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.
That's a common misconception.
And I don't know why.
Latin Kings started in Humbold Park, Chicago
And what the hell exists in the Bay area?
All I know is Nortenos. They pretty much came about in resistance to surenos who are from L.A.
I believe some pretty high ranking guy from the original Kings in Chicago got lucked up in NYC. He asked for permission to start a chapter in NYC and now you have it.
I think that the crime numbers for most tourist cities are skewed. They must only use the crime numbers for manhattan south of 100th street because the city is 60% ghetto. No way that NY is that low. LA is probably the same as well
The cities that thrive on tourism know that telling the real crime rates will scare off tourists
Then explain LA's crime rates in the 90s (and those of NYC in the 90s for that matter)
Also many LA gangbangers moved to the suburbs, which explains why LA's number is lower than it was, and also why there's less of a difference between city/suburb crime levels in LA than elsewhere
The reason Chicago doesn't do more is that you can basically draw 2-4 circles around neighborhoods on the city's west and south side and capture about 75% of the homicides the city has each year. As far as the metro, compared to many areas Chicago City sees a huge % of the murders in the metro each year.
You can look at neighborhoods with around 700,000 residents, and their murder rate is 13 times higher than that of the rest of the 8,300,000 people in the metro area. Most people live in areas with around 2-3 murders per 100,000. Those unlucky few are seeing around 40 per 100,000.
People got "tired" of trying to deal with it, so they just turned their backs on those neighborhoods decades ago. There's still an effort, but until it comes knocking on 85% of the metro (which it isn't), people just tend to write it off.
BTW the major street gangs in the Bay Area don't have L.A. roots nor Chicago roots.
No, like everyone said The ALKN started in humbolt park in chicago. Dont feel dumb tho b/c alot of people think it started in NYC and even some people think it started in LA. I remember one chick in atl was tellin me how they started on the west coast then I looked at her like ..wtf. She later found out that I was right and she was wrong.lol
The reason Chicago doesn't do more is that you can basically draw 2-4 circles around neighborhoods on the city's west and south side and capture about 75% of the homicides the city has each year. As far as the metro, compared to many areas Chicago City sees a huge % of the murders in the metro each year.
You can look at neighborhoods with around 700,000 residents, and their murder rate is 13 times higher than that of the rest of the 8,300,000 people in the metro area. Most people live in areas with around 2-3 murders per 100,000. Those unlucky few are seeing around 40 per 100,000.
People got "tired" of trying to deal with it, so they just turned their backs on those neighborhoods decades ago. There's still an effort, but until it comes knocking on 85% of the metro (which it isn't), people just tend to write it off.
The gangs seem to be extending in to the Chicago suburbs, this will possibly start giving the police a bigger motivation to try to bring down these gangs.
I think that the crime numbers for most tourist cities are skewed. They must only use the crime numbers for manhattan south of 100th street because the city is 60% ghetto. No way that NY is that low. LA is probably the same as well
The cities that thrive on tourism know that telling the real crime rates will scare off tourists
They are very skewed, I think once the decline in crime started cities saw an increase in tourism, and once the decline in crime started to stop and even crime starting to rise again they made it look like the decline was still going on.
I know this is the case for NYC and I'm sure its not alone.
Last edited by Infamous92; 08-03-2009 at 05:21 PM..
Crack was in the 80's not 90's and I have always heard the epidemic was far worse in Los Angeles and Miami than it ever got in NYC. Could be wrong.
yes for Miami it was very true,
back before the population in the metro even cracked 1.9 million, and the city was around 300,000. the year was 1980 April 21, cubans started boating to miami, in the month of april 7665 immigrants arrived, in a span of four more months lasting until September Approximately 125,000 Cubans arrived ashore in miami.
anyways fast foward a year. crack and cocaine were introduced. maimi was a major point of entrence into the U.S for it. many cartels were rivaling for control of sales/ turf. basically hit men were killing people left and right. shooting up clubs, malls, police stations and the F.B.I. in the end at the end of the year 1981 miami dade had 621 homicides. dont knwo the actual number for the city of miami, but it was the murder capital of north america.
and the city suffered riots throught out the 80's the most destrructive in 1980( the Arthur McDuffie riots ) another in 1982, and the last in 1989.
I'm not sure about 15 member gangs in LA (I'm not denying it, I've just never heard of any hoods there that are that small and inactive), but I believe you are correct in saying Chicago's gangs are all generally huge. I think LA has more active gangs within its city limits, and historically it has had more gang-related homicides than any other city (to the best of my knowledge), so it gets the title of gang capitol by a small margin over Chicago. LA's population is also 20-25% larger than Chicago, so per capita Chicago may even have more gang members, making it the capitol. LA's gangs are more widespread across the country (and beyond) than Chicago's gangs, so in that sense LA is the capitol. Either way, I think its really splitting hairs between the two cities which is why I think they are both co-capitols.
As for the SoCal as a region, I fully agree. Compton, Inglewood and Long Beach alone added in with LA make the region the most gang-infested, let alone every other city in the area. I think anyone with any familiarity with LA County and the rest of SoCal would easily agree on that. Unless people really aren't aware how widespread it is down there.
True!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman650
And throw everything else into the mix down there from San Bernadino to Compton and you had a pretty bad mess. I'm glad its improved as much as it has. Oakland's come a long way too, regardless of where it ranks now. It was way worse in the 90's.
100 % true! +1
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.
wtf. She later found out that I was right and she was wrong.lol
