U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: In your opinion is crime citywide up or down since 2005?
Up 89 47.85%
Down 97 52.15%
Voters: 186. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-13-2009, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Medina (Brooklyn), NY
658 posts, read 990,594 times
Reputation: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elvira Black View Post
I agree that Brooklyn seems to be getting a lot of "hits" lately, but same goes for my area--a number of murders though the NYPD likes to say crime is down. I'd say arrests are up, but as someone said it may be for more "petty" crimes. Considering the hood though I'd say there are lots of shady characters, but seems like a revolving door with some of them. And yeah, I get the feeling that minor infractions which bring revenue to the city are more commonplace.

I think the broken windows theory does have some merit though. There's a new anti graffiti ordinance; think bldg owners get funded for keeping the bldgs graffiti free and a fine if they don't.

Manhattan has become very safe but kinda sterile and tourist friendly to the extreme. It's a showpiece for sure. To be fair, Killadelphia and other cities are worse off crime wise, but Operation Impact here means that the streets are either flooded with cops or when it's over and they move on all the lowlives have free reign again. And even with police presence murders are still going on.

Some of these are reported, but I've also noticed when you read a crime blotter in the local papers it has fewer reports from the Bronx and more from the other boros, which seems suspicious to me. The Bronx is becoming a bit more gentrified around the edges, and some of it could be an attempt to quell people's fears about moving here, but it's still the poorest boro and poor folks from Wash Hts etc move here when they can't afford their rent and/or get run out by the landlords.

Brooklyn did become a semi-Manhattan, but there are still some sections that are marginal, so maybe that explains the crime rise; also the new construction as you folks said.
I see what you're saying, but I wouldn't say that it's FAR worse. These are two very different cities. Once again, every city has neighborhoods that are crime ridden so it's better to compare that way (looking at specific neighborhoods). NYC has Manhattan which is pretty much is safe except for parts of LES and Uptown (Harlem and all surrounding neighborhoods). Brooklyn has places like Clinton Hills, Park Slope, Williamsburg etc. The "hood" here doesn't make up the vast majority of the city. Now Philly on the other hand, once you leave down town (north, south, east or west) YOU'RE IN THE HOOD, so crime is more widespread. The same goes for Chicago, Detroit and other cities. Not to mention the police prescence here in way stronger than in other cities

I implore people reading this to not drink the Bloomberg/Kelly Koolaid. This murder per capita stuff is all propaganda I mean...let's put our thinking caps on for JUST 1 MINUTE. If 500 people get murdered in Chicago or Detroit this year (which most murders are widespread across those cities) they're saying NYC is SAFER because we have less population I mean TO ME, 500 murders is 500 murders which is ALOT and like I said, here in NYC the majority of them happen within certain areas. According to Bloomberg/Kelly, I'm suppose to feel safe because we have 4 million more people than Chicago (even though I live in one of the higher crime areas of Brooklyn)

For the record, I'm NOT turing this into a "NYC vs Philly" thing but there are too many variables in this crime debate to specifically say which city is worse than the other (this goes for all cities). The one thing that we can agree on (which is FACT) is that the bad parts of NYC are just as bad as the bad parts of any other city and that STATS CAN BE MANIPULATED FOR ANY GIVEN RESULT (this is COMMON KNOWLEDGE). Don't fall for the empty rhetoric.

 
Old 07-13-2009, 03:13 PM
 
1,696 posts, read 1,950,418 times
Reputation: 1845
Quote:
Originally Posted by justfarr1030 View Post
I see what you're saying, but I wouldn't say that it's FAR worse. These are two very different cities. Once again, every city has neighborhoods that are crime ridden so it's better to compare that way (looking at specific neighborhoods). NYC has Manhattan which is pretty much is safe except for parts of LES and Uptown (Harlem and all surrounding neighborhoods). Brooklyn has places like Clinton Hills, Park Slope, Williamsburg etc. The "hood" here doesn't make up the vast majority of the city. Now Philly on the other hand, once you leave down town (north, south, east or west) YOU'RE IN THE HOOD, so crime is more widespread. The same goes for Chicago, Detroit and other cities. Not to mention the police prescence here in way stronger than in other cities

