Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pitying someone is demeaning them, but it is hardly in the same way that laughing at them is. To laugh and demean those not as fortunate as you is displaying the same type of lack of empathy that aids those unfortunate people on their path to being criminals.
Boston has less crime than most developed cities but that has a lot less to do with any decisions the city has made as much as the city has just been fortunate in how poverty, drug use, and gang violence has historically affected the city. Also while Boston isn't exactly Detroit, Boston's ghettos are VERY dangerous, Boston's rate of violent crimes per 100,000 people place it squarely among the 25 most dangerous cities in america.
DC also is hard to credit too much for turn around. It's secrete to reducing it's crime rate isn't exactly a secrete... TONS of money have been pumped into the city and it has been pretty heavily gentrified pushing poor people out and thus lowering the crime rate. Still though the violent crime rate in DC is still among the top 10 in the country and is actually HIGHER than philadelphia's rate.
Make no mistake neither Boston nor DC has figured out some magical way to stop poverty or the violence that accompanies it. This is a problem that still negatively affects all big cities in this country. A problem that will not be solved by disregarding the poor and the criminal class of this country and casting them as losers and people to be laughed at. They are not so different from you and I.
It is only by the grace of god that we did not find ourselves in the positions that they did and while it may be true that you are one of the people who could overcome all odds are would never descend to hurting other people, the truth is that chances are you are not. The truth is no matter how resilient you are, at some point there is a breaking point. At some point the situation you were born into would be to extreme to overcome. At some point you would give up or turn to a life a crime.
Disagree, I've never felt endangered in any part of metro Boston that I've ever been. At most Brockton was a suspicious area in the metro but have never felt that I couldn't trust my surroundings there. When I lived in Boston I would have reasons to travel to different parts of the metro to see friends and have never felt uneasy about leaving my car unlocked and unaccounted for. Certainly not a luxurious feeling I've ever felt in Chicago or even DC. Boston isn't the safest place in the world but its done a far greater job reducing its crime and poverty than most other cities.
DC is still a dangerous place but there are no parts of DC that come close to being as dangerous as the west and south sides of Chicago nor looking as nightmarish as those parts. DC's murder rate is a third of what it was in 2003 and a fraction of 1992 while the population is larger. Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, Queen Anne's, Montgomery, DC are the safest they have ever been in my lifetime although PG is seeing a surge in crime. Crime in Chicago doesn't stop at the city borders the crime flows right into the southern suburbs of Chicago which can be dreary and daunting places.
What I'm saying is that to mock cities that do a greater job at protecting lives as 'inferior' places to live while torpedoing your city as if it should be cherished upon is hypocrisy. Whether they admit to it or not its fact that places like Boston and Dallas do better at protecting their people than Chicago does. Its also a fact that DC of 1992 or 2003 compared to now has done a better job of reducing its crime than has Chicago.
Amenities, weather, topography, fashion, shopping, are all secondary necessities of cities, the first and most important thing about a city should be its people and how safe they can be where they live. No place is crime free but many places do a superior job serving and protecting their people as compared to others. I will leave it at that for tonight.
I disagree, I've never felt endangered in any part of metro Boston that I've ever been. At most Brockton was a suspicious area in the metro but have never felt that I couldn't trust my surroundings there. When I lived in Boston I would have reasons to travel to different parts of the metro to see friends and have never felt uneasy about leaving my car unlocked and unaccounted for. Certainly not a luxurious feeling I've ever felt in Chicago or even DC. Boston isn't the safest place in the world but its done a far greater job reducing its crime and poverty than most other cities.
DC is still a dangerous place but there are no parts of DC that come close to being as dangerous as the west and south sides of Chicago nor looking as nightmarish as those parts. DC's murder rate is a third of what it was in 2003 and a fraction of 1992 while the population is larger. Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, Queen Anne's, Montgomery, DC are the safest they have ever been in my lifetime although PG is seeing a surge in crime. Crime in Chicago doesn't stop at the city borders the crime flows right into the southern suburbs of Chicago which can be dreary and daunting places.
What I'm saying is that to mock cities that do a greater job at protecting lives as 'inferior' places to live while torpedoing your city as if it should be cherished upon is hypocrisy. Whether they admit to it or not its fact that places like Boston and Dallas do better at protecting their people than Chicago does. Its also a fact that DC of 1992 or 2003 compared to now has done a better job of reducing its crime than has Chicago.
You start off by saying you mock the people, now you mock the cities. Whatever, mocking the cities is just as pointless. As though Boston would have a solution if a half a million people lived there below the poverty level as it is in chicago.
Also you can disagree all you want, the crime rates are not opinions. They are facts and Boston has the 23rd highest crime rate in the country whether you think this to be true or not.
DC has a higher murder than rate than Chicago. Fact. So i don't really know what you're talking about.
Just because Chicago has crime anyone who thinks it's a great city is a hypocrite? There are more factors to consider. Besides the way you consider crime rates is arbitrary. You're a hypocrite to like chicago, but even though DC has a higher murder rate it's okay to like DC because they are in the process of gentrification... simply pushing all the poor people out of the city limits?
Whatever my man, I don't think we're gonna get anyway with this. I'm going to bed.
You start off by saying you mock the people, now you mock the cities. Whatever, mocking the cities is just as pointless. As though Boston would have a solution if a half a million people lived there below the poverty level as it is in chicago.
