Ohio cities homicide rates (Columbus, Cleveland: fit in, high crime, university)

[WeSoHood]

There was a report about how there were 7,600 calls to 9-1-1 for shootings in Cleveland for a one year period. And I believe we are at 42 homicides for the year - which is about as bad as it gets. We are also blessed by great hospitals and ER's. Metro alone has around 500 gun shot and stab victims a year. That was from the late 90s so I'm not sure about now.. but the point is made.

[jam40jeff]

Originally Posted by Cle440

Im not exaggerating crime on here at all. I have no idea where youre getting that from. What Im saying is that there has been 20 times in the past 8 years where 3 or more people were killed in 1 day, so Im sure that several of those days there were 4-5 or more people killed in 1 day and 1-2 or more people killed in the day before or after it.

That was 20 times 3 people were killed on the same day in the county, not the city. Unodubtedly a fair amount of those were all in the city, but definitely not all 20. I still wouldn't say if it happens an average of 1 or 2 times a year that it's "common" or happens "several times a year".

Originally Posted by Cle440

You are the one that seems to be in denial about the crime problem here in and around Cleveland. Of course 5 or more people killed in 2-3 days is not common, but it does happen and much more often than "once every 20 years" as you put it, on average weve seen it once a year if not several times a year. Were averaging about 120 homicides per year the last few years, its not that hard to believe.

I am not in denial about crime in Cleveland. I know we have a crime problem. What I don't believe is that it is a crime problem unusual to cities in the United States. Even though the city itself takes up a much lower percentage of land area than many other cities, contributing to the RATE of crime being higher compared to if a larger area, say Cleveland plus the inner rigns or even all of Cuyahoga County, were all counted as part of the city of Cleveland, we still have a lower violent crime rate than some other cities like Little Rock, Arkansas, Memphis, Tennessee, and Baltimore, Maryland. That doesn't mean we don't have a serious crime problem or that we shouldn't be working hard to do somethign about it. What it does mean is that Cleveland is not some anomaly of high crime. It's unfortunately representative of most urban areas of this country. Columbus is the same way. If you take only the crime rate of inner-city neighborhoods of Columbus, the crime rate there is actually slightly higher than Cleveland's.

I feel this thread is a complete waste of everybody's time. Most of the discussion feels like people revel in the fact there are homicides in Cleveland, almost like it makes them feel tough to live near such a "horrible" place and being able to slam it. How about this thread instead turn more towards discussing the stories, the causes, the possible solutions, etc.? That would probably be a more productive "Cleveland Crime" thread.

EDIT: Alright I just realized I wasn't responding to the crime thread. My point applies to both threads, however. The one that applies more here is that we need to be comparing apples to apples. Either compare metro areas, central counties, or a given radius around downtown. Simply saying the Columbus area is safer than the Cleveland area by comparing the two cities' crime rates doesn't mean anything. Columbus has neighborhoods just as bad as Cleveland does. But it's also possible to be in two other counties other than Franklin County and be within the city limits of Columbus. Just think what Cleveland's crime rate would be like if the boundaries were simply redrawn so the cityh limits extended into Medina and Geauga Counties.

[MaryBeth2]

Enough already. Everybody place nice.

[IluvOhio]

my purpose of this fourm was just to c where ohio cites rates were. not to figure out which city was the hardest..........

[BelieveInCleve]

If Columbus was just its old city limits, it would still be a good amount safer than Cleveland. Even now with Columbus having 310,000+ more people than Cleveland, Cleveland actually has more raw numbers of murders, robberies, assaults, and auto thefts. So unless Columbus' old city limits contain 90%+ of the current city crimes, and its population is under 300,000, it would still be a lot safer than Cleveland.

If you want to use the argument of Cleveland being as large as Columbus, that wouldnt be a fair comparison anyway. Columbus annexed mainly empty/unincorporated land around the city limits. It was built on and grew as the city of Columbus, only a few areas it annexed were suburbs. Cleveland on the other hand is surrounded by incorporated cities/suburbs that are already built all the way up and matured as suburbs. These areas are completely different from 3/4 the areas that Columbus annexed into its city limits, so it would be impossible to compare that fairly. I also cant think of any areas in Columbus that are as bad as say, East Cleveland (excluding Forest Hills), E 79th and Kinsman, E 79th and Superior, E 126th and Kinsman, etc.