I implore people reading this to not drink the Bloomberg/Kelly Koolaid. This murder per capita stuff is all propaganda I mean...let's put our thinking caps on for JUST 1 MINUTE. If 500 people get murdered in Chicago or Detroit this year (which most murders are widespread across those cities) they're saying NYC is SAFER because we have less population I mean TO ME, 500 murders is 500 murders which is ALOT and like I said, here in NYC the majority of them happen within certain areas. According to Bloomberg/Kelly, I'm suppose to feel safe because we have 4 million more people than Chicago (even though I live in one of the higher crime areas of Brooklyn)

For the record, I'm NOT turing this into a "NYC vs Philly" thing but there are too many variables in this crime debate to specifically say which city is worse than the other (this goes for all cities). The one thing that we can agree on (which is FACT) is that the bad parts of NYC are just as bad as the bad parts of any other city and that STATS CAN BE MANIPULATED FOR ANY GIVEN RESULT (this is COMMON KNOWLEDGE). Don't fall for the empty rhetoric.

I totally agree with you to an extent, but let's speak some truth here:

Bloomberg has done as well as anyone can realistically expect. Guliani left 3 months after the towers fell, and the economy tanked in 02 (thou not this bad), so he's now kept the city stiched together over two recessions. Compare and contrast with Dinkins which saw the city almost slide down the long dark slide into hell. I don't know anyone who realistically expects NY to keep the numbers going down forever, most should hope the city will simply stay pretty safe (say like late 90s safe) and keep it together. Also, many homicides seem to be domestic related, which is due to rising stress.



I live outside Philly, the city is slowly getting better, but it's still a total mess in many areas. The truth is that whatever city your in, the cops can only do so much. In the end, as long as Ghetto Fabuolus attitudes continue to be exhalted by the urban underclass, we will always see some areas be what they are.


NY in a way also hurts itself with it's continued insistance on being the world's welfare dumping ground. Many of the underclass here need to move down south where the low-skill jobs are, since there's no way they're going to compete with immigrants who will work for less and no offense have a microfraction of the drama.
 
Old 07-13-2009, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Long Island
7,616 posts, read 8,826,620 times
Reputation: 4853
Quote:
Originally Posted by justfarr1030 View Post
I see what you're saying, but I wouldn't say that it's FAR worse. These are two very different cities. Once again, every city has neighborhoods that are crime ridden so it's better to compare that way (looking at specific neighborhoods). NYC has Manhattan which is pretty much is safe except for parts of LES and Uptown (Harlem and all surrounding neighborhoods). Brooklyn has places like Clinton Hills, Park Slope, Williamsburg etc. The "hood" here doesn't make up the vast majority of the city. Now Philly on the other hand, once you leave down town (north, south, east or west) YOU'RE IN THE HOOD, so crime is more widespread. The same goes for Chicago, Detroit and other cities. Not to mention the police prescence here in way stronger than in other cities

I implore people reading this to not drink the Bloomberg/Kelly Koolaid. This murder per capita stuff is all propaganda I mean...let's put our thinking caps on for JUST 1 MINUTE. If 500 people get murdered in Chicago or Detroit this year (which most murders are widespread across those cities) they're saying NYC is SAFER because we have less population I mean TO ME, 500 murders is 500 murders which is ALOT and like I said, here in NYC the majority of them happen within certain areas. According to Bloomberg/Kelly, I'm suppose to feel safe because we have 4 million more people than Chicago (even though I live in one of the higher crime areas of Brooklyn)

For the record, I'm NOT turing this into a "NYC vs Philly" thing but there are too many variables in this crime debate to specifically say which city is worse than the other (this goes for all cities). The one thing that we can agree on (which is FACT) is that the bad parts of NYC are just as bad as the bad parts of any other city and that STATS CAN BE MANIPULATED FOR ANY GIVEN RESULT (this is COMMON KNOWLEDGE). Don't fall for the empty rhetoric.
I agree with everything you just stated. There are a lot of people who fail to realize this.
 
