"He states a city inspector told him the reason for the enforcement is to prevent people climbing the fences from getting injured."

Not only do we have a lower crime rate without the need to surround one's property with barb wire, but barb wire isn't considered an attractive nuisance here.

Tending to final details.

I cannot believe no one has sold the nice folks in NJ some alternative to barbed wire that is more attractive & still provides protection against intruders.  Sounds like a business opportunity to me.

Thalia

I have some sympathy for both sides here - after all, shouldn't people be allowed to protect their property? - but ultimately I have to come down on the side of the city on this one.  Barbed wire / razor wire is dangerous and not even remotely aesthetically pleasing.  Having it up everywhere just reinforces the notion that the city is a shithole (which, of course, it is) and makes law abiding people even less likely to want to live there.  If you treat your neighbors like criminals (by barricading your property), well, why be surprised when they start to act like criminals?  These laws go right along with regular code enforcement - dangerous buildings that aren't properly maintained for and create bad impression of the neighborhood need to be cleaned up in the same way.  That said, I think that if the city is going to enforce these laws, it also needs to step up police patrols and educate property owners about alternative security measures that aren't quite so dangerous or ugly looking.  It also needs to put a serious effort into all kinds of code enforcement, and not just go after property owners that are trying (even if it's not in an appropriate way) to protect themselves.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

"Barbed wire / razor wire is dangerous"

Yes, I can't count the number of times I've been cut by a barbed wire 4 feet above my head on a fence as I walked by.

I read the reader comments following the article.  I guess it was about 90% knee-jerk liberal bashing with a whiff of racism - but if you sift through the venom and crazy there is a kernel of reason in the idea that a property owner should be able to take measures to prevent trespassing and crime beyond 'sell your property and move someplace nicer'.

I appreciate that some municipalities would like to set standards & laws regulating the appearance of structures and what you can and can't build on your property citing reasons of public safety and aesthetics - but it only seems reasonable that a property owner should be able to fence their property in an effort to deter/prevent crime ESPECIALLY if they live/work/own property in a demonstrably high crime area.

I wonder about how this story was written - after reading several versions carefully and viewing ALL the accompanying photos the story seems deliberately slanted to make the Newark gov't seem ridiculous.  The article starts by mentioning an 17% increase in the Newark crime rate ... and then strongly implies (although doesn't specifically claim) that the increase has been CAUSED by the city forcing property owners (um, how many? all of them? more than 2? the article doesn't say) to remove what little defense they have against the slavering hordes of criminals.  If you see the picture & description of the fence in the Seattle Times article you can see that a seven foot tall fence is topped by a a double row of razor wire with one of the 'rows' hanging down from the top of the fence on the street side of the fence - that would put the razor wire at 6 feet or less above the sidewalk - impinging on the public sidewalk.  I think the writers/editors of the article were merely seeking to incite the kind of 'those damned bleeding heart liberal dumbassed criminal coddlers are at it again!' reaction in order to heap condemnation on the Newark gov't - headed by Cory Booker, a popular and media-genic Democrat.  I sincerely believe this story is simply a dig at Booker and the Dems - why else would the story completely ignore the idea that SOME limit to a property owners right to surround their property with razor sharp barbs & spikes sticking out into the public sidewalk at head/face height might be reasonable?

IMO a business in an urban crime area should have the right to use barbed and razor wire atop perimeter fences, walls, and roof tops provided that these items are NOT projecting into public space that can REASONABLY be expected to be occupied by people at some or all times.  IMO the easiest solution would be to allow razor & barbed wire on as long as any portion of it that fronted on a public sidewalk/space was 10ft above the ground - IE; on top of a building or a fence too high for someone to accidentally bump into.  I usually don't see loud complaints about how evil liberal city governments prevent property owners from surrounding their property with gasoline filled fire moats, mine fields, and bear traps - so why should violating a man's right to set a barrier of bristling razor spikes set at eye level along the sidewalk become the point where the odious stink of liberalism becomes a tyranny up with no man should put?

"...when theft and high crime becomes obscenely obvious to even the blindest beer sucking idiot, it is always the Republicans who are in office." -- Joe Bageant