St. Louis: Most Dangerous City in the Nation (Kansas City, Jackson: high crime, tax)

[jc1969]

Why would the people/person that release the crime statistic report be bias against St Louis that is would manipulate facts towards them and not other cities. I have been to St. Louis many times, wonderful city, I have never been robbed or mugged there, but these numbers are coming from their police dept and someone has to deal with them.

[Gigee]

JC1969, it's true that the "numbers" are there. What isn't true, is that StL is more dangerous than other major cities. Because StL separated from the County in the 1800's, land was never able to be annexed. Therefore, every square mile in St. Louis city is a dense core. If you go to the outskirts of other cities, they look just like suburbs. St. Louis isn't balanced by fringe suburbs within our city limits, like other major cities. Trust me, downtown KC is at least as bad as StL downtown. The report uses inappropriate methodology and unfairly gives StL a bad name.

[lunaroth]

Originally Posted by Gigee

JC1969, it's true that the "numbers" are there. What isn't true, is that StL is more dangerous than other major cities. Because StL separated from the County in the 1800's, land was never able to be annexed. Therefore, every square mile in St. Louis city is a dense core. If you go to the outskirts of other cities, they look just like suburbs. St. Louis isn't balanced by fringe suburbs within our city limits, like other major cities. Trust me, downtown KC is at least as bad as StL downtown. The report uses inappropriate methodology and unfairly gives StL a bad name.

Yes, I believe St Louis is one of only 3 cities in our country which are not part of a County, so all the demographics are totally different. Part of what makes St Louis so unique, I suppose. But i grew up there and it's true: it depends on where you are hanging out whether you feel in danger or not. I generally felt perfectly safe mostly. Certainly I liked city living over living in the BORING burbs!
And having a police chief say "we're gonna get right on it and STOP this darn crime!" doesn't make me feel safer. Just makes me think about what an idiot he seems to be. You don't stop murders from happening easily. There are a lot of factors involved. And frankly, I hate to say it, but a lot of it is inter-family crime and gang crime (Just as it is in Portland, where i now live). If you just use statistics involving random stranger-on-stranger crime, I'd wager the cities get shuffled around a whole lot! (btw, does anyone chart that info?)

[Tracy1]

BTinSTL said exactly what I was thinking...so I'll just ditto him/her.

Also, I have no doubt that this will not have an effect on city rehabilitation...in my experiences, people who are interested in bettering St. Louis city are well-aware of the flawed statistics.

[nwthebest]

Originally Posted by scootertrash61

VERY GOOD POINT BT!!!! i live in the seattle area and like stl it is very small land wise [ about 80 sq mi ] compared to other big cities in the us. looking at the stats you'd think this was also a crime infested mess when in fact it's one of the safest cities in the country. you have to take the stats for what they're worth.....not much

Thats an interesting point. The problem is that if you included crime statistics for the Seattle metro area (Sea-Tac), or from Everett to Tacoma youd get much worse numbers than the city itself. From the numbers of Seattle alone, it looks FAR from a mess. Except for rediculous car theft and burglury numbers, Seattle is a very safe. Places like Everett, Kent, Renton, Skyway and of course Tacoma all have surging violence problems right now. Minus the usual southend/cd problems, the metro area is much worse.

Then again, Bellevue (and the whole eastside) being named one of the safest cities in the US could do something to balance that out...

[stuckinflorida]

Originally Posted by LeavingFlorida05

Having grown up in St. Louis (St. Charles county, actually), but currently living in Florida, I can say St. Louis is much safer than Florida, even places like Fort Myers and Naples. The crimes stays in certain areas of St. Louis, and those areas are few in number. In Florida, you can become the victim of a violent crime ANYWHERE. It doesn't matter if you live in downtown Miami or in LaBelle, you're a potential victim.

As a previous poster stated, crime statistics are very easily manipulated to give a skewed perspective. Everyone has an agenda, everyone.

Thank you!!!! I live in Orlando and am going nuts trying to get out of here and move to St. Louis. This place sucks, go read the Orlando forums!!!!