Old 07-13-2009, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Newark, NJ/NYC
1,154 posts, read 1,159,334 times
Reputation: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzles View Post
I totally agree with you to an extent, but let's speak some truth here:

Bloomberg has done as well as anyone can realistically expect. Guliani left 3 months after the towers fell, and the economy tanked in 02 (thou not this bad), so he's now kept the city stiched together over two recessions. Compare and contrast with Dinkins which saw the city almost slide down the long dark slide into hell.
Correct me if I'm wrong since I was only a toddler in Dinkins days, but wasn't crime already going down when he was in office? This is what I heard and I just wanna know if it's true.
 
Old 07-13-2009, 05:13 PM
 
346 posts, read 759,648 times
Reputation: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by njnyckid View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong since I was only a toddler in Dinkins days, but wasn't crime already going down when he was in office? This is what I heard and I just wanna know if it's true.
Koch and Dinkins actually set up the crime drop that Giuliani and Bloomberg rode through their times as mayor. In fact, Bloomberg has very little to do with crime being low. Even though Giuliani mostly rode on a wave of lowering crime he did more as mayor to buster efforts than Bloomberg had during his entire mayoralship.

Actually I wish we had a mayoral candidate like Koch. Say what you want about the man, but he was pretty progressive for his time and he certainly loved his city. Bloomberg on the other hand seems to think of this city like a spreadsheet. Bloomberg's problem is that Koch and Dinkin's efforts are starting to reverse and Bloomberg doesn't have the knowledge to tackle crime.
 
Old 07-13-2009, 10:15 PM
 
Location: Medina (Brooklyn), NY
658 posts, read 990,594 times
Reputation: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzles View Post
I totally agree with you to an extent, but let's speak some truth here:

Bloomberg has done as well as anyone can realistically expect. Guliani left 3 months after the towers fell, and the economy tanked in 02 (thou not this bad), so he's now kept the city stiched together over two recessions. Compare and contrast with Dinkins which saw the city almost slide down the long dark slide into hell. I don't know anyone who realistically expects NY to keep the numbers going down forever, most should hope the city will simply stay pretty safe (say like late 90s safe) and keep it together. Also, many homicides seem to be domestic related, which is due to rising stress...
A little known fact by most NYers is that crime was actually going DOWN during Dinkins reign. YES, look this up if you doubt it, so I don't give Ghouliani and Bloomberg/Kelly all the "props" that most give them. Ghouliani brought compstat which is the reason why the crime numbers started to fall drastically during his time as opposed to slightly over the years (this is when the massive stat juking and manipulation came into play). All they did was ride the wave so to speak that Dinkins ruffled up. But today the economy is in worse shape than ever so they should be judged on what they do NOW. Murders rose last year and much of the early part of this year was cold and extremely rained out which is why I believe that murders are down so far this year (I don't have anything to prove this, it's just MY opinion). Since June and the summer time weather arrived we have seen a major upstick in murders. Will this continue? Only time will tell but I believe that when it's all said and done we will be higher than last year or right there at it (hopefully not though).
 
Old 07-14-2009, 03:58 AM
 
1,696 posts, read 1,950,418 times
Reputation: 1845
Quote:
Originally Posted by justfarr1030 View Post
A little known fact by most NYers is that crime was actually going DOWN during Dinkins reign. YES, look this up if you doubt it, so I don't give Ghouliani and Bloomberg/Kelly all the "props" that most give them. Ghouliani brought compstat which is the reason why the crime numbers started to fall drastically during his time as opposed to slightly over the years (this is when the massive stat juking and manipulation came into play). All they did was ride the wave so to speak that Dinkins ruffled up. But today the economy is in worse shape than ever so they should be judged on what they do NOW. Murders rose last year and much of the early part of this year was cold and extremely rained out which is why I believe that murders are down so far this year (I don't have anything to prove this, it's just MY opinion). Since June and the summer time weather arrived we have seen a major upstick in murders. Will this continue? Only time will tell but I believe that when it's all said and done we will be higher than last year or right there at it (hopefully not though).
Dinkins last year of office was 1993. The homicide total was like 1,950. In it's peak in 1990, it 2,250. Big whoop. Totally within normal variations.


