Questions about Spokane (Seattle, Tacoma, South Hill: budget, travel, income)

[mes3fils]

Do you have any info on Fort Collins, Co? That is where we are probably going to end up. It seems like what we want, but better than Spokane as in less crime, a nicer downtown called 'Old Town' with it's original yr old bldgs intact, snow, mtn access (REAL skiing), MUCH cheaper property taxes, and cheaper housing....sounding good to us! Also, haven't heard yet mention of 'white trash' problems!

mes3fils

[washinton native]

Originally Posted by mes3fils

Do you have any info on Fort Collins, Co? That is where we are probably going to end up. It seems like what we want, but better than Spokane as in less crime, a nicer downtown called 'Old Town' with it's original yr old bldgs intact, snow, mtn access (REAL skiing), MUCH cheaper property taxes, and cheaper housing....sounding good to us! Also, haven't heard yet mention of 'white trash' problems!

mes3fils

you are so correct about spokane's crime mes.

here's what you requested:
crime index ... the average US city ranks a 325.2 per 100,000 people.
spokane fort collins
1999: 516 259
2000: 535 252
2001: 581 249
2002: 542 285
2003: 555 309
2004: 608 269
2005: 465 283

through a seven-year period, fort collins had an average crime index of 272, well below the national average. los angeles had a seven-year average of 503 while lovely ol' spokane rated a 543.

spokane doesn't have a crime problem, indeed ... if you live in baghdad.

let me know if you'd like any other info mes.

[mes3fils]

WOW! Thanks for the stats!!! Unbelievable! Fort Collins is looking better all the time....=)

P.S. Where do you live now? Ever been to FC?

[metrospokane]

Originally Posted by mes3fils

WOW! Thanks for the stats!!! Unbelievable! Fort Collins is looking better all the time....=)

P.S. Where do you live now? Ever been to FC?

Sigh...not going to get into another tit-for-tat with the original poster about comparison of other cities to Spokane. The reality is that those who work with FBI crime statistics realize it has significant limitations. Even the FBI notes on their website that crime statistics shouldn't be used for city-to-city comparison. They state, "...the FBI has a longstanding policy against ranking cities, counties, states, and universities/colleges on the basis of crime data alone. Despite repeated warnings against these practices, this position continues to be challenged and misunderstood by crime data users."

From the FBI website:

Because of its concern regarding the proper use of UCR data, the FBI has the following policies:

• The FBI does not analyze, interpret, or publish crime statistics based solely on a single-dimension interagency ranking.

• The FBI does not provide agency-based crime statistics to data users in a ranked format.

• When providing/using agencyoriented statistics, the FBI cautions and, in fact, strongly discourages data users against using rankings to evaluate locales or the effectiveness of their law enforcement agencies.

The original disclaimer can be found here: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/ucrstat.htm

Other thoughts on this topic: http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showp...1&postcount=27

I've talked with a number of police planners who use this info on a daily basis and they cringe at it's use in the manner the original poster is using it. I've never said Spokane is perfect, there are good areas and bad areas - the same situation you'll find in any city. There's a motive at work here, not certain why the grudge against Spokane.

mes3fils - Glad to hear that you'll be visiting Spokane to validate for yourself if it will fit you and your family's lifestyle. I sincerely hope it does. If you'd like the perspective of a long-term resident send me a message.


"If you want to inspire confidence, give plenty of statistics. It does not matter that they should be accurate, or even intelligible, as long as there is enough of them. - Lewis Carroll"

[washinton native]

good god, give us a break and stop with the dramatics.


in essence, the disclaimer the last poster refers to says crime index data is not empirical so it can't be used as a scientific study -- although it's the closest thing we have -- since a single control can not be used from city to city. what that poster fails to address is the city data numbers are valid because they come from raw data per 100k people in any given area. the numbers are real live numbers you can read ... and saying the numbers are not perfect when comparing cities would be correct. but, saying the numbers aren't as close as we can get to empirical when comparing cities, would be an outright lie.

what the poster also fails to address is the fact spokane should rate much, much, much lower than san francisco -- the second-most densely populated city in the united states, which means an expansion of the inner city -- because of the fact spokane incorporated several years back, engulfing many of higher-class neighborhoods.

because of that fact, spokane should have LOWER numbers than many cities its size (see boise) instead of rivaling and actually beating cities the size of los angeles, san francisco and san diego. say what you will, but the raw numbers spokane produces for its geography -- not many people piled on top of each other the way they are in major metro areas -- is embarrassing.

coming from a household headed by a father who spent 20-some years with the washington state patrol before spending another dozen working as a supervisor for the u.s. marshals service, i have to laugh heartily at the use of the words "police planners" AND the fact anyone would point to the obvious: police departments do not use city crime data presented in this manner when making patrol assignments. if they did, they'd spread a like amount of officers throughout the city.

instead, city crime data presents an overall view of a city instead of, let's say, car prowls, which would cause a "police planner" to assign extra patrols to a concentrated area after 2 a.m. (don't intentionally throw out red herrings.)

as far as motives go, i have none other than the fact i actually lived in spokane for two years and it sure as to heck isn't the same city many apologists here are trying to make it out to be. instead, i'd guess a long-time resident would have more motive to lie about their "fine city" and own an utter lack of ability and perspective to describe their long-term home in a manner that makes sense to anyone who lives beyond city limits.

what's more believable? that i hold a grudge against an entire city or a hometown boy can't face the truth about the only city he's probably ever called home?

