Is Cincinnati really dangerous? No. (Columbus, Hamilton: middle-class, to rent, crime rates)

[jlrosen]

Originally Posted by Mircea

That would make Cincinnati's murder rate 2.5x higher than the state average, and 3x higher than the national average.

A year or two ago when there were 78 murders, Cincinnati's murder rate was higher than Chicago's, and the population in Chicago at 6+ Million is 20x bigger than Cincinnati. And Chicago is more diverse. I can eat lunch in a Bosnian restaurant then walk two blocks and eat dinner in a Serbian restaurant. There's a community for every country in Central and South American, half of the African states, and all of the eastern European and Asian countries.

When the murder rate in Cincinnati drops to 16 per year, we can break out the champagne and dance at Moon-Lite Pool.

I would not recommend eating lunch, then eating dinner so quickly; I can walk two blocks in about five minutes, but I usually space out my meals.

[traveler guy]

Originally Posted by hillside

cincinnati is unsafe. top ten murder rate. 7th most dangerous city over 300,000...the most accurate stats to date. i don't know about some of you, but i grew up in bond hill, northside, avondale, mt. airy. seen and experienced many things as a result. it is not safe in cincinnati as a whole.

Safest and Most Dangerous U.S. Cities, 2007 — Infoplease.com

for large cities, thats....
1.detroit
2.st. louis
3.oakland
4.memphis
5.cleveland
6.baltimore
7.cincinnati
8.kansas city
9.philadelphia
10.atlanta

United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and before you guys hop on the population difference, the only reason the feds started reporting cincinnati at 363,000 is because of a challenge that happened after the stats came out. nobody knew for sure 60,000 people were floating around cincinnati the feds didn't know about so the stat rankings remain the same in principal. any of the cities could have challenged as well and possibly gained residents, hence lowering their per capita so its a static point.

Don't you know you should never trust Wikipedia for info. That site is known to give out false info.
You should never trust data stats like this cause they are never truly accurate. It is even harder to compare stats from city to city since other cities report crimes differently. Last of all these stats come up with new stats all the time pointing out different info and mixed info between each data base. Which is why Cincinnati is shown 7th in one and 16 in anther.

[traveler guy]

Originally Posted by hillside

3rd degree,

dont you read? i said cities over 300,000. read my post. geez.

jlrosen,

houston, dallas and kansas city are annex type cities as well and it doesn't deter crime there. people adjust to their environment. in fact, areas in spread out cities like that allow for neighborhoods of desertion because there simply no need to drive out there, as opposed to through there, as is the case in older dense cities like, well, um...cincinnati. detroit isn't the densest city in the world; neither is new orleans.

even if you did take 50 sq miles of columbus or indy and compared them to cincinnati, would they be as dangerous? no. why? because they were in good enough shape in the 70's to convince true suburbanites (not these suburbanite residents of the city of columbus that you speak of) to let them take over the county. didn't happen then for cincinnati, not happening now for cincinnati.

cincy rise,

you sure you want your 95 pound white wife around a black guy?

Your wrong
If Houston had the same sq milage as Cincinnati it would be way worst then Cincinnati crime wise. but since it annexes the lands around it also absorbs the suburban sprawl along the outer edges were crime is lower thereby lowering the crime per capita making it look safer on the stats.
same goes for San Antonio, LA, NY, Chicago, Phoenix.

vice versa for cities that aren't big city proper but adding the safer suburbs would make the city bigger and safer.
cities like miami, St Louis, D.C, Cleveland etc...

[Cincy-Rise]

Originally Posted by traveler guy

Your wrong
If Houston had the same sq milage as Cincinnati it would be way worst then Cincinnati crime wise. but since it annexes the lands around it also absorbs the suburban sprawl along the outer edges were crime is lower thereby lowering the crime per capita making it look safer on the stats.
same goes for San Antonio, LA, NY, Chicago, Phoenix.

vice versa for cities that aren't big city proper but adding the safer suburbs would make the city bigger and safer.
cities like miami, St Louis, D.C, Cleveland etc...

Exactly, which is why I think it's hilarious that according to Houston's figures, it's metro ...




