Why do you suppose Chicago is the media's punching bag? (crime, cost)

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by coldwine

I think an important fact that is often papered over is how LA and NYC achieved their reduction in crime stats.

Los Angeles wholesale deported gangs en masse. Honduras has a terrible crime problem today because California literally purged Honduran immigrants.

Both cities also used real estate inflation to purge the undesirables from their boundaries. Giuliani and Bloomberg encouraged policies that took advantage of the real estate bubble to wholesale banish the untouchables.

Los Angeles is guilty of the same exact crime.

Did you just make this up?

There's no evidence that NYC and LA reduced crime by "purging immigrants" or the poor. NYC and LA have high poverty rates (in fact LA has a higher poverty rate than Chicago) and both cities receive far more immigrants than Chicago. Poverty hasn't dropped in either city has crime has dropped.

Also, both cities have rent control and Chicago doesn't, so gentrification won't affect the poor in either city as much as in Chicago because the poor aren't in market rate housing to begin with.

[personone]

Originally Posted by UKWildcat1981

Chicago def has its crime problems its not the media's fault people are killing each other at an alarming crime rate.

I agree. I mentioned earlier in this thread, you can only blame the media so much. Regardless of whether or not crime has decreased over the last 20 years, crime is still a BIG problem in parts of the city. So it will continue to make headlines until it becomes significantly better. You don't get a sticker for having decreased crime rates if the crime is still bad.

Anytime you see the shooting figures over the weekend that you commonly see in the city, that's not a good thing, regardless whether or not crime has decreased over time, or any other excuse that can be made for the numbers. NYC, LA, and DC were all media punching bags for crime at one time, but they all have made huge strides, so the media is forced to look elsewhere.

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by personone

I agree. I mentioned earlier in this thread, you can only blame the media so much. Regardless of whether or not crime has decreased over the last 20 years, crime is still a BIG problem in parts of the city. So it will continue to make headlines until it becomes significantly better. You don't get a sticker for having decreased crime rates if the crime is still bad.

Anytime you see the shooting figures over the weekend that you commonly see in the city, that's not a good thing, regardless whether or not crime has decreased over time, or any other excuse that can be made for the numbers. NYC, LA, and DC were all media punching bags for crime at one time, but they all have made huge strides, so the media is forced to look elsewhere.

Has DC improved its crime rate as much as NY and LA? I thought DC was pretty bad still.

[personone]

Originally Posted by Bluefox

Has DC improved its crime rate as much as NY and LA? I thought DC was pretty bad still.

DC's crime rate is infinitely better. I grew up in the suburbs outside of DC in the 90s and I remember when DC's crime used to very frequently make national news like Chicago. I can't remember the last time DC's crime made national news. Mayor Anthony Williams was the one who completely cleaned up the city 360 deg. Unfortunately, it was cleaned up almost entirely through gentrification. All of the poor people were priced out, and ended up moving to Prince George's County, Maryland (making DCs crime numbers look much better). It also helped that there was a huge influx of wealthy people into the area during the "tech boom" in the early 2000s.

Then they tore down all the old projects and built new condos all over the city. The city is now almost completely "yuppified", white collared, and very expensive (only NY, SF, and maybe Boston are more expensive in terms of COL). You are hard pressed to find many "bad" areas in the city, although pockets do exist.

DC had the advantage of having PG county MD so close by, which at the time was less developed and is rather inexpensive. When people were displaced from DC they went there, and unfortunately the crime followed them. If they had been displaced to another part of DC instead, then the crime rate probably wouldn't have dropped as much. It would be like Chicago is now with "good areas" and "bad areas", with the bad areas inflating the crime rates.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by personone

You are hard pressed to find many "bad" areas in the city, although pockets do exist.

I wouldn't go that far. Almost the entire eastern half of DC is at least semi-"bad", and almost 100% of DC south of the Anacostia River (so probably 25% of the city) is full-on ghetto.

And DC, overall, still has pretty high murder and overall crime rates.

[Antonio Montana]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

This is a great example of our poor education system. Crime rates are at 40 year lows. Crime rates take into account population. That's the whole point.

So, does crime include shootings? Are shootings at an all time low? Are shootings down from the previous year?

[ecwwwc]

Originally Posted by Antonio Montana

So, does crime include shootings? Are shootings at an all time low? Are shootings down from the previous year?

A shooting is still a crime, so yes they can be reported. If you look at the numbers from the late 80s and early 1990s, Chicago is much better off today related to that. Do some research and you'll see that there were sometimes over 1000 or 1500 shootings a month back then. Here's an article I found with a simple Google search from the early 90s:

City Shooting Casualties Soaring - tribunedigital-chicagotribune

Citywide, during the first six months of 1992, the 7,285 shootings was an increase of 8 percent over last year.

Chicago these days for an entire year isn't even close to that, and this number was just quoting 6 months.

[probablyimnotsure]

Rich people don't like to live among poor people. Why is that hard to grasp for some people? It's always been like that. Why would a rich educated person want to live in an area with uneducated poor people and higher crime? Gentrification is a good thing; it makes an undesirable place more desirable for people have money and contribute more to the economy. Very simple stuff.

[Antonio Montana]

Originally Posted by ecwwwc

A shooting is still a crime, so yes they can be reported. If you look at the numbers from the late 80s and early 1990s, Chicago is much better off today related to that. Do some research and you'll see that there were sometimes over 1000 or 1500 shootings a month back then. Here's an article I found with a simple Google search from the early 90s:

City Shooting Casualties Soaring - tribunedigital-chicagotribune



Chicago these days for an entire year isn't even close to that, and this number was just quoting 6 months.

A problem, though, is that Chicago's population has significantly declined as well, so you're spin is misleading. Also, shootings are up this year from last year. The south and west sides of Chiraq are warzones. No spin will change that reality.

[Arne Bjornson]

Originally Posted by Antonio Montana

A problem, though, is that Chicago's population has significantly declined as well, so you're spin is misleading. Also, shootings are up this year from last year. The south and west sides of Chiraq are warzones. No spin will change that reality.

Chicago's population is about the same as it was in 1992. There are half as many murders and about 1/6 the number of shootings in 2015 as in 1992.