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 think your friend meant states rather than cities. Large cities tend to be Democrat-run due to their demographic composition, so it's one of those things that's difficult to make statistical comparisons on due to sampling discrepancies.
Imagine being so wrong. New York County (aka Manhattan) has an 18% poverty rate. That’s 283k people living in poverty, in the space of 23 sq miles. New York has low crime rates because it has good schools, social programs, access to amenities and tough gun laws in and around the city.
Tough gun laws have absolutely nothing to do with it, there is zero correlation between strict gun laws and 'gun crime'. It has a low crime rate because there are 45,000 police to cover 23 square miles and gentrification has pushed out the people who commit the most crime.
Tough gun laws have absolutely nothing to do with it, there is zero correlation between strict gun laws and 'gun crime'. It has a low crime rate because there are 45,000 police to cover 23 square miles and gentrification has pushed out the people who commit the most crime.
In order for " tough gun laws have absolutely nothing to do with it", the opposite must be true. Loose gun laws have absolutely nothing to do with crime rates.
Gentrification in Manhattan and other boroughs has been pushing gangs into surrounding counties and a part of NJ.
This simply isn’t true. NYC never had a major gang problem and the city’s poor are not being displaced in large numbers.
In the Northeast, especially the New York metro area, gangs spread in prison, not on the streets. As a matter fact New York’s gang population is almost 100% prison born. People from outside of the city link up with city crews in jail, and vice versa. These are alliances struck for protection on the inside. Now, it is entirely possible that gang members moved into untapped or under-protected drug markets, but gangs are not being pushed into the burbs.
Last edited by gladhands; 04-14-2018 at 12:28 PM..
Yes and no. Manhattan doesn’t have significantly fewer poor people than it had 10-20 years ago. It has significantly fewer middle-class people. Those are the people who have been pushed out of the city.
Based on my understanding, that would not be gentrification, and if definitely would not work for the argument that we pushed the poor people out, which is why there are less crimes.
That being said, I agree with everything else. Affordable housing requirements for new properties protect low income groups way more than middle income. We're even housing homeless families in Midtown Manhattan hotels.
The only middle income people left in Manhattan are those who found an older rent stabilized unit, and even then, that middle class on NYC standards. If you don't make more than 80k or less than 30k, you can't afford to live here.
I think New York City and Boston are actually well-operated Democratic cities. They are few and far between but they do exist.
Taxpayers at least get something for the incredible taxes they pay in NYC and Boston, compared to San Francisco and Los Angeles which are poorly run with third-world living conditions and rampant crime.
This is how much your propaganda machine is lying to you: Those cities are about as safe as NYC or Boston. I can't find a page that directly spells it out, but go to this Wikipedia page and sort by "violent crime - total" and you'll see SF and LA are right next to Boston and Oklahoma City.
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.