reasoning behind it. It's irresponsible to dismiss it under the guide of "tried it, didn't work" when the Verizon Center wasn't even built until 1997.
by kidincredible on Sep 2, 2010 1:55 pm • link • report
That is, what about a pedestrian mall along 7th between E or F up to H Street? Or perhaps a single NB lane which is bus/bike only.
Bus-wise, SB 70 and 71 would be diverted to either follow the SB Circulator down 9th; or over to 6th.
Car-wise it'd have to be evaluated what the impacts would be to 6th & 9th; and perhaps give consideration of operations as far as K&R operations for Metro, Verizon, or in general for the area.
It'd be easy to test... just close it with cones and barrels for a week & evaluate the results. A week wouldn't yield ideal long-term data, but it'd at least give a sampling of traffic effects as well as public opinion.
Not saying I necessarily support or oppose it... just offering it as food for thought.
by Bossi on Sep 2, 2010 1:58 pm • link • report
Is it legal to subject the general public, loitering or not, to health effects without their consent? I doubt it.
by Brian on Sep 2, 2010 2:11 pm • link • report
That said, teenagers hanging out is perfectly legal if they're not doing anything wrong (fights, harassment, etc), and if any of them has any harm because of this thing I hope the developer thought about the liability consequences. He has no dominion over a public street.
by rumpole on Sep 2, 2010 2:16 pm • link • report
I wish someone would inflict that much money on me!
by Po' Boy on Sep 2, 2010 2:21 pm • link • report
This isn't the sort of thing that requires months to see the effects. It should be immediate. It's been going on for at least days now. Have the troublesome teenagers disappeared from the area? If not, it's a failure, regardless of whether it's legal to assault the ears of the general public.
by Keith Ivey on Sep 2, 2010 2:24 pm • link • report
by A. Huffington on Sep 2, 2010 2:28 pm • link • report
by charlie on Sep 2, 2010 2:33 pm • link • report
Some people legitimately wait for the bus at that bus stop, but the majority of the people I see there are there when I come in to work, walk by for lunch, and head home in the evening. I'm particularly annoyed by the "entrepreneurs" who are clearly selling cigarettes and bootleg CDs/DVDs out of their backpacks in plain sight of police officers who don't seem to care. By the end of a summer day that area smells of cigarette smoke and body odor the likes of which I've only previously experienced when I got lost in Shanghai's ghetto.
by Teyo on Sep 2, 2010 2:58 pm • link • report
by DinDC on Sep 2, 2010 3:11 pm • link • report
We need to go beyond the "logic" of "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore this must be done." How would this even theoretically help the Portrait Gallery steps at all?
by Keith Ivey on Sep 2, 2010 3:20 pm • link • report
We need to go beyond the "logic" of "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore this must be done."
You must not read the streetcar discussion on this blog.
by DinDC on Sep 2, 2010 3:23 pm • link • report
by Anonymous on Sep 2, 2010 3:25 pm • link • report
1) 14th Amendment Section 1 states that citizens must be treated equally (there is NO age limit on citizenship nor in section 1). So that applies. END OF STORY.
2) 25 and under are not exempted from the HUMAN RIGHTS law and since it affects them...guess what? TWO STRIKES AGAINST IT (see #1)
3). Under 18s aren't human? You dick.
by Lindsay on Sep 2, 2010 3:25 pm • link • report
Why do you expect the property management company/developers to care about where the kids go so long as they're not on the property? Yes, the kids may be displaced from one location to somewhere else a few hundred feet away. But is it the property owners' responsibility to address the "root causes" of why some kids hang out there and act like uncivilized buffoons? Clearly the city hasn't dedicated the resources to "do something." But MPD has regularly complained to the Council that the current disorderly conduct and loitering laws don't allow officers to properly deal with public nuisances like some of the kids here (thanks again Phil Mendelson!). What's the property owner supposed to do?
by Fritz on Sep 2, 2010 3:30 pm • link • report
Not exactly what the 14th Amendment says, unfortunately.
I think you might be able to imagine some problems that it might pose in our society if that were the case. For example, the drinking age, child protection and labor laws, and so on.
