Neff Zone Column -- July 19, 2008

Print Edition: July 19, 2008

THE BIG PANTS CRACKDOWN

As regular readers of this column know my hometown is Flint and my brother, Big Rob, still lives there. This being the case, news from Flint has a particular interest for the Neff clan.

It’s no news to anyone that Flint has had a pretty tough go over the last decade or so. In some ways Flint has been the "canary in the coal mine" for what’s happening to this country’s economy. The rest of the country is just now trying to figure out life in the economic dumpster, but Flint has been ahead of that curve since the days of the Reagan "trickle down" presidency. Flint’s been being trickled on so long it’s drowning.

Then came the recent news that Forbes magazine had designated Flint as the third most miserable city in America (Detroit is number one). That finish was matched by Flint being the third most dangerous city in the country (Detroit again number one).

In this column Big Rob and I have already told you about the building wall that collapsed in downtown Flint three blocks from police headquarters and how it took over three hours for police to respond. We’ve told you about the theft of air conditioners from churches, copper plumbing being ripped out and stolen from vacant homes, and the guy who returned from vacation to find the walnut trees in his front yard had been cut down and trucked away.

We reported last fall that thieves were stealing manhole covers from city streets. Just this week the Cadillac News updated that report by noting that over 400 manhole covers and storm grates have been taken in Flint (thieves get $20 for the scrap iron but it costs Flint $200 to replace one).

Yes, things are tough in Flint. You would think city officials and the police would have more than enough work to do and problems to solve. Well, sewer grate breath, you would be wrong. Flint’s police chief, David Dicks, has decided that his force would embark on a mission to rid the city of baggy pants, or at least force the wearers of droopy drawers to pull up their trousers.

This is the deal. Some male youths wear pants that are about ten times too big. The pants sag and show the guy’s underwear. Sometimes the pants sag so much that some posterior cleavage is in evidence. Beginning on June 27, anyone exhibiting this fashion statement can be issued a warning if underwear is visible, a citation for disorderly conduct if the pants ride below cheek level, or could face arrest for indecent exposure if the moon is rising (if you catch my drift). The penalties include 93 days to a year in jail and up to $500 in fines.

The police chief claims that the crackdown will result in fewer crimes because drugs and weapons can be easily hidden in baggy pants and will be discovered as police frisk the droopy slacks offenders. The ACLU has gotten involved claiming that the people’s Constitutional right that guards against unreasonable searches and seizures is being violated.

I’m no constitutional lawyer, so I’m not going to debate the legalities. I also admit that I don’t understand how baggy pants can be a fashion statement and, in fact, I think the look is absolutely ridiculous. My question, however, is simply this: If Flint police are going to pursue this policy, what’s next and where do you stop?

If young men can be targeted for wearing baggy pants, what about the middle aged fat guys who insist on wearing the same size pants they wore 100 pounds ago? Their belts now ride below their bellies and the spillage flows out in front and back. When they bend over it’s quite a sight (let’s just say that moon is not made of green cheese). Shouldn’t there be a fine for that?

To be politically correct, logic would tell you that women should also be targeted? If male posterior crackage is against the law, what about female "comin’ atcha"? What about the women who wear shirts that are not even remotely the correct size? Geez, some fabrics are put under so much strain it’s like a New Orleans levee trying to hold back Hurricane Katrina. Should ladies in v-necks be arrested on the presumption that it will reduce the amount of traffic accidents for male drivers?

When all is said and done, the real question is do we want police officers to spend their time handling real problems or do we want them to literally be fashion police? In Flint’s case, you’d think fighting crime would take precedence over just about everything else. As far as baggy pants goes, if I was a police officer I’d want the criminals to wear baggy pants that fall down around their ankles whenever they run. It makes criminals easier to chase and catch.

Finally, there is a much easier way to end the whole baggy pants trend. The guys who wear the bags do so because they think it makes them look "bad" or "tough" or "dangerous." In a Detroit Free Press article a teenage girl was asked what she thought of the baggy pants look. She said it made the boys look "cute."

CUTE? Teddy bears are "cute." Little girls with pigtails are "cute." Puppy dogs are "cute." There’s your answer. Start telling every bozo in baggy pants he looks "cute." The last thing a young male wants is to dress to look "bad" and wind up "cute." Within a week that fashion trend will be over.

Jim Neff is a local columnist. Comments to neffzone@gmail.com. Read Neff Zone columns online at www.neffzone.com/cadillacnews.