What is attracting California and west coast folks to DFW? (Dallas: crime rates, find a job)

[Canine*Castle]

Originally Posted by aceplace

Your real problem in presenting these figures is that they are not accurate. The FBI does not vouch for their accuracy and says so bluntly in its website.

When you think about it, people who commit crimes tend to hide it from the police. Different police departments differ in their ability or willingness to discover and report crimes. And they classify them differently. There are a lot of ways to disguise a murder or misrepresent a rape. And different percentages of actual crimes committed are reported to police by the victims from one city or another. Many of the reported auto thefts in Dallas turned out to be insurance fraud.

Also, there is no crime statistic that is uniform across a municipality. Violent crime occurs mostly in a few bad neighborhoods, so the numbers are meaningless for most of the city.

Hey, quit complaining. Dallas fared better than Los Angeles. I knew someone would come back and mention the inaccurate FBI figures but since really, we don't have anything else to go on, it's better than nothing. Moving to a new city, one might view these statistics as getting some sort of an idea anyway.

My "real problem" as you say is not my problem. If one can't at least somewhat rely on figures by the professionals and what city data posts, then it's really not my problem. You speak as though I invented these figures. Rather than me, maybe you need to reprimand the FBI, City Data, and the weathermen in Dallas when they speak of tornadoes.

What do you suggest someone should check out when he or she is wanting to know actualities about crime, etc.? Do you have some sort of a mathematical formula in which to use pertaining to stats posted and obtaining accuracy? Hey, clue us all in and don't keep all this intelligent information to yourself.

As you say, violent crimes maybe mostly occur in bad neighborhoods, but that's really just a guess. Keep in mind all that happens in the wealthy neighborhoods too, and my guess is that it happens more than one likes to admit.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by Canine*Castle

Hey, quit complaining. Dallas fared better than Los Angeles. I knew someone would come back and mention the inaccurate FBI figures but since really, we don't have anything else to go on, it's better than nothing. Moving to a new city, one might view these statistics as getting some sort of an idea anyway.

No, the wrong answers are worse than no answer at all. As Mark Twain said, "It's not what we don't know, it's what we know that ain't so."

My "real problem" as you say is not my problem. If one can't at least somewhat rely on figures by the professionals and what city data posts, then it's really not my problem. You speak as though I invented these figures.

If you deliberately promote numbers you know to be false, you are not being honest. If you are indifferent as to the validity of the numbers you promote, you are not being honest.

What do you suggest someone should check out when he or she is wanting to know actualities about crime, etc.? Do you have some sort of a mathematical formula in which to use pertaining to stats posted and obtaining accuracy? Hey, clue us all in and don't keep all this intelligent information to yourself.

No, sorry, I don't have a pipeline to what God or the Devil only knows. Other than to fall back on the common opinion that tough looking neighborhoods are dangerous and upscale ones generally aren't. I don't care to know if the Los Angeles ghettoes are more or less dangerous than the Dallas ghettoes.

As you say, violent crimes maybe mostly occur in bad neighborhoods, but that's really just a guess. Keep in mind all that happens in the wealthy neighborhoods too, and my guess is that it happens more than one likes to admit.

If you think that Highland Park and Preston Hollow have the same incidence of gang violence as the ghetto, you're entitled to your opinion.

[rb4browns]

Originally Posted by Canine*Castle

My "real problem" as you say is not my problem. If one can't at least somewhat rely on figures by the professionals and what city data posts, then it's really not my problem. You speak as though I invented these figures. Rather than me, maybe you need to reprimand the FBI, City Data, and the weathermen in Dallas when they speak of tornadoes.

What do you suggest someone should check out when he or she is wanting to know actualities about crime, etc.? Do you have some sort of a mathematical formula in which to use pertaining to stats posted and obtaining accuracy? Hey, clue us all in and don't keep all this intelligent information to yourself.

The best way to find out about crime in a given neighborhood one is considering is to speak to the local police precinct and or/look at crime maps tailored to an individual neighborhood.

To take a "something is better than nothing" approach to statistics is silly. Statistics without context mean absolutely nothing. That's why the FBI numbers on crime, City Data numbers, etc. are useless if you are just comparing city to city.