These seem to have withstood the test of time without challenge on the basis that "all citizens must be treated equally."
"So that applies. END OF STORY."
Or not.
by Jamie on Sep 2, 2010 3:35 pm • link • report
I won't board at Gallery Place, save for the Portrait Gallery entrance, if I can help it. I've seen exactly the boorish behavior that others have described. This is not a racial thing, it's a thug thing, and the recent fight only confirms it. There are plenty of well behaved kids in the area: what do we do with those who haven't quite figured the whole "civilization" thing out yet?
by Dave J on Sep 2, 2010 3:38 pm • link • report
by Keith Ivey on Sep 2, 2010 3:45 pm • link • report
LOL. funny. don't know if i'd go with the name-calling, but the basic sentiment is correct.
this surreptitious behavior does remind me another incident in history. maybe we can call this, The DCegee Experiment?
What if DC deployed a bunch of these next time the anarchists came for the World Bank protests?
we'd be happy to take them down for you. ;-D
the point is not to annoy everyone who walks through there (although it seems to be doing just that), but to annoy the people, teenagers or not, who stay there constantly and loiter.
Wrong. the device was specifically designed to annoy young people -- to single out a class of people. if you made the device annoying to _everyone_, then we could talk about whether this was a reasonable fix or not.
The government has a substantial interest in protecting its citizens from unwelcome noise
if this is true then we need to ban most motorized traffic from not only Gallery Place, but all of DC immediately -- including, but not limited to, cars, trucks, buses, and scooters/mopeds/motorcycles.
i'm actually very sympathetic to the idea of preventing this type of loitering-to-terrorize anti-social behavior - and this type of behavior often is a form of terrorism. out in San Francisco, there have been a recent spate of attacks of roving groups of mostly-minority black/Latino teens harassing/robbing/attacking/murdering people (yes, i said murdering people).
it does seem like a difficult problem to solve overnight, but there are things we can do, like:
1) get the police on it. if there are crimes being committed, and there obviously are, then it can be a police matter,
2) talk about it openly, in public,
3) get input from the teens to talk about it,
4) figure out the root causes of the behavior:
i'm very happy to see this blog call out a private developer over this behavior.
we should work to prevent anti-social behavior first, instead of addressing it after the fact -- ounce of prevention/pound of cure and all that.
also, it'd be nice if groups/entities/businesses/organizations/governments felt free to contact this blog or other groups within the city -- like any of various non-profits -- to brainstorm about possible solutions to any number of city/urban problems.
by Peter Smith on Sep 2, 2010 4:12 pm • link • report
@Keith - You're arguing the Mosquito is a "fake solution" b/c it doesn't solve the problem of kids hanging out around the area. My point is: so what? I think the property owner is simply trying to deal with uncivilized behavior closest to its property, rather than solving societal ills. What would you suggest they do if having private security isn't solving the issue and MPD also isn't solving the problem?
by Fritz on Sep 2, 2010 4:16 pm • link • report
Ok, I think it's safe to say we've gone off the deep end...
by TimK on Sep 2, 2010 4:17 pm • link • report
Without liberty, there is no avenue for personal responsibility, only control from a dominant external force. Indeed, the author demands this external force, personified in the local police agency, to remove all personal responsibility from the individuals whose liberty they seek to protect. Without responsibility, liberty becomes license to do or say whatever this group may want without having a single thought of any consequences or cost of injury should any arise. Both are required.
I'd suggest the author read this: http://www.maxmore.com/libresp.htm and consider the ramifications of a world where liberty is defended while responsibility is never required. If the teenagers in question demand liberty to assemble and gather in public places as they please, then they MUST also exert personal responsibility in their actions and demand it of their peers.
by DM on Sep 2, 2010 4:42 pm • link • report
LOL. If these little thugs had parents who cared about raising good kids, the problem wouldn't exist to begin with.
by DinMD on Sep 2, 2010 4:42 pm • link • report
by M.V. Jantzen on Sep 2, 2010 4:50 pm • link • report
We should not have a blame all for one person what should be done is you get rid of that person.
It cant be just because of stores because of Union Station it use to have a movie theater etc and they never had the same problems.
