Shrinking City? (Kansas City, St. Louis, Cleveland: crimes, live, dangerous)

[msamhunter]

Originally Posted by aragx6

The FBI specifically says not to use city crime rates to make comparisons or rankings.

So those rankings mean nothing to me.

Why do you trust a for-profit company over the the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- honest question.

You can find their reasoning here http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...eir-proper-use

That being said, the FBI doesn't say don't use them, they discourage the use of it to evaluate locations as there are several factors involved in any location, crime just being one of them. A crime rate is a crime rate. The murder rate is a city of at least 100k population taking the population in this case STL (355,208 / 100,000) = 3.55208 groups of 100k people in STL. Take the number of homicides and divide it by number of population groups (143 / 3.55208) = 42 per 100,000 people. That's the FBI formula based off of 100k population (standard for UCR). The FBI doesn't say not to use it, as media, law enforcement, Chambers of Commerce all use it effectively. They are warning about taking data that isn't there and trying to extrapolate figures that just do not exist off of other data that would not otherwise fit the profile you are looking for and/or making generalizations based off of that data. Case in point, Flint has a higher crime rate than Chicago, but the simple reality is Chicago is a hell of a lot more dangerous than Flint will ever be.

With that out of the way, yes the majority of urban cores nationwide has shrunk over the last few decades due to white flight, better schools in the burbs etc. But with energy prices rising, state demand for highway infrastructure and access to the amenities which are normally found in the metro core city, all of those cities that were shrinking will eventually begin gaining population. St. Louis won't be any different; people will begin to make their way back within city limits. That's very beneficial for landlocked cities like STL because you can't annex anything, like someone said Memphis or Columbus who is annexing any and everything it can. The city just has to market itself in its own metro better than it is. That's something Indianapolis does very well within its own MSA with Carmel being its only real competition outside of housing options.

[coolas70degrees]

Not really, Chicago may have more violent crimes than Flint or even St. Louis, but they have more people. So per capita, a city like St Louis or Flint is higher because the percentage is higher. The amount of violent crimes that take place in St Louis in terms of population is greater than Chicago. That is a fact! You can disregard it but that doesn't make any less true.

[coolas70degrees]

Originally Posted by aragx6

The FBI specifically says not to use city crime rates to make comparisons or rankings.

So those rankings mean nothing to me.

Why do you trust a for-profit company over the the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- honest question.

Most Dangerous Cities in America (Photos)-- WalletPop

They still have St Louis as 1 factoring burglary and motor vehicle theft. Any criminal statistics organizations that rank the most dangerous cities in America has St Louis anywhere from 1-3, so disregard one, but are they all lying?

The FBI says this:
St. Louis had 1,747 violent crimes per 100,000 people. There were 41 murders per 100,000 people, almost five times the national average.[LEFT]
Read more: The Most Dangerous Cities In America

Almost 5 times the national average of murders!

According to the FBI the crime risk in St Louis is number 1. You have a better chance of having a crime committed against you in St Louis than any other city in the United States.

The 11 Most Dangerous Cities - US News and World Report

These are facts put forward by every expert in the field. The 144 murders, I got that from the FBI, I say 144 you say 142....they both suck.



[/LEFT]

[msamhunter]

Originally Posted by coolas70degrees

Not really, Chicago may have more violent crimes than Flint or even St. Louis, but they have more people. So per capita, a city like St Louis or Flint is higher because the percentage is higher. The amount of violent crimes that take place in St Louis in terms of population is greater than Chicago. That is a fact! You can disregard it but that doesn't make any less true.

Yes, that's the real vs. perception I made reference to with regards to comparing Flint to Chicago. For Chicago at 2.8 million people, would have to have numbers so far off the charts to match a rate to that of Flint, that it becomes almost impossible for it to do. Last I knew, Chicago still has the most homicides of any US city unless NYC has once again overtaken it. The simple reality though is that the average person has more to fear in Chicago than they ever would in Flint.

[stlcitygirl]

Originally Posted by coolas70degrees

Most Dangerous Cities in America (Photos)-- WalletPop

They still have St Louis as 1 factoring burglary and motor vehicle theft. Any criminal statistics organizations that rank the most dangerous cities in America has St Louis anywhere from 1-3, so disregard one, but are they all lying?

The FBI says this:
St. Louis had 1,747 violent crimes per 100,000 people. There were 41 murders per 100,000 people, almost five times the national average.[LEFT]
Read more: The Most Dangerous Cities In America

Almost 5 times the national average of murders!