[stuckinflorida]

Originally Posted by stuckinflorida

Thank you!!!! I live in Orlando and am going nuts trying to get out of here and move to St. Louis. This place sucks, go read the Orlando forums!!!!

enjoy:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/orlan...ndo-crime.html
http://www.city-data.com/forum/orlan...orrendous.html

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by BTinSTL

I hate statistics. A lot. Because they often create a false image of a city that everybody will listen to without understanding what it truly means. And I see that type of misunderstanding on this board.

All american cities have a crime problem. I’m not trying to say we should all ignore this. The difference between St. Louis and most cities is that St. Louis can’t lie about its problem because it has nonsensical city limits.

Examples
Chicago covers 234 square miles
Memphis covers 314 squre miles
Kansas City covers 318 square miles
Houston covers 602 squre miles

St. Louis covers 61 squre miles. No, we’re not even in the triple digits.

The result is that areas like Clayton, or Webster Groves and other safe areas are outside of the city limits. This would not be the case in any of the other listed cities. Thus, the statistical crime rate of the city sky rockets

More to the point, if you were to find the crime rate of just the 61 square miles around the centers of any of these cities, their crime rates would skyrocket.

The reason statistics frustrate me is that now there are people who say “I try not to go into St. Louis City” but these same people would never avoid Chicago’s or Kansas City’s downtown. Instead, they say, “Statistics tell me that these cities are safer than St. Louis so I’ll patronize their businesses”. Maybe not in those exact words…

It’s much fairer to compare metropolitan areas to each other because numbers can not be skewed by nonsensical city limits. In that comparison, St. Louis is the 130th most dangerous metropolitan area.

I’m particularly frustrated because it seems like for the first time in a half century, the city is beginning to recover and I am really terrified that people will take these stats seriously, and that this will stop the city dead in its tracks.

Here’s to hoping for the best.

I agree 100% with that. St. Louis, when you look at its crime as a metro area, is relatively safe. Also, another thing to keep in mind is that compared to other cities in the Midwest, like Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, and KAnsas City, as metro areas all of these cities are relatively safe....represent only the actual "city" and you get a misrepresentation. St. Louis' other problem is that St. Louis City once included St. Louis County. Why they seceded from their own county I have no clue and IMO it was a disastrous move.

[AdamK]

We may be the most dangerous city, but somehow I almost always feel safe here. and doing real estate, I get into some pretty shady areas.

[rollagirl]

Originally Posted by BTinSTL

I hate statistics. A lot. Because they often create a false image of a city that everybody will listen to without understanding what it truly means. And I see that type of misunderstanding on this board.

All american cities have a crime problem. I’m not trying to say we should all ignore this. The difference between St. Louis and most cities is that St. Louis can’t lie about its problem because it has nonsensical city limits.

Examples
Chicago covers 234 square miles
Memphis covers 314 squre miles
Kansas City covers 318 square miles
Houston covers 602 squre miles

St. Louis covers 61 squre miles. No, we’re not even in the triple digits.

The result is that areas like Clayton, or Webster Groves and other safe areas are outside of the city limits. This would not be the case in any of the other listed cities. Thus, the statistical crime rate of the city sky rockets

More to the point, if you were to find the crime rate of just the 61 square miles around the centers of any of these cities, their crime rates would skyrocket.

The reason statistics frustrate me is that now there are people who say “I try not to go into St. Louis City” but these same people would never avoid Chicago’s or Kansas City’s downtown. Instead, they say, “Statistics tell me that these cities are safer than St. Louis so I’ll patronize their businesses”. Maybe not in those exact words…

It’s much fairer to compare metropolitan areas to each other because numbers can not be skewed by nonsensical city limits. In that comparison, St. Louis is the 130th most dangerous metropolitan area.

I’m particularly frustrated because it seems like for the first time in a half century, the city is beginning to recover and I am really terrified that people will take these stats seriously, and that this will stop the city dead in its tracks.

Here’s to hoping for the best.

I hope to be moving to a STL area soon. But the cost is so high I'll have to move close, but not in....more like a small town nearby.

Any suggestions would be great. I want to stay sorta close to my mother.