[washinton native]

Originally Posted by mes3fils

WOW! Thanks for the stats!!! Unbelievable! Fort Collins is looking better all the time....=)

P.S. Where do you live now? Ever been to FC?

mes - i'm a journalist so i've had the opportunity -- if that's what you want to call it -- to live in several locations. i grew up on the west side of washington then moved to los angeles, the portland metro area, spokane, a coupla other locations in oregon, texas and now i live in missouri.

i look forward to moving back to the west side of washington in the next couple years ... for good.

of all the places i've lived, there's two i wouldn't move back to: LA and spokane.

by no means do i mean to come off as sounding negative on this thread, but i do think there should be a little truth ushered in about spokane as well.

EDIT: have only driven through FC.

[washinton native]

yes, city crime data is way, way off in left field ... jeesh.


for 2005:
atlanta 847
cumberland, maine, 47
detroit 925
florida city 1,499
harvard, mass., 65
houston 655
oakland 750
peach tree, georgia, 51
salt lake city 294 (2004)
st. louis 1,204
tacoma, wash., 732

not many shocking numbers here, are there?

[metrospokane]

Originally Posted by washinton native

what that poster fails to address is the city data numbers are valid because they come from raw data per 100k people in any given area.

Anyone who knows anything about this raw data realizes the FBI collects it passively. Floating a single number out there that is expected to give a realistic view of an issue is misleading, especially when it's based on classifying and reporting practices that can vary dramatically from city to city. As the FBI puts it, it's simplistic, incomplete and ONLY accounts for crimes that are reported. Unfortunately for all cities is that these numbers are convenient for our sound-bite society.

Originally Posted by washinton native

what the poster also fails to address is the fact spokane should rate much, much, much lower than san francisco...

Dramatically different cities, demographics, and populations. I'd expect Cle Elum or Longview to have much, much lower rankings compared to Spokane as well, but it doesn't pencil out that way. This reveals another flaw in the raw data you consider so accurate: It weighs all crimes as equal. Would you rather have your stereo stolen or have a loved one murdered?

Originally Posted by washinton native

because of that fact, spokane should have LOWER numbers than many cities its size (see boise)

I wholeheartedly agree with you here.

Originally Posted by washinton native

coming from a household headed by a father who spent 20-some years with the washington state patrol before spending another dozen working as a supervisor for the u.s. marshals service...

It doesn't matter if your father was McGruff the Crime Dog or Barney Miller, the data's best use is for the jurisdiction where it originated. How can you be certain that violent/property crime data are reported in a standardized way across jurisdictions? You can't. That makes this nicely packaged little number pretty much useless. At best it's a flawed estimate FOR ANY CITY. Something even a high-school journalist can understand.

Originally Posted by washinton native

what's more believable? that i hold a grudge against an entire city or a hometown boy can't face the truth about the only city he's probably ever called home?

Yeah, all that time living/working in DC and overseas sure narrowed my perspective.

[washinton native]

wow. until you can come up with a formula to designate how many crimes go unreported in any given area, even talking about unreported crimes is meaningless because you're dealing with an undefined variable. instead of taking solace in the most meaningful statistics we have, you aimlessly attempt to use the unknown as a point of defense. your point not only is invalid, but it's illogical as well.

really? and why would longview have a lower crime data ranking than spokane? being longview is located along one of the most-used interstates in the country that's known for drug smuggling, the fact longview, centralia and chehalis all have high crime rates shocks you? really? spokane has higher crime numbers than los angeles and san diego and rivals san francisco for god's sake. does that not make you wonder just a bit? is the fact longview's numbers are close to spokane's really more disturbing to you than the fact spokane puts up crime numbers on the same level as major metro cities that have long, storied histories of crime? if not, it should.

the mcgruff reference was funny, really, it was. once again, the point i was attempting to make was i have to question the truthfulness of your statement that you've spoke with "a number of police planners" because there simply isn't a job that exists within police departments that carry such a title. also, one person doesn't assign where individual officers will be working and what crimes they'll be paying considerable attention to. many officers take this upon themselves and if there is a staff-wide effort to focus on one crime or jurisdiction, it's a team effort that goes into creating a strategy to diffuse situations.

and the whole dc/overseas thing, i rank right along with the idea there are "police planners" inside varying departments.

the bottom line is the data that's collected is the best numbers we have to work with when deciphering how much crime in committed in each city. i must say it beats the heck out of your option, which is relying on the unknown.

heck, why don't we just throw away all the information we have concerning a cure to cancer since the information we do have isn't empirical? doesn't make much sense now, does it? every study is flawed unless it's empirical, but it still doesn't make those same studies as close to the truth as we'll ever get.

btw - i have a sneaking suspicion you hawk real estate in the spokane area.

[mes3fils]

I am alittle familiar with UCR data input. My husband is a police sergeant and supervises the Records and Evidence dept of his PD. According to him, UCR data input is not 100% reliable. From my understanding though, it is the best record of crime stats that there is, to go by.

In a nutshell, from my own research and from reading the back and forth posts from washinton native and metrospokane, Spokane DOES have a higher crime rate than you'd want to see for a city of its size. It IS concerning. And, you can't just 'blow off' the fact that it ranks above (crime-wise) larger and more densely populated cities like San Fran or San Diego!

Even given the accuracy or inaccuracy of the 'crime stats' that we are referring to, I think we should all be able to surmise....regardless of all the tit-for-tatting.....that Spokane DOES have a crime problem!!!!!

Just as a side note, and no one can dispute this as it came from my friend. She lives in Liberty Lake. She says that your downtown is very 'iffy' in the evening (even early) and that she recommends that one does not walk around 'alone' there after dark!

Another problem we see with Spokane is that the housing market is way over-priced for what you 'get' in a home there. From what we get emailed to us, listings-wise, on a daily basis, an average (small) 1600sf home is going for right around $300k! And, not even brand new!

No thanks.