Teenagers are loud in general go to any country you will find problems with youth. I have been to Russia, Australia, Egypt, Brazil & Germany and have witnessed annoying teenagers doing the same stuff.
by kk on Sep 2, 2010 4:54 pm • link • report
Totally agree with your last paragraph. Teenagers are loud, and left to their own devices can be quite disruptive. This transcends our local issues of race and class.
And the movie theater at Union Station was also pretty bad. I quit going about 8 years ago as it was very disruptive.
by TimK on Sep 2, 2010 5:02 pm • link • report
by Jenny on Sep 2, 2010 5:10 pm • link • report
Meanwhile, actual commuters won't be bombarded with an uncomfortable noise
by JJJJJ on Sep 2, 2010 5:20 pm • link • report
by Anonymous on Sep 2, 2010 5:24 pm • link • report
I dont remember there ever being any problem like it is at Gallery Place at least when I went there (last time was when it was still a AMC theater).
I forgot about the riots in Greece, France, & the Netherlands were done by people where the majority was under 25 or 30 and there were minors present.
The mosquito tone is the worst thing that could be done
1 you are effecting more than those who cause the trouble.
2 will have a mad group of people who caused the problems and did not.
3 people between 0-35 might not shop there
4 parents with small children/babies; babies can hear the sound perfectly and they will constantly cry until removed from the sound and parents wont know why they are crying.
The ending result will be the damn machine broken and in this case i'm willing to accept that because a person decided to put this up and blaming all for one persons problem.
I agree that something should be done; but it should not effect innocent people who are there walking pass, waiting for a bus or going in/out of the subway and dont have a damn thing to do with it.
This is present throughout history go read any book about riots, society, youth, culture etc. Ancient Greece, the Pilgrims, England, ancient Egyptians, ancient India, the Near east etc.
It doesn't matter what time you get alot of youth, substance intoxicated people of any age, or a majority group of people from one gender and a minority of another gender you will have a damn problem.
Somethings of the past centuries and decades has made this easier and or more often but thats another issue.
by kk on Sep 2, 2010 5:28 pm • link • report
Yes, but do the means justify the end? We can ban all people from the streets or shoot litterers on sight, which would solve the littering problem quite quickly. Of course, that's not a reasonable means to this end.
Similarly, is it worth it to indiscriminately ban all people of a certain age (or hearing level) from an area? I honestly can't say that the conditions at Gallery Place are any worse than your average crowded urban downtown. (Actually, I'd argue that it's cleaner and more civil!)
by andrew on Sep 2, 2010 5:35 pm • link • report
by Uncle Ben on Sep 2, 2010 5:37 pm • link • report
by Bossi on Sep 2, 2010 5:37 pm • link • report
I really don't buy the "They have nothing better to do" argument. I don't own a car, I don't own a gun (to go to a firing range), I can't buy booze and until last year I couldn't gamble. Yet my friends and I still managed to enjoy ourselves. Walking around, seeing movies (and not talking through the whole god damn thing), playing video games etc.
by Martin on Sep 2, 2010 5:44 pm • link • report
I spend ten minutes panicking, trying to figure out why my child is going into a fit. Finally, I leave the store in frustration and attempt to enter another establishment, also equiped with a Mosquito. My child once again erupts into hysterics because of a noise only the child can hear. Other shoppers - and possibly a store clerk hasn't been filled in - now get to experience the whining of a newborn infant child, once again for absolutely no reason anyone but the baby can discern.
So now I'm a mortified parent, my child is an emotional wreck, and all the shoppers are disgusted with my inability to control my kid.
Once I figure out what is going on, is it within my legal right to rip this device off the wall and cram it down the business owner's throat?
by Zifnab25 on Sep 2, 2010 7:06 pm • link • report
No one is keeping anyone away from these places, they're just making it more annoying to be there. No one is infringing on your (non existent?) right to walk around where ever you want. Its just something that makes a buzzing sound. Its not that loud.
Deal with it, nerd.
by jordache on Sep 2, 2010 7:53 pm • link • report
Hahaha, "nerd", goddamn.
by fffffffffff on Sep 2, 2010 8:55 pm • link • report
by Rob on Sep 2, 2010 10:01 pm • link • report
It just keeps them from loitering, forcing them to "move along." While it doesn't technically ban older people from loitering in the area, adults generally have better things to do than stand around in large groups harassing passers-by.
