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.
I'm wondering if the bad parts of LI like Roosevelt, Elmont, ect. are really that bad? I mean, all of them have very low crime rates, and are far below the national average, but I'm always hearing about how bad they are. Are they bad compared to NYC ghettos? Or are they only bad for LI standards? I live in NYC, in a area that is considered to be decent and the crime rate is 2-3 times that of all the bad areas in LI, in almost every category. So are these areas really that bad (because the crime rates don't show it) or is it only bad compared to the rest of LI?
They are bad for LI standards. Elmont is not as bad as Roosevelt, but it's not super great. I'd say it's probably on par with Baldwin.
In the scheme of things, Roosevelt or Elmont are not like other well-known ghetto areas, Compton, CA for example. Camden, NJ is probably worse. Perhaps Detroit, parts of Miami, but I think you get the idea.
I would not compare the "bad areas" of LI to the bad areas of NYC.
The "bad areas" of LI are held up to a much higher standard simply b/c they're located on LI, which is generally a well-off region.
The residents of most of the "bad towns" of LI are what you would call working class or lower-middle-class. While in the bad areas of NYC, most residents are either straight up poor living in the projects/govt assistance (usually multi-generational poverty) or working for near minimum-wage salaries.
The thing about the "bad areas" of LI is that there is very little multi-generational poverty there; this is b/c most of LI was built up in the 50's-70's so the poverty cycle had to be broken at one point since somebody of that generation had to be well-off enough to even be able to afford to purchase a home on LI (most residents of the "bad areas" of LI are actually homeowners and these areas mostly still have strong home prices).
Note that housing projects are extremely rare/non-existent even in the "bad parts" of LI. So you rarely have a large concentration of poverty there as you would have in the bad areas of NYC.
If you want some stats then here u go. This shows a large&obvious socioeconomic difference between some of the "bad areas" of LI and some of the ones of NYC. MHI=Median Household Income
NYC-
Mott Haven MHI: $23k
Brownsville MHI: $31k
Morrisania MHI: $20k
East New York MHI: $33k
East Harlem MHI: $34k
Hunts Point MHI: $24k
Also MOST of Elmont is not a bad neighborhood, some parts near Hempstead Tpke as well as north of the big cemetary are the dumpier parts of town; the rest is generally fine (Elmont MHI: $82k). Elmont does make the news more than most other towns which contributes towards it reputation but a lot of the stuff that happens there is committed by people who don't even live there.
I would not compare the "bad areas" of LI to the bad areas of NYC.
The "bad areas" of LI are held up to a much higher standard simply b/c they're located on LI, which is generally a well-off region.
The residents of most of the "bad towns" of LI are what you would call working class or lower-middle-class. While in the bad areas of NYC, most residents are either straight up poor living in the projects/govt assistance (usually multi-generational poverty) or working for near minimum-wage salaries.
The thing about the "bad areas" of LI is that there is very little multi-generational poverty there; this is b/c most of LI was built up in the 50's-70's so the poverty cycle had to be broken at one point since somebody of that generation had to be well-off enough to even be able to afford to purchase a home on LI (most residents of the "bad areas" of LI are actually homeowners and these areas mostly still have strong home prices).
Note that housing projects are extremely rare/non-existent even in the "bad parts" of LI. So you rarely have a large concentration of poverty there as you would have in the bad areas of NYC.
Housing projects may be rare, (in a traditional sense but there are a few on LI) but that dosent mean there aren't plenty of homes in those communities that are designated section 8. They are getting the same assistance as those in the projects. In Huntington station for instance there are something like 75 homes all owned by the same guy and all have section 8 tenants. He makes a fortune.
Usually, on the island if any area is majority minority it is considered bad. It's really as simple as that. Perception is often reality and anyone considering purchasing a home in these areas needs to be acutely aware of this.
Usually, on the island if any area is majority minority it is considered bad. It's really as simple as that. Perception is often reality and anyone considering purchasing a home in these areas needs to be acutely aware of this.
I think Elmont is definitely tidier than Roosevelt. However, there are very nice streets and areas in both towns that look really good that are solid and middle class.
I think Roosevelt has more of an issue with some distressed housing though, but I would never call either of the towns "bad".
I agree with the perception above, and it is unfortunate. Long Island needs more enlightenment.
I had relatives that lived in Elmont 50 years ago. It wasn't a premier area of Long Island even then....Elmont is just an extension of Queens.
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.
