Most dangerous hoods/neighborhoods/cities in Texas?? (Houston, Dallas: spring break, apartments)

[Arcane]

I'm not sure I'd put Arlington above Oak Cliff in terms of more crime. Who here that's been to both could honestly say they'd rather walk down any street in Oak Cliff than Arlington?

[elvalle_mayne]

Port Arthur generally does not have a high crime rate compared to other small cities in Texas.

Port Arthur:
Population: 55,313 (2007)
Overall Crime Rates (Top 3 Years): 498.9 (2003), 470.5 (2005), 446.8 (2000)
Avg. Crime Rate: 472.0

Edinburg:
Population: 68,724 (2007)
Overall Crime Rates (Top 3 Years): 770.9 (2004), 703.9 (2003), 605.8 (2001)
Avg. Crime Rate: 693.5

Pharr:
Population: 63,681 (2007)
Overall Crime Rates (Top 3 Years): 498.0 (1999), 461.5 (2002), 459.5 (2000)
Avg. Crime Rate: 473.0

Weslaco:
Population: 32,497 (2007)
Overall Crime Rates (Top 3 Years): 556.1 (2001), 541.4 (2003), 499.0 (2005)
Avg. Crime Rate: 532.1

McAllen:
Population: 127,245 (2007)
Overall Crime Rates (Top 3 Years): 491.9 (2001) 482.8 (2002), 469.0 (2004)
Avg. Crime Rate: 481.2

Alice:
Population: 19,759 (2007)
Overall Crime Rates (Top 3 Years): 806.5 (2003), 672.4 (2004), 629.3 (2005)
Avg. Crime Rate: 702.7

Rankings Based on Overall Crime Rate Avg. of Top 3 Crime Years:
1. Alice - 702.7
2. Edinburg - 693.5
3. Weslaco - 532.1
4. McAllen - 481.2
5. Pharr - 473.0
6. Port Arthur - 472.0

I would say anything under 500 for a crime rate is good for a city's image. Houston's crime rate averages roughly 650 overall for their three highest years for crime. Crime-ridden cities such as Detroit average over 1,000 for their crime rates on a consistent yearly basis.