Also you can disagree all you want, the crime rates are not opinions. They are facts and Boston has the 23rd highest crime rate in the country whether you think this to be true or not.
DC has a higher murder than rate than Chicago. Fact. So i don't really know what you're talking about.
Just because Chicago has crime anyone who thinks it's a great city is a hypocrite? There are more factors to consider. Besides the way you consider crime rates is arbitrary. You're a hypocrite to like chicago, but even though DC has a higher murder rate it's okay to like DC because they are in the process of gentrification... simply pushing all the poor people out of the city limits?
Whatever my man, I don't think we're gonna get anyway with this. I'm going to bed.
My previous post did no such thing as mocking or laughing at cities for what they are. I do however take responsibility for my comment towards mocking scum types of people.
No the only way to compare cities is not crime rate but safety is the most important part of a city. Cant think of a person who would readily want to move into a crime infested neighborhood out of personal choice. Can you?
Results are what they are and they are results. What cities have made progress lowering their crime over the last 30 years? Boston has. Dallas. LA. NY. Seattle. SF. Houston. Those are all large cities that have shed their crime rates to a fraction of what they once were and Chicago still flirts with high violence and crime, although much improved since the previous decades its still pretty bad. Ok DC has a higher murder rate than Chicago and I'm not excusing DC for its problems but its made far more strides and the numbers show that at reducing its crime than has Chicago.
Pricing out the criminal type people is a solution to reduce crime, gentrification and the process will lead to pushing poverty and crime some place else and shows that its not warranted in the cities. Some cities do a better job at reducing their crime than others by pricing out and NY is an example of one that successfully priced out and reduced its murder rate significantly. It's not the safest large city in the nation. That's something Boston is doing, DC also, LA, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Atlanta. Chicago is doing this but its not gentrifying or repairing its ghetto areas at a comparable pace. Half the city is left crumbling, half the land area and that's much more serious for future issues to consult than do issues Boston or DC have. I think you don't understand my point, my point isn't that Chicago is a bad city but its done less to reduce crime than others that is fact. Sometimes its not the crime but where the city is going with the crime and Boston also DC are going a stronger route than is Chicago. Numbers show that.
Furthermore, in my own post I clearly point out that I am not talking about the entire city of Philadelphia but areas that have been poor for several generations--AND I EVEN ADDED OAKLAND to that because OAKLAND and other inner cities everywhere have similar areas.
This is not an issue of the Bay Area vs Philadelphia which is what you densely assumed it to be, but its an issue of middle class suburban areas that has residents who have fallen on hard times due to the current state of the economy and ghettos which have been poor for a long long time.
LOL, it's nice to have the economy to blame and California certainly took a bad hit but generational poverty exists and has always existed in all cities across America. It is of course more pronounced in neighborhoods where the only jobs available were those in factories that have since closed since post-industrialization. Gentrification forces many of these people to different areas which is evident in the articles KidPhilly posted. Generational poverty will never go away until entitlement programs and the education system is revamped.
A family of four is poor if they make less than $22,133 a year according to the federal poverty line, a measurement developed decades ago, updated annually and used to determine who is eligible for economic assistance.
Quote:
They point out that a family would need much more than $22,000 a year to make ends meet in the Bay Area.
Two parents with two young children need more than $69,000 annually in the East Bay, $82,000 in San Mateo County and nearly $84,000 in Santa Clara County to cover normal costs of housing, food, commutes, child care and taxes, according to the group's report released Monday
What is good about this image is that the minimum requirements for a family of four are just above california's housing aid guidelines.
In california a family of 4 making 80% of the median is allowed to get low income housing and all sorts of other aid. So in Alameda county, for example a family of four living on 67k a year qualifies for low income housing, free/reduced fee lunches and breakfast for kids at school, and financial aid for their kids if they go to college. Things typically reserved for the lower classes.
This is what people mean when they say the bay has no middle class. A teacher making 43k a year and a paralegal making 24k a year, who are both college educated and have a couple kids have no chance of living a middle class lifestyle. And their very lively hood depends upon some form of government aid.
You have to find neighborhoods and cities where the median family income is around 90k a year or more before you find decent stable areas in the bay. At best middle class communites are in decline like Concord and San Leandro, at worst they have gone belly up section-8 like Antioch and Fairfield.
Location: NY-NJ-Philly looks down at SF and laughs at the hippies
1,144 posts, read 1,286,323 times
Reputation: 432
I couldn't live in Oakland. There are only a few neighborhoods worth noting as safe. The majority of the city is known to be gangbanger central and to be ran by hooligans who won't hesitate to commit violent crimes for small amount of change, basicly one large ghetto. Oakland by far have the most homeless and poverty out of the three major cities in the Bay Area and they rank extremely high on a nationally level for criminal activity too. The only good thing about Oakland is being next to SF, which is not too much of an asset to begin with.
I couldn't live in Oakland. There are only a few neighborhoods worth noting as safe.
Completely false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gateway Region
The majority of the city is known to be gangbanger central and to be ran by hooligans who won't hesitate to commit violent crimes for small amount of change, basicly one large ghetto.
Most people who believe this are those who learned about Oakland from that laughable show "gang land" and/or rap music and Forbes lists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gateway Region
Oakland by far have the most homeless and poverty out of the three major cities in the Bay Area and they rank extremely high on a nationally level for criminal activity too.
SF ranks relatively high but SJ is one of the safest big cities in the nation. And you're crazy if you think Oakland has more homeless people than SF.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