According to the FBI the crime risk in St Louis is number 1. You have a better chance of having a crime committed against you in St Louis than any other city in the United States.

The 11 Most Dangerous Cities - US News and World Report

These are facts put forward by every expert in the field. The 144 murders, I got that from the FBI, I say 144 you say 142....they both suck.



[/LEFT]

I don't think you understand the point we are trying to make.

[msamhunter]

Originally Posted by stlcitygirl

I don't think you understand the point we are trying to make.

Don't think she misunderstands, both sides have valid points. Statistically STL is a crime ridden city. Doesn't mean all neighborhoods are bad just as with any American city, it has good areas and bad areas. The closer you get to the suburban line, normally the safer is gets. On the same token, statistics can be very misleading and can't be taken as a gospel for any city. It's just one of many measurements about a city.

I know you STLians take it very personal esp. when someone says anything remotely negative about ole Louis. Just take it with a grain of salt. You could be Cairo, IL .

[kshe95girl]

Originally Posted by msamhunter

Don't think she misunderstands, both sides have valid points. Statistically STL is a crime ridden city. Doesn't mean all neighborhoods are bad just as with any American city, it has good areas and bad areas. The closer you get to the suburban line, normally the safer is gets. On the same token, statistics can be very misleading and can't be taken as a gospel for any city. It's just one of many measurements about a city.

I know you STLians take it very personal esp. when someone says anything remotely negative about ole Louis. Just take it with a grain of salt. You could be Cairo, IL .

No, honey, we dont take it personally.
Its that flat-out distortion of data that we take umbrage to.
By the same token of data skew, the town I live in has been named one of the top 10 for urban sprawl.
Seriously.

[msamhunter]

Originally Posted by kshe95girl

No, honey, we dont take it personally.
Its that flat-out distortion of data that we take umbrage to.
By the same token of data skew, the town I live in has been named one of the top 10 for urban sprawl.
Seriously.

It's not really a distortion of fact. STL does have a lot of crime, especially for a city of just under 400k with raw numbers alone on par with a city twice its size. That part isn't a distortion, that part is actual fact as the numbers are what they are even before you break it down per capita and compare with any other city larger or smaller. What is a distortion is blaming the small city limits for violent crime. That's a distortion because it is neither here nor there. If that were the case NYC with a city of 8 million cramped in into an area of 304sq m of land as 165 sq m is actual water would dictate that NYC would be as bad as STL. Honestly it's not. What STL has is a rather high poverty rate normally confined to the inner-city where the bulk of your crime occurs. That's the case in any us city so St. Louis is no different than anywhere else. My point is crime should never be the only factor in determining where to live. We all can be a victim of crime anywhere, city or suburb, it's just one of many factors. Would I personally live in STL, if I found the right neighborhood sure but to go in thinking STL doesn't have a crime problem would be well down right foolish on my part.

St. Louis is in affect somewhat like Gary, IN. There are crimes of opportunity just like anywhere else but for the most part, if you don't mess with them, they don't mess with you is the mentality. So the average Joe minding his own business usually doesn't have anything to worry about in STL. It's when people start to get nosey when issues arise.

[BoomBoxing]

^Nobody on here has ever said St. Louis doesn't have a crime problem. When we talk about bunk crime statistics, we're just trying to show why St. Louis likely isn't the "most dangerous". And yes the population/crimes formula is well understood but it is a poor measure of what we're trying to measure here, which is in essence "danger."

The small size of the city is the biggest reason St. Louis shoots to the top of this list, whether anyone wants to believe it or not. It simply isn't a fair comparison to measure cities that include large swaths of suburbia in their city limits against a strictly urban area. Kansas City is 318 square miles while St. Louis is 66. Everyone knows St. Louis is a bigger metro area yet due to civil war era political decisions, STL's reputation gets marred because disengenious "researchers" want to make a headline.

And the most despicable part of it all is the damage done when these crap is published. St. Louis could get a handle on the inner city crime if we had a nice influx of new residents from the suburbs and elsewhere in the country. But how many will never consider it because of the reputation as "most dangerous?" Businesses, conventions, and people have all cited high crime as reasons not to move here. Crime is high, no doubt, but honestly it is not worse or much worse than the vast majority of metro areas.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by coolas70degrees

[LEFT]According to the FBI the crime risk in St Louis is number 1.

This is incorrect. The FBI does not rank cities. A private for-profit company does.