They should learn to gather in groups in the parking lots of 7-11s, like the rest of us suburbanites did when we were teenagers.
by Tyro on Sep 2, 2010 10:39 pm • link • report
by Laura on Sep 3, 2010 6:42 am • link • report
by qqqqqqq on Sep 3, 2010 7:51 am • link • report
I don't know about you, but when I was a teenager, if I'd assaulted adults on the sidewalk, spit on them, or hurled racial epithets at them, I'd *still* be grounded, and I'm over 40 now.
The base problem seems to be that these kids don't understand consequences, and everyone is too afraid of the race card being played to impose any.
by Dave J on Sep 3, 2010 8:01 am • link • report
That said, I'm pretty sure if you walk around a mall blasting an air horn, you can be arrested for creating a public nuisance. It seems like Mosquitos would fall under the same statute.
They've got the sounds posted up here.
http://journal.plasticmind.com/ears/mosquito-tone-or-how-to-tell-youre-a-youngun/
by Zifnab25 on Sep 3, 2010 9:28 am • link • report
What on earth happens to you when you hear an amublance go by or a baby start to cry - insta-migranes, bleeding ears, death? Do they infringe on your right to walk on a sidewalk too? Is it enough for you to never go outisde for fear of hearing a loud noise?
It's NOT loud enough to cause damage (and it's laughable to even attempt to compare it to an airhorn), it's not meant to prevent you from ever using that area. Just don't hang around there for no good reason (i.e., loiter), which you should not be doing anyway, and your delicate sensibilities will be juuuust fine.
I, for one, would much rather endure the "torture" that you all seem to think these things are, than those crowds of kids harassing, yelling, shoving, spitting on me. Franky they're much louder and annoying.
by poc on Sep 3, 2010 10:01 am • link • report
by David Alpert on Sep 3, 2010 10:06 am • link • report
So maybe I'm just not wearing the same "Shove me, harass me, spit on me" sign you're wearing. Or maybe some of these Mosquito enthusiasts are just anti-social assholes who run around provoking people and acting shocked when they push back.
A high frequency buzz isn't going to make anyone treat you with additional respect.
by Andy on Sep 3, 2010 10:35 am • link • report
by Jacob on Sep 3, 2010 10:41 am • link • report
The high frequency buzz is't trying to instill respect in the punks who have made it an annoyance and danger for normal people of all ages to walk through and around that area. It's trying to get them to stop loitering. I hope it succeeds.
by poc on Sep 3, 2010 11:28 am • link • report
by poc on Sep 3, 2010 11:31 am • link • report
by hillguy on Sep 3, 2010 12:40 pm • link • report
I guess they are unwelcome as well
by TXSteveW on Sep 3, 2010 1:50 pm • link • report
by Tom on Sep 3, 2010 2:21 pm • link • report
by Josh on Sep 3, 2010 4:29 pm • link • report
How many of you car hear it, go into the att store (you can hear it inside there) or take the bus at those stops (x2, P6, 80, 70, 71 or 79) I excluded the circulator because it runs frequently and you wont be there that long.
If you are waiting for the bus there and are present there for 10, 20 or 30 minutes that noise will get on your damn nerves.
How about putting one on 18th Street and U street and turn them on Friday & Saturday nights only.
by kk on Sep 3, 2010 5:09 pm • link • report
What this crowd needs is something to do. For example, host free concerts over in the Navy Memorial featuring local acts. Do a "DC's got Talent" or "Night at the Apollo" type of format. Give the kids a place to hang out and dance. Other venues could include the NGA Sculpture Garden, the Mall, or one of the Gallery Place performance theaters in the winter. For a production and stage team, the DC Community College could open a Audiovisual/Stage Production program that could run the shows.
by Smoke_Jaguar4 on Sep 3, 2010 10:17 pm • link • report
by Dave J on Sep 4, 2010 12:02 pm • link • report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KvO-8IvoCI
by Bill in DC on Sep 4, 2010 5:28 pm • link • report
I'm 30, and can hear them clearly. I also have autism and synesthesia. I've known of these things for a while, but first heard one on NPR a few days ago. The noise literally crippled me. I really can't begin to describe the pain it caused. Having these in any area completely bar me equal access that's promised to me by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
I hope I never see one of these in person, but the rate things are going, I have a feeling I will. :(
by Jaden on Sep 4, 2010 8:29 pm • link • report
If certain young people are causing problems, let's have actual police on the beat to deal with the specific individuals causing the problem, not paint everyone with the same discriminatory brush: "those people" are "just like that".