This "Dinkins started it" revisionism is a ploy by the extreme Gulinai/Bloomberg haters. I will admit he did start "Safe Streets/Safe City", but that was just as much ode to Clinton as anyone else. Judging by your other posts, one wonders weither your hate for Bloomie is race related.
 
Old 07-14-2009, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Bed-stuy/Clinton Hill
952 posts, read 1,275,896 times
Reputation: 468
Alot of people seem to forget that when Koch and Dinkins were in office violent crime was peaking all across the nation in every large city no matter the party in office. They were part of a national trend which due to Reaganomics and lack of federal funds they were not able to get the police officers on the streets they needed to combat what was going on. Not only that policing is only a part of fighting crime, other things such as crumbling infrastructure, housing, jobs and education have alot to do with it. Dinkins actually had to sacrifice in the same way Koch did as far as cutting back certain programs and laying off city workers in order to bring in some kind of revenue. Toward the end of his term he began putting more police officers on the street. Guliani's term coincided with Clinton's and the economy had begun rebounding. Violent crime began to decrease dramatically across the nation, (not saying that the 'broken windows' theory in NY didn't help). But the economy helped to make these efforts come to fruition. Had Koch or Dinkins been mayor during such a time not only would crime have been low, but they would not have marginalized certain social classes and demographics in the city as Guliani and Bloomberg have. For the record I would actually give Bloomberg more credit than Guliani because he's seeing a lower crime rate in the city than Guliani's era at a time when violent crime has been up in other cities during hard economic times. Though all this could backfire on him if he doesn't prioritize and make this city more inclusive.
 
Old 07-14-2009, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Medina (Brooklyn), NY
658 posts, read 990,594 times
Reputation: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzles View Post
Dinkins last year of office was 1993. The homicide total was like 1,950. In it's peak in 1990, it 2,250. Big whoop. Totally within normal variations.


This "Dinkins started it" revisionism is a ploy by the extreme Gulinai/Bloomberg haters. I will admit he did start "Safe Streets/Safe City", but that was just as much ode to Clinton as anyone else. Judging by your other posts, one wonders weither your hate for Bloomie is race related.
Ooooo, the race card, you sure did win this debate .

Quote:
Originally Posted by twist07
Alot of people seem to forget that when Koch and Dinkins were in office violent crime was peaking all across the nation in every large city no matter the party in office. They were part of a national trend which due to Reaganomics and lack of federal funds they were not able to get the police officers on the streets they needed to combat what was going on. Not only that policing is only a part of fighting crime, other things such as crumbling infrastructure, housing, jobs and education have alot to do with it. Dinkins actually had to sacrifice in the same way Koch did as far as cutting back certain programs and laying off city workers in order to bring in some kind of revenue. Toward the end of his term he began putting more police officers on the street. Guliani's term coincided with Clinton's and the economy had begun rebounding. VIOLENT CRIME BEGAN TO DECREASE DRAMATICALLY ACROSS THE NATION, (not saying that the 'broken windows' theory in NY didn't help). But the economy helped to make these efforts come to fruition. Had Koch or Dinkins been mayor during such a time not only would crime have been low, but they would not have marginalized certain social classes and demographics in the city as Guliani and Bloomberg have. For the record I would actually give Bloomberg more credit than Guliani because he's seeing a lower crime rate in the city than Guliani's era at a time when violent crime has been up in other cities during hard economic times. Though all this could backfire on him if he doesn't prioritize and make this city more inclusive.
Exactly, this is common knowledge but most people in this thread are drinking the koolaid.

It's called POLITICS.
 
Old 07-15-2009, 05:39 AM
 
346 posts, read 759,648 times
Reputation: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzles View Post
Judging by your other posts, one wonders weither your hate for Bloomie is race related.
Fatal flaw: Bloomberg and Koch are Jewish. The other poster elated about Koch. IE, their isn't a race hate here, but a poor argument running out of support.
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.


Closed Thread



Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top