Is close to comparing to this ...




... wow ...

[middyDJ]

Originally Posted by Cincy-Rise

hempel20, you are correct about the Liberty reference. My apologies ... for some reason I was thinking of Central Parkway when I read that!



Too late! The GQ is already a success! I am a real estate agent and if you'd like I can pull the data for you and send it to you, but I'll need an email address. I could try to post it here, but it will probably be broken up.

With the Banks, even 6 months ago, that was the furthest that we've ever come and we sure haven't ever broken ground on it! The Baltimore Harbor took over 30 years and look at it now ... give it a chance before you condemn it!



I live off of Liberty in downtown.

(Actually, it's the suburbanites that sound the most negative more times than not)

Cincy-Rise,

Liked your blog and the links off it too. Your on liberty? Man I recall my days of going to school at Washington Park Elem. back in the 80's. Went there one year and most of my Elementary years were spemt at catholic schools in Cincy.

As a young teen (13) I used sell bags at the findlay market. OTR was a cool place back in the 80s for me. We lived on 7th street across from Shillito's Dept store back then. As a kid I lived at the public library and hung out at the game room on the sky walk.

One thing I do hate is how drugs were allowed to be brought into the Cities like Cincy and Dayton and destroy people's lives. When I was down in that area then crack cocaine had not hit so big just yet. When it did it spread liek wild fire and really hurt a lot of areas were minorities lived.

Anyways sorry about the rambling. Seeing where you reside brought back memories for me when I was younger.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by traveler guy

Your wrong
If Houston had the same sq milage as Cincinnati it would be way worst then Cincinnati crime wise. but since it annexes the lands around it also absorbs the suburban sprawl along the outer edges were crime is lower thereby lowering the crime per capita making it look safer on the stats.
same goes for San Antonio, LA, NY, Chicago, Phoenix.

A most excellent point, which is why comparisons must be made and expressed as number of crimes per 1,000 people or per 100,000 people.

If Cincinnasti annexed the whole of Hamilton County, it's crime rate would be less than both the state and national averages.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Cincy-Rise

This is irrelevant. How would Chicago compare to the state of OH or the national average?

It is perfectly relevant, as your chances of being murdered in Cincinnasit are far greater than being murdered in Chicago.

In other words, if you want to lower your chances of being murdered, move to Chicago.

In 2005 Cincinnati had 79 murders, Chicago had 450.

Chicago's murder rate was 6.02 per 100,000 compared to the national average of 5.6 and the state average of 4.8 murders.

Cincinnasti's murder rate was 23.56 per 100,000

Your chances of being murdered in Cincinnasti are nearly 4x higher (3.9 actually) than in Chicago.

Chicago is much safer.

Originally Posted by Cincy-Rise

Should we compare Chicago to the the majority of the US's land area which would mostly be rural area? Does this speak of how safe or dangerous Chicago is? I guess in your eyes, it would show chicago as a pretty dangerous city, no?

You lost the argument so you resort to stupidity. If we compare both Chicago and Cincinnasti to "mostly rural areas" then Chicago is still safer than Cincinnasti, and safer by the same rate.

I go to Chicago once a month to buy beer, wine and food that I can't buy in Cincinnasti, and to eat at restaurants with cuisines that don't exist here, plus it's nice to drive around and never see a boring corporate box restaurant like Appleby's, TGIF or Chili's.

So no, it isn't dangerous at all, and I feel safer there, in part because I can see the police using innovative and aggressive patrolling tactics and techniques, something Cincinnasti might benefit from if it didn't have an incompetent police department.

Originally Posted by Cincy-Rise

Let's re-write this to make more sense:

... and the population in Chicago at 6+ Million is 20x bigger than ______ (98% of US Cities). And Chicago is more diverse.

A little irrelevant to the subject at hand. Just a tad!

The population of Chicago is actually 7,410,858 people.

And diversity is relevant. Tutsis and Hutus might be slaughtering each other in Rwanda, but not in Chicago.

