Ohio Cities and Metros New Crime Rankings (Columbus, Cleveland: for rent, crime rates)

[BelieveInCleve]

Columbus metro ranking isnt too much of a surprise if youve studied these things. You see that in a lot of these new and growing metros. The crime is more widespread and since its such a new large city they have more of a problem with it. Plus you have to factor in that Columbus' metro is a good amount smaller than Clevelands' and Cincinnatis' metro, and a much larger portion of Columbus' metro is made up of the central city. As Columbus matures as a large city and the metro grows larger (then settles) with more of the area suburban instead of in the city of Columbus, you should see the crime in the metro start to go down. It will take time though. Its not even that bad right now though at 67th place.

Cincinnati did surprise me a little. Its crime continues to go down the longer we get away from 2001 (the riot), and 2006 (One of Cincinnatis worst years to date). Before the riot, Cincinnati was relatively safe for its size, and its starting to go back to that now that its more settled. Cincinnatis metro is also surprisingly safe. If you noticed, its metro is actually below the national average. Clevelands still pretty much as bad as last year and is sadly staying the same, besides homicides going down. The metro ranking didnt surprise me, I was actually expecting the score to be worse, but 2nd metro seems correct to me. These rankings are pretty interesting though.

[mrb69]

Originally Posted by Cle440

These are the new crime rankings just came out a week ago. Im making a thread of this to show where all the cities and metros are at, and to see what everyone here thinks about it. The city rankings include every city in the US over 75,000 people (385+ cities included). And the metro rankings include nearly every metro area (338+ included), Higher scores=worse:

Ohio Cities: (most-least dangerous), score-(higher=worse, in parenthesis means negative/below national average, not in parenthesis is above national average):
11. Cleveland-255.80
15. Youngstown-234.56
26. Dayton-171.29
28. Cincinnati-168.22
43. Columbus-138.05
46. Canton-133.36
64. Toledo-107.73
79. Akron-98.22
300. Parma-(32.75)

Ohio Metros: (most-least dangerous), score-(higher=worse, in parenthesis means negative/below national average, not in parenthesis is above national average):
67. Columbus-29.77
100. Cleveland-13.59
110. Toledo-10.33
132. Springfield-4.87
140. Lima-0.85
162. Cincinnati-(6.70)
167. Dayton-(8.65)
171. Mansfield-(9.92)
174. Akron-(10.50)
286. Sandusky-(43.90)
301. Marietta-(48.91)
317. Wheeling-(56.24)
323. Steubenville-(60.45)

Interesting to say the least. Here is the source: CQ Press: City Crime Rankings 2008
City rankings (high-low): http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/City...8_Rank_Rev.pdf
Metro Rankings (high-low): http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/Metr...8_Rank_Rev.pdf

I think you mention in one of the Columbus treads that theres truely only 50sq. miles of inner-city Columbus and most of its crime happens in only about 45sq. of it so where would it really rank?

Sorry if I messed up what I was saying i'm just trying to do it really fast since its so late.

[mrb69]

[quote=Cle440;6384023]These are the new crime rankings just came out a week ago. Im making a thread of this to show where all the cities and metros are at, and to see what everyone here thinks about it. The city rankings include every city in the US over 75,000 people (385+ cities included). And the metro rankings include nearly every metro area (338+ included), Higher scores=worse:

New Orleans is #1

Kanas city is 76(i think) but it used to be within the top 25

[hillside]

metro rankings are a different animal than city rankings. they aren't that important; city-by-city is a different case.

mrb69, the 50 sq mi thing isn't quite true. there is crime and murder city-wide.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by hillside

metro rankings are a different animal than city rankings. they aren't that important; city-by-city is a different case.

Why are metro rankings less important? To me, it seems the opposite would be true. Take the Youngstown MSA, for example. Only 75-80k people live in the city. But about 650k live in the metro area. So, a metro with high crime is a better indication of crime in the whole area than just a city with high crime.

[BelieveInCleve]

I think actually the most important thing is not the central city or the metro population, but the specific crime rate of the city/suburb/or town that you choose to live in. The crime rates can vary greatly. Just one example, look at Cleveland and Parma. Parma borders Cleveland to the south but Parmas crime rate is actually below the national average while Clevelands is WAY above the national average.

The central city crime rate can be important because thats usually where most the people work and the events happen. But its also where most the crime and drug business will happen. The metro is kind of in the middle. With metros as big as Clevelands' or Cincinnatis' its hard to say. The "sample size" (you could say, as in a survey) is so big, that just like everything else, it tends to be near the National average with sample sizes that large. It only really matters if its way above, or way below the national average. Columbus is the highest in Ohio, but its not that far above, however we do have metros that are a good amount below the national average. Those metros are pretty small though, but you can say in general that those are pretty safe metros.

[mrb69]

Originally Posted by hillside

metro rankings are a different animal than city rankings. they aren't that important; city-by-city is a different case.

mrb69, the 50 sq mi thing isn't quite true. there is crime and murder city-wide.

Most of the city of Columbus stretchs out past the suburbs, so I don't think the 220sq. miles is really all urban. Besides Cle440 or Streetcred said something about the inner-city is only 50sq. miles.

Almost all of the crime happens in Linden, Bottoms, Hilltop, Milo-Grogan, Mt. Vernon, King-Lincoln, Parsons, Main, Agler, Joyce, Brentnell, 5th ave, Livingston and Wienland park areas.

Most of the metro is or by cornfields.

[BelieveInCleve]

I believe that somebody (I dont remember if it was me) said that Columbus' "urban core" is about 50 sq miles. If I said it, it was just an estimate (I dont know exactly how large the urban core is), and by urban core I meant the main commercial and Industrial areas of the city along with the part of the inner city in between that. That doesnt account for the entire urban area, or inner city area of Columbus.

Its true that if the old boundaries still existed, Columbus would have a higher crime rate. But I dont believe it would be incredibly higher. Columbus' crime seems to spread over a lot of areas of the city now that the city has annexed more land and became larger in area. Thats not to say that most the areas further out are really bad with crime, but its not non-existent there. If those more suburban areas in the city limits werent part of the city of Columbus, I believe they would have a lower crime rate. Maybe theres some place that has the crime rate of just the old city limits. I believe the crime would be higher, but still not among the worst, maybe approaching (or just included) in the top 25 cities. But the reality is that Columbus now takes up 220 sq miles, not whatever land area it took up before, and its the 43rd most dangerous.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by Cle440

If those more suburban areas in the city limits werent part of the city of Columbus, I believe they would have a lower crime rate.

How does being "in the city limits" make an area's crime rate increase? I've read this kind of idea before, on different sites. How does an imaginary line affect crime?

[Buckeye 89]

what you mean it wouldn't do that much, If Columbus didn't count all the suburbs population it would probably rank into the mid sized cities correct? This year Cleveland ranked 7th, Wouldn't that make Columbus rank somewhere in front of Clevleand.