@hillguy: "we have subsequently decided that America's young are not responsible enough, even at 18, 19, or 20, to have a credit card or buy alcohol. I don't think it's a very far stretch to say they also can't be responsible enough to congregate in groups without throwing trash on the street, being loud and boisterous, blocking sidewalks for others, and in some cases, engaging in violent attacks or thefts."
That's funny, because I congregated in groups with my friends when I was a teenager and we didn't throw trash on the street, block sidewalks, or engage in violent acts. (I'll give you "loud and boisterous.") And the majority of teenagers do not.
I've said it before: if you have little to no money and can't drink legally, "loitering" is your social life. Do none of you remember what it was like to be 17?
by Erica on Sep 5, 2010 2:45 am • link • report
I know exactly what you're talking about and I think you're right. This device is discriminatory towards most people on the autism spectrum. For those who are unaware, most people on the autism spectrum have sensory issues which cause extreme discomfort and are often incapacitating. I can't imagine how anyone on the spectrum is going to be able to tolerate this.
It's bad enough to have a disability. It is morally reprehensible to selectively target people with disabilities.
by bl on Sep 5, 2010 11:29 am • link • report
by Kevin Saucedo-Broach on Sep 5, 2010 12:17 pm • link • report
Excluding them from an area with this heinous device and telling them to move along does not accomplish this. Only having a cop or security guard get in their face will work, IMO. Then of course, when it is understood by both sides what the rules are, over a period time the issue will be abated or at least minimized to a reasonable level.
Then of course its not the job of a shopping mall manager to care about this if it bothers their snooty customers, and I figure most "city" people who cry on about "community" don't really give a shit either, do they? Just move the problem along.
by TXSteveW on Sep 5, 2010 4:24 pm • link • report
Would anyone like to issue a legal pronouncement as to whether they are also a violation of the Geneva Conventions and therefore are clearly a war crime?
by Fritz on Sep 5, 2010 5:52 pm • link • report
That sort of permissive attitude is also what allows DC's black population to have a 5% AIDS rate and black males in DCPS graduate at a rate of ~40%.
If time was spent studying instead of harassing people, crime would go down and graduation rates would go up.
White DC liberals tend to justify fights in and around the Metro system by black youth along the lines of "well that's what kids do", but I've never heard of one of these stories not involving black youths.
I will be labeled as a race-baiting troll, but as veterans here know, I actually use facts (as above) to show my points, even if the conclusions sit uneasily with the social liberals.
Please let me know if any of my points are factually or logically incorrect.
Ultimately, the trouble-making youths are not simply misguided youths. How often do you hear about pervasive harassment out of Fairfax or Montgomery county hangouts?
The problem is that these youths do not understand self-discipline and have been told their whole lives by sensitive white liberals that all of their outlashes against society are justified because of their skin color. If their families will not subject them to discipline, perhaps these youths ought to be disciplined by police (preferably) or local business owners (as it appears to have come to that point).
As a final thought, simply consider this. If you were a property owner, how would you feel about youths engaging in harassing behavior on a 'public' sidewalk in front of your property?
by MPC on Sep 5, 2010 7:13 pm • link • report
by another native on Sep 5, 2010 8:32 pm • link • report
by MPC on Sep 5, 2010 9:04 pm • link • report
I would be curious how many of the troublemakers at Gallery Place are white.
by MPC on Sep 5, 2010 9:05 pm • link • report
Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. If you disagree with another commenter in one of our threads, I would encourage you to use logic and reason to refute his or her claims. Do not resort to name calling or attacks on the person with whom you disagree.
