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.
People are going to believe whatever makes them feel safe. But if you are paying attention you cannot help but see that crime is going up. I took the E to JFK a couple of weeks ago and things are definitely getting worse regardless of what the high ranking politicians of the nypd feeds the masses. All one has to do is open their eyes to see it or talk to a cop who works patrol on a regular basis.
Are you implying that urban decay is getting worse? Unless you saw people getting mugged or shot out while looking out the train window, how would you know crime is getting worse? And just curious what areas really looked worse?
Parts of the Bronx and Brooklyn may see a spike in crime, but Brownstone Brooklyn and Manhattan will never go back to 1970s. The 70s were about white-flight, now it's about white-influx. I predict that if real estate prices fall to a reasonable level (say $200,000 studios and $350,000 one-bedrooms) there will be a massive influx of educated (and for the most part white) professionals into the city. There are plenty of affluent (but not stupendously rich) people around the country (and the world) who want have an apartment in Manhattan.
^ Exactly. White people left, but they could afford those suburban houses back then. Now there is no loans and most people are stuck where they are. they can't sell, they can't buy. I think that when the economy start to go up again, NYC will be the first one to experience it. I am sure most people will stay put and ride this storm. This is not the same as the 70's.
White flight was in the 60s. But not really in Manhattan! Brooklyn, yes. The Bronx, yes. Queens? I don't know. Staten Island??
Manhattan, too. There used to be a pretty large Irish community in the Inwood/Washington Heights area. Not any more! And the Lower East Side still had a fairly large Jewish community through the 1950s.
Parts of the Bronx and Brooklyn may see a spike in crime, but Brownstone Brooklyn and Manhattan will never go back to 1970s. The 70s were about white-flight, now it's about white-influx. I predict that if real estate prices fall to a reasonable level (say $200,000 studios and $350,000 one-bedrooms) there will be a massive influx of educated (and for the most part white) professionals into the city. There are plenty of affluent (but not stupendously rich) people around the country (and the world) who want have an apartment in Manhattan.
Seriously. If real estate in Manhattan dropped by 50% (a doomsday scenario), you'd get an influx of transplants from througout the country who are still earning at least six figures and want to live in New York except for the cost. I'd buy something in a heartbeat. Because prices are so high now, there are so many income levels to move down through before large swaths of Manhattan revert to slum status. A $200,000 a year household is well off in much of the country, but not in NYC.
774 robberies with a population of 79,634. That's a rate of 972 per 100,000. That would be # 1 in the USA.
It's null though because it wont approach that number. But if it does, Cleveland step down.
That 972 rate would be extremely high (if it does end up happening), but its hardly #1 in the US. In my area alone, West Oakland and SF's Tenderloin exceed that. West Oakland, CA has a population of 21,812 and is on pace for 217 robberies this year which would give it a rate of 993. And that neighborhood doesn't even have the highest rate of robbery in Oakland. In 2006 the entire city of Oakland had a robbery rate of 886 per 100K with a population of roughly 400,000, and almost half of the city is virtually crime-free. So the neighborhoods where the robberies occurred the most would have to far exceed that 886 in order to reach that level with about half the population skewing the results.
The Tenderloin has a population of roughly 29,000 and is on pace to hit 510 robberies this year. That would give it a rate of 1,756! That's almost double that 972.
St. Louis had a similar situation to Oakland's in 2006 with a rate of 907 for the entire city. I'd hate to see how bad those neighborhoods got!
So I think you can relax, you don't have the worst in the nation by any means. Though that rate you got is really bad and nothing to take lightly.
That 972 rate would be extremely high (if it does end up happening), but its hardly #1 in the US. In my area alone, West Oakland and SF's Tenderloin exceed that. West Oakland, CA has a population of 21,812 and is on pace for 217 robberies this year which would give it a rate of 993. And that neighborhood doesn't even have the highest rate of robbery in Oakland. In 2006 the entire city of Oakland had a robbery rate of 886 per 100K with a population of roughly 400,000, and almost half of the city is virtually crime-free. So the neighborhoods where the robberies occurred the most would have to far exceed that 886 in order to reach that level with about half the population skewing the results.
The Tenderloin has a population of roughly 29,000 and is on pace to hit 510 robberies this year. That would give it a rate of 1,756! That's almost double that 972.
St. Louis had a similar situation to Oakland's in 2006 with a rate of 907 for the entire city. I'd hate to see how bad those neighborhoods got!
So I think you can relax, you don't have the worst in the nation by any means. Though that rate you got is really bad and nothing to take lightly.
Actually we would have the worst.
If it were a list with a cities of at least 75,000 + it would be # 1.
I could find places with 20,000 and high robbery rates everywhere. There's a reason most lists cuts off at 40,000. And consequently have different population ranges. Smaller population numbers will always have higher rates.
But 972 with a population of basically 80,000 is much much worse than one with a slightly higher rate 993 and basically a fourth of the population at 21,182.
If it were a list with a cities of at least 75,000 + it would be # 1.
I could find places with 20,000 and high robbery rates everywhere. There's a reason most lists cuts off at 40,000. And consequently have different population ranges. Smaller population numbers will always have higher rates.
But 972 with a population of basically 80,000 is much much worse than one with a slightly higher rate 993 and basically a fourth of the population at 21,182.
Always with the drama of crime and violence! lol You really think it's a 'war out there' huh? America is tame compared to some of the ghetto's and civil wars in 3rd world countries (especially in Africa) around the world.
Always with the drama of crime and violence! lol You really think it's a 'war out there' huh? America is tame compared to some of the ghetto's and civil wars in 3rd world countries (especially in Africa) around the world.
I think 900+ robberies per 100,000 is reason for alarm. Nobody saying it's war, just stating projections and facts. What's the problem?
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.
You really think it's a 'war out there' huh? America is tame compared to some of the ghetto's and civil wars in 3rd world countries (especially in Africa) around the world. 