Im not exaggerating how bad Cleveland is. I dont think its "cool" that I was born and live by this "horrible" place. Its just fact from fiction. Cleveland is a great area, but certain places in the metro have a huge problem with things like crime, poverty, etc. Denying the obvious problem is not going to help the situation either.

[jam40jeff]

It doesn't matter whether Columbus annexed incorporated areas or not. The point is that if you live 10 miles from downtown, does it matter if it's nominally withint the city limits or not? It doesn't matter as far as your safety is concerned, it only matters when calculating the crime rate.

Also, as to the size of Columbus's "central city" (1950 boundary), even Columbus itself recognizes it:

City of Columbus: 1950 Boundary (Central City) Population Profile/1990 Boundary Population Profile

As of 200, 244,347 and falling rapdily. The 2009 estimate would probably be around 220,000. And, as in Cleveland, you can bet that most violent crime falls within these poor inner city areas, just as about 90% of violent crime in the Cleveland area happens in the poor inner city areas.

[jam40jeff]

Also, if you doubt that the crime is similar between the two areas, look at the MSA statistics. Both cities have a large amount of suburbs. I would say that Columbus probably has a much higher ratio of suburban areas to urban areas than Cleveland does (places like Elyria and Lorain are not found within the Columbus MSA). Yet, the crime rate for the Columbus MSA is actually nearly identical to the crime rate for the Cleveland MSA.

[BelieveInCleve]

Most new and growing metro areas like Columbus will have an above average crime rate.

Cleveland and Columbus are very different cities and areas. Columbus does not have many suburbs either, while Cleveland does.

Whats happening right now is that Columbus has a population near 750,000 and growing, while Cleveland has a population of near 440,000 and shrinking. Cleveland currently has a crime rate much higher than Columbus. All of this "what if..." stuff is mostly irrelevant. Still, irrelevant or not, if Columbus took up a smaller land area and was also around 440,000, Cleveland would still have a higher crime rate. If Cleveland had annexed the nearby inner ring suburbs areas before they were incorporated and it was near 750,000, it would still be more dangerous than Columbus. Thats just the way it is.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by Cle440

Still, irrelevant or not, if Columbus took up a smaller land area and was also around 440,000, Cleveland would still have a higher crime rate. If Cleveland had annexed the nearby inner ring suburbs areas before they were incorporated and it was near 750,000, it would still be more dangerous than Columbus. Thats just the way it is.

Can you show the math to back this up? For example, you could add in surrounding Cleveland suburbs' population until you come close to Columbus's population, and then see how the crime rates compare.

[BelieveInCleve]

Originally Posted by JR_C

Can you show the math to back this up? For example, you could add in surrounding Cleveland suburbs' population until you come close to Columbus's population, and then see how the crime rates compare.

Its actually pretty simple, you dont have to do much work.

As I said, even as it stands right now, Cleveland still has more raw numbers of murders, robberies, assaults, and auto thefts. Thats just with Cleveland currently with a population of near 440k. Thats pretty significant with Columbus having 310k+ more people than Cleveland. So since all those crimes are already higher in number with Cleveland having the current population, its automatically worse than Columbus at least in those categories. All the areas added to make it around 750k would only further add to how much more there is than Columbus.

Then you have to consider that most of the surrounding areas that you would be adding to make the population of Cleveland 750k are already around average crime or slightly above it. Add all those crimes into Cleveland and it would put Cleveland ahead of Columbus in rapes, burglaries, and arsons as well. Which would mean that Columbus is only ahead in 1 category, which is theft. Im kind of suspicious at that though, check the crime stats, I will not believe for 1 second that Cleveland is near the national average for theft (or anything for that matter). They need to check into that because its an obvious flaw in the reporting. That doesnt matter much anyways though, because Cleveland would be well ahead of Columbus in every other category in raw numbers and rate.