Thank you for understanding.
by Matt Johnson, Assistant Editor on Sep 5, 2010 9:41 pm • link • report
It's funny that you label MPC a racist and then cite "cultural reasons" for the black youths' unruly behavior. What you're essentially saying is that black people, by virtue of their culture, are inherently violent, disrespectful, and less civilized than white people. That, by the way, is the definition of racism. Stating that blacks have low graduation rates and that, as a result, they are more likely to engage in behaviors outside of studying (such as loitering) is called drawing a conclusion based on a fact. Any moral high ground that you might claim was also rapidly lost when you engaged in direct personal attacks.
by Teyo on Sep 5, 2010 9:46 pm • link • report
"I would be curious how many of the troublemakers at Gallery Place are white."
Here's the great thing about deploying actual, live police rather than employing automated broad-brush exclusionary tactics: it doesn't matter! If a particular kid is causing problems, discipline that particular kid. That way, you don't have to conclusively figure out which demographic group should take the hit for the crimes of their cohort, or how best to harass and persecute Group A while leaving Group B alone.
Instead, you simply treat people as individuals and hold them responsible for their own actions, not those of whatever "undesirable" group they happen to belong to. A radical concept, yes, and one that requires more work than All Teenagers Are Bad or All Black Teenagers Are Bad. And yet, some might consider this approach of judging each individual on his/her own behavior alone to be fundamental to a just society.
by Erica on Sep 6, 2010 8:48 am • link • report
If their families will not subject them to discipline, perhaps these youths ought to be disciplined by police (preferably) or local business owners (as it appears to have come to that point).
Please actually read my posts before commenting in the future.
Try again.
by MPC on Sep 6, 2010 10:12 am • link • report
And then moan about racial profiling when the arrests are predominately from one ethnic group? Because you know that that is exactly what is going to occur.
Really there is no way to win this, it seems: and the thugs know it. Their apologists will defend them to the end, so they can act as they please. And the worst part of it is that the thugs are a tiny minority of the teenagers who hang out at Gallery Place, but a very visible one. Since nobody will do anything about them, the other kids get tarred with being exactly the same.
by Dave J on Sep 6, 2010 1:33 pm • link • report
by another native on Sep 6, 2010 2:22 pm • link • report
It makes the same constant buzzing/humming noise as an old analog TV does when it's turned on. I could hear it at the top of the Metro stairs and could barely hear it across the street by Starbucks. It didn't cause me to go into convulsions, give me a migraine, or make me feel that my ear's rights had been violated. It's simply a slight, annoying buzzing that doesn't discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or apparently, age.
by Fritz on Sep 6, 2010 2:28 pm • link • report
I didn't say that all black kids are troublemakers. I said that all the troublemakers at Gallery Place are black.
Based off of all known accounts, I am correct.
by MPC on Sep 6, 2010 3:47 pm • link • report
by mike on Sep 7, 2010 8:16 am • link • report
by Nathanael on Sep 8, 2010 2:52 am • link • report
When I heard about this technology I originally thought it would be illegal for general use in the USA as it is an electronic weapon(an electronic version of mace).
You should consult with an attorney and sue the crap out of the developer for risking potential harm against D.C's youth.
Also contact local Prosecutors as this may be a violation of criminal law's(akin to misusing a gun).
If that fails your in D.C, protest in front of Congress or the White House.
I feel for you guy's, if they even tried this technology in NEPA, I am sure the speakers wouldn't last 24 hours.
But what I suggest you do immediately is get a a bunch of young people who have legitimate reason to be there(paying customers) to go to that area to do business and call the cop's.
These devices emit a kind of sound, sound is regulated under "noise disturbances", and it may even be a general violation of the peace.
Just don't give it, grab ear muffs and stage sit-ins. If you guy's and gal's plan a protest around October-November(if it isn't resolved by then), try and make it well known to us, that technology isn't right.
P.S
Also try and find out who put it up, what their address and home phone number are, we can't let them get away with this.
by Kris W on Sep 14, 2010 11:48 pm • link • report
by Drew on Dec 8, 2011 12:56 pm • link • report
Add a Comment