Originally Posted by Cincy-Rise

Last year Cincinnati had 20 murders to Chicago's 16 (per 100K). Cincinnati had 67 homicides compared to 467 ... That's 467(x)family members reasons to not break out the champagne either, if you ask me.

You just don't understand numbers.

You're probably one of those people who panics if the stock market drops 153 points. In 1962, you'd have had good reason to, since 153 points was 20.5% of the stock market, but in 2008 153 points is barely more than 1% of the market.

Big difference between 20.5% and 1%, no?

Originally Posted by Cincy-Rise

Oh, and Unusualfire's comment that got you so flustered would put us at 12 murders per 100K people.

I would be happy with 16, since that would be below the national average

[hillside]

Originally Posted by traveler guy

Don't you know you should never trust Wikipedia for info. That site is known to give out false info.
You should never trust data stats like this cause they are never truly accurate. It is even harder to compare stats from city to city since other cities report crimes differently. Last of all these stats come up with new stats all the time pointing out different info and mixed info between each data base. Which is why Cincinnati is shown 7th in one and 16 in anther.

7th is fbi stats and 16th is morga quitno, a think tank driven study. i go by fbi mostly. we all know cities cook the books.

the houston/columbus sprawl city vs. cincinnati/pittsburgh dense city argument is silly.

you cannot have it both ways. either columbus HAS the 700,000 people in 210 sq mi, or it doesn't. if you subtract square miles, you take out population, and now you're altering the social, financial and political dynamic of the specific municipal area. is columbus awarded most operating money from the state annually primarily because it's the largest in population, or because it has the largest land area? some of you want to do an extrapolation study, but if you do it for cities that chose to be sprawled, then you have to be uniform and extrapolate the most dense areas of the old dense cities. you have to decide what is dense and what isn't. and i wouldn't be surprised if doing that extraction would result in a bigger disparity between the dense cities at the top and the sprawled cities that feel they are more dangerous than depicted.

[Cincy-Rise]

Mircea, you're a fool ...

You are using Chicago's MSA population with Chicago's city homicides AND comparing it to Cincinnati's city population to Cincinnati's homicides?

US CENSUS: Chicago city, Illinois - Population Finder - American FactFinder


Take a seat.

Using your sneaky and ridiculous formula would put Cincinnati at not even 4 murders per 100,000. lol

Next!


BTW, tell me what type of food you are looking for and I will tell you where you can buy it!

[Traveler87]

Originally Posted by Mircea

It is perfectly relevant, as your chances of being murdered in Cincinnasit are far greater than being murdered in Chicago.

In other words, if you want to lower your chances of being murdered, move to Chicago.

In 2005 Cincinnati had 79 murders, Chicago had 450.

Chicago's murder rate was 6.02 per 100,000 compared to the national average of 5.6 and the state average of 4.8 murders.

Cincinnasti's murder rate was 23.56 per 100,000

Your chances of being murdered in Cincinnasti are nearly 4x higher (3.9 actually) than in Chicago.

Chicago is much safer.



You lost the argument so you resort to stupidity. If we compare both Chicago and Cincinnasti to "mostly rural areas" then Chicago is still safer than Cincinnasti, and safer by the same rate.

I go to Chicago once a month to buy beer, wine and food that I can't buy in Cincinnasti, and to eat at restaurants with cuisines that don't exist here, plus it's nice to drive around and never see a boring corporate box restaurant like Appleby's, TGIF or Chili's.

So no, it isn't dangerous at all, and I feel safer there, in part because I can see the police using innovative and aggressive patrolling tactics and techniques, something Cincinnasti might benefit from if it didn't have an incompetent police department.



The population of Chicago is actually 7,410,858 people.

And diversity is relevant. Tutsis and Hutus might be slaughtering each other in Rwanda, but not in Chicago.



You just don't understand numbers.

You're probably one of those people who panics if the stock market drops 153 points. In 1962, you'd have had good reason to, since 153 points was 20.5% of the stock market, but in 2008 153 points is barely more than 1% of the market.

Big difference between 20.5% and 1%, no?



I would be happy with 16, since that would be below the national average

Just wondering where you find your information? Can you please post a link.