Councillor Nunziata Clarifies Her Comments

Few Weston Web articles generate the kind of response we received in the recent article ‘Nunziata Responds to Muggings’. As a result, Weston Web asked Councillor Nunziata some of the questions raised by readers.

In an exclusive interview, she clarified her comments about Chaminade College students and says her original words were the result of a ‘miscommunication’. She also acknowledged that the muggings at Weston and Lawrence were very unlikely to have originated from students at that school.

We discussed other matters such as why she will oppose future license applications for bars in Weston. Councillor Nunziata says she has no problem with applications being approved as long as there are conditions attached to ensure good behaviour; e.g. adherence to licensed hours and noise suppression. After a year these conditions would be lifted. She claims that there are too many licensed establishments along Weston Road and Jane Street already, and that some legitimately licensed establishments operate after hours too . She’s ‘had many complaints from residents.’ I asked if any licence applications ever come from deserving businesses and was told that as long as they agree to the conditions and have not caused problems in the past, they will not be refused a licence.

We returned to the topic of crime and the TAVIS initiative. I mentioned my pet peeve which is that while the TAVIS program has great potential and is a great asset to the community, officers tend to hang around in groups of three or more (let’s not call them gangs) and could cover more ground and have more contact with the community in smaller groups. Ms Nunziata replied that the grouping format was agreed to in the TAVIS meetings, as was the location of the surveillance cameras (which, perhaps, could have produced better results along Lawrence Avenue, since much of the crime seems to occur there).

Thanks to our readers for such a vigorous response.

1 thought on “Councillor Nunziata Clarifies Her Comments”

  1. So if there is a consensus that the crime occurs along Lawrence, why wouldn’t they just move the location of the cameras? Did they not do a proper study of crime stats before putting in the cameras? It seems like a no-brainer to move the location of the cameras to where the crime is, not where it isn’t.

    It bothers me as a resident that even after residents complain about the camera locations and the powers that be agree, they still insist on putting them in locations that will serve little or no purpose unless the crimes move to where the camera are, which is highly unlikely. The UK has lots of experience with the location of crime busting CCTV’s, so a simple review of their recommendations would probably net an idea or two, such as put the cameras where crime occurs, not where it isn’t!!

Comments are closed.