The city of Dallas interactive crime map at City of Dallas Interactive Maps is probably the best tool one can use to see actual occurances in a given area during a given time period. The user can draw his/her own conclusions. This is much more effective than looking at an empty ranking list of cities based on overall crime rates.

[rb4browns]

Originally Posted by Canine*Castle

As you say, violent crimes maybe mostly occur in bad neighborhoods, but that's really just a guess. Keep in mind all that happens in the wealthy neighborhoods too, and my guess is that it happens more than one likes to admit.

Actually, it's not a guess. Statistics when properly analyzed can give us highly probable conclusions to draw from. If you take as the standard crimes actually reported to police than one can definitively say that violent crimes happen much more in low income neighborhoods than wealthy ones.

See City of Dallas Interactive Maps which I referenced in another posting here.

In fact, I would take a non-statistical guess and say even more violent crimes happen in low income areas than are reported than you would see in a wealthy area because in my opinion residents of wealthy neighborhoods are more likely to see the police as their allies. It's my opinion that violent crime in low income areas tend to be a neighbor-on-neighbor issue while in wealthy areas the crime is more likely to be committed by an outsider.

[Spree]

<<See City of Dallas Interactive Maps which I referenced in another posting here.>>

That is a good map, I've recently come across this one, that is similar, but seems a little easier to navigate (you can grab and hold, move the map w/out refreshing) Dallas Crime Map - Showing Crime in Dallas, TX - Crime Statistics - Crime Alerts - Crime Stops Here

[Canine*Castle]

Originally Posted by aceplace

If you deliberately promote numbers you know to be false, you are not being honest. If you are indifferent as to the validity of the numbers you promote, you are not being honest.

Oh brother, it is just hopeless with you. I'm not promoting anything and am not being dishonest. I don't know that the numbers are false, but you seem to think they are. If they're not correct, they're probably even higher than listed. That can't be good.

I didn't say that HP or PH had gang violence. I said wealthy places often have violent crimes and from what I read in the paper, most of them are done by some nut husband, father, mother, or whatever killing members of his or her own family.

I will agree with you that gang violence is prevalent in the ghetto areas, but again, I wasn't referring to gangs in any of my posts.

[rb4browns]

Originally Posted by Canine*Castle

Oh brother, it is just hopeless with you. I'm not promoting anything and am not being dishonest. I don't know that the numbers are false, but you seem to think they are. If they're not correct, they're probably even higher than listed. That can't be good.

I didn't say that HP or PH had gang violence. I said wealthy places often have violent crimes and from what I read in the paper, most of them are done by some nut husband, father, mother, or whatever killing members of his or her own family.

I will agree with you that gang violence is prevalent in the ghetto areas, but again, I wasn't referring to gangs in any of my posts.

I don't think you are being dishonest or anything, I do think you are misreading and misunderstanding how stats are gathered/processed and interpreted though. With specific regards to understanding how to measure crime in Dallas, there should not be any confusion. Taking the stats of a city as a whole does not tell us much. Looking at patterns in specific neighborhoods gives us much more insight to draw probable conclusions, and myself and another poster have pointed to two fairly accurate websites which breakdown different types of crime and where/when they happen.

The family murders you speak about don't happen that often. It's hard to cover that up. And while there may be unreported violent assaults in nice areas committed by family members, I just don't think they happen any more than anywhere else.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by rb4browns

Actually, it's not a guess. Statistics when properly analyzed can give us highly probable conclusions to draw from. If you take as the standard crimes actually reported to police than one can definitively say that violent crimes happen much more in low income neighborhoods than wealthy ones.

See City of Dallas Interactive Maps which I referenced in another posting here.

In fact, I would take a non-statistical guess and say even more violent crimes happen in low income areas than are reported than you would see in a wealthy area because in my opinion residents of wealthy neighborhoods are more likely to see the police as their allies. It's my opinion that violent crime in low income areas tend to be a neighbor-on-neighbor issue while in wealthy areas the crime is more likely to be committed by an outsider.

One reason the stats are useless for city-to-city comparisons is that different police departments have different degrees of trust with their citizens. That affects the percentage of crimes that are reported to the police.

In one city, for example, the people may feel that reporting a mugging or an assault is a futile waste of time, judging from past experience with their police, so they don't bother. Thus, lower reported crime, higher actual crime. In another city, the police are more responsive, solve more crimes, return more property, and so the citizens report crimes more often. Therefore, higher reported crime, less actual crime.

