Why is Seattle so Safe? (Federal Way, Kent: sale, crime rates, houses)

[DANNNY__]

Originally Posted by caliguy92832

Most of the cities in Canada have a lower rate...

Homicide in Canada, by census metropolitan area

Don't let this turn into the "Why is San Diego so safe" thread which degenerated into a racist discussion around San Diego's tiny black population.

(FYI - Seattle's black population is nearly twice San Diego's in terms of percentage).

[PhaninWA]

Originally Posted by RotseCherut

I was in Africa for half a year with black people who earned much less than the poorest people in the USA on average. However, the rate of homicide in the countries I was in, Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda (especially Ghana) was much lower than in even many safer cities in the USA.

The link between crime and economics status is not about absolute wealth, but rather relative wealth and other factors of inequality such as perceived economic opportunity. Of course in a place where everyone is equally poor or equally wealthy there would be less crime.

[RotseCherut]

Originally Posted by PhaninWA

The link between crime and economics status is not about absolute wealth, but rather relative wealth and other factors of inequality such as perceived economic opportunity. Of course in a place where everyone is equally poor or equally wealthy there would be less crime.

So, then let's call it how it is, it's not about poverty, it's about materialism. If these guys can only afford to drive a Toyota Corolla, but the people in the next neighborhood are driving Lexuses, then it's more about envy and greed than poverty. Because, not many people in this country know real poverty.

But, the theory still seems a bit flawed. For example, there are actually black neighborhoods that actually wealthier than certain white neighborhoods, but have less crime. Cities like Boise, Idaho, Billings, Montana or Cheyenne, WYoming are hardly considered wealthy and affluent cities, yet have less crime than some cities with large black populations that are more wealthy, such as Atlanta, Georgia, Charleston, South Carolina or New Haven, Connecticut.

[caliguy92832]

Originally Posted by DANNNY__

It's safe but not as safe as San Diego or San Jose or several other similar sized metro

Your numbers for murder are wrong - Seattle was at 3.7 in 2012, while San Diego was at 3.5

For violent crime overall in 2012:

Seattle - 399 (300 is US average)
San Diego - 241
San Jose - 292
Denver - 377

It's safe but there are definitely a lot of safer places.

Weird...Seattle has a low murder rate but a high violent crime rate?

[PhaninWA]

Originally Posted by RotseCherut

But, the theory still seems a bit flawed. For example, there are actually black neighborhoods that actually wealthier than certain white neighborhoods, but have less crime. Cities like Boise, Idaho, Billings, Montana or Cheyenne, WYoming are hardly considered wealthy and affluent cities, yet have less crime than some cities with large black populations that are more wealthy, such as Atlanta, Georgia, Charleston, South Carolina or New Haven, Connecticut.

Again you're missing the point. In statistical terms it's not about the mean but the variance. It doesn't matter if the mean is higher (which is what you're saying) rather if the variance is higher.

[GatsbyGatz]

Originally Posted by DANNNY__

It's safe but not as safe as San Diego or San Jose or several other similar sized metro

Your numbers for murder are wrong - Seattle was at 3.7 in 2012, while San Diego was at 3.5

For violent crime overall in 2012:

Seattle - 399 (300 is US average)
San Diego - 241
San Jose - 292
Denver - 377

It's safe but there are definitely a lot of safer places.

It's an issue of gerrymandering. San Diego's supposed "low" rate is the result of having a huge city boundary border which incorporates far-flung suburbs into the San Diego population calculation. If you include Seattle's suburbs into the calculation in order to give you equal land area as San Diego, Seattle actually has half San Diego's violent crime rate.

San Jose is another city which has a massive city border which would be the equivalent of Seattle including its suburbs (which would lower Seattle's crime rate substantially).

Don't let stats fool you. You can gerrymander political boundaries in order to advance any image about a city.

[MondoTime]

OK, here, I have a thought on the subject, and I can even deliver it without having to say or hint that 'race' has anything directly to do with the reason.

For WHAT IF a core factor is Seattle's many HILLS and waterways???

Consider that the wealthy people want to live on the hills or by the water, and that what remains can't become enough of a dense concentration of the have-nots in order to let bad neighborhoods thrive as they do in lots of U.S. cities.

Rainier Valley is between the hills and the water and covers enough ground to be chief among the most routinely dangerous/bad areas of town.

[RotseCherut]

Originally Posted by PhaninWA

Again you're missing the point. In statistical terms it's not about the mean but the variance. It doesn't matter if the mean is higher (which is what you're saying) rather if the variance is higher.

Maybe, you are missing the point actually.. You cannot just pin everything on statistics.. There are some third world slums where everyone is poor that have an extraordinarily high rate of violent crime. On the other hand, there are some very impoverished countries and regions of the world where you can walk around with a gold necklace filled with diamonds at night and not have anyone touch you.

You are simply being too simplistic and relying on statistical analysis for a complete explanation of something which is far more complex than just financial analytic data can present.


And, contrary to what you say, there is quite a number of wealthy people living in places like Ghana. As a matter of fact, it is not uncommon to see giant mansions side-by-side with mud huts. A majority of the cars driving on the streets are Mercedes Benz. If anything there is a much greater deviation of wealth between the rich and poor in these countries than in the USA.

[caliguy92832]

Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz

San Diego's supposed "low" rate is the result of having a huge city boundary border which incorporates far-flung suburbs into the San Diego population calculation.

Yeah suburbs like Rancho Penasquitos, Mira Mesa, Scripps Ranch, etc.

Crime Statistics and Maps | San Diego Police Department

I used to live in San Diego like 5-10 years ago.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by RotseCherut

For example, there are actually black neighborhoods that actually wealthier than certain white neighborhoods, but have less crime. Cities like Boise, Idaho, Billings, Montana or Cheyenne, WYoming are hardly considered wealthy and affluent cities, yet have less crime than some cities with large black populations that are more wealthy, such as Atlanta, Georgia, Charleston, South Carolina or New Haven, Connecticut.

Now you're comparing mid-sized (white) cities that are far from poor to large (black) urban neighborhoods that are poor. You've gone from apples and oranges to cumquats and grapefruits.

Neighborhoods with large numbers of poor black or Hispanic residents have similar stats for violent crime, which undercuts any claim that it is black or Hispanic culture, as such, that is the only or primary cause. What is common to both is high rates of poverty, high unemployment, lack of education/opportunity, etc., along with a War on Drugs being waged on both, creating a lucrative black market, and incarcerating/criminalizing a large percent of black and Hispanic males (and, increasingly, females).

Want to find "white" equivalents for black urban ghettos? Look to the dense Irish, Italian, and Jewish ghettos in New York, Chicago, and other large eastern U.S. cities during Prohibition.