The FBI actually did a public opinion poll a few years back to independently validate the crime reports from police departments. The percent of people who report in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles were significantly different from one another, enough of a difference to invalidate the local police report numbers.

Another factor is that the police department may do certain things to either encourage or discourage more reporting. Why encourage it? To convince the citizens to pay more taxes for police protection. Why discourage? To deflect blame for crime away from the police chief.

Even within a police jurisdiction, high crime neighborhoods will underreport, low crime areas will overreport. If the illegitimacy rate in a neighborhood is 70%, and 35% of the male population is either coming out of prison or going to prison, gangs are selling cocaine out of drive-through windows, you can imagine that the number of crimes reported to the police is worthless as a statistic.

[caligurltotx]

Originally Posted by DWong

Well Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Clairmont, Glendora all have similar prices and are 45 miles to Downtown LA. Traffic, well that is their problem

Again, I'll emphasize our largest growing population are adults generally 25 and older and immigrant population. We unlike TX are NOT the family friendly for the family w/ 2 or more kids. Whose moving to Tx... families bringing in 4 or more at a time... hey- if I was in the same boat it would more to consider...

Just showed property out in Rancho Cuca and Pomona and Condos and townhomes are going for in the $300G price range. That's nice ones in decent areas.

All this comparison is just hiliarious to me

[caligurltotx]

Originally Posted by DWong

Did the posts not show of the 4 bedroom homes for less than $300? It was a little earlier today. Keep in mind the property tax differnce here can cover part of the price difference as well...
Here are plenty more....
Lake Elsinore, CA 3/2 1,596 6,969 Sq. Ft. $135,000
Lake Elsinore, CA 4/3 2,285 6,969 Sq. Ft. $329,000 Lake Elsinore, CA 4/3 3,237 10,454 Sq. Ft. $378,000 Lake Elsinore, CA 4/3 2,344 5,500 Sq. Ft. $235,000
Lake Elsinore, CA 3/2 1,610 4,356 Sq. Ft. $179,900 Lake Elsinore, CA 3/3 2,505 5,663 Sq. Ft. $264,900 13
Lake Elsinore, CA 3/3 2,322 N/A $274,900 14
Lake Elsinore, CA 3/2 880 3,049 Sq. Ft. $130,000 15
Lake Elsinore, CA 4/3 2,344 5,500 Sq. Ft. $236,000
Lake Elsinore, CA 4/4 3,404 9,147 Sq. Ft. $309,900 18
Lake Elsinore, CA 5/3 3,882 6,098 Sq. Ft. $390,000 19
Lake Elsinore, CA 3/3 1,942 3,920 Sq. Ft. $205,000 20
Lake Elsinore, CA 3/2 1,552 6,098 Sq. Ft. $169,000

Must I go on?? I think I made the point
All of this being 40 miles to disneyland and another 20 to most LA attractions and maybe a bit more to the beach (but hey the lake is also just right there too so y'all Texans can enjoy it as well)

I cannot believe that you are using Lake Elsinore as a center point to compare housing to DFW. Why dont both you guys use each city's downtown as the center point and go no farther than 40 miles out from each city.
Dwong Lake elsinore is 65 miles from downtown L.A. and u keep using Disneyland in Anaheim as a focal point. Let's face it Dwong u could use Lancaster too but probably 90% of Angelinos DONOT want to move there just because housing is cheaper than the LA area. Not to mention Lancaster is 71 miles to downtown LA.
Now if you were to stay within that 40 mile guideline you could use Hollywood, N Hollywood, Pasadena, Sherman Oaks, Burbank, etc. But you know u couldn't come up with the comps they are refering to if u did.
Also I can assure you those flocking to Lake Elsinore are ONLY buying there because it's all they can afford at this time. Just a yr and 1/2 ago (2006) these same people were priced out of the market when Lake Elsinore new construction was selling for around $500G. Now they can get a foreclosure in those same subdivisions for the mid $200 - $300. There's not a bidding war out in Lake Elsinore. Ive submitted 3 offers on REO's that had no competing offers. Very nice homes cosmetic work only. So why isn't all of LA flocking to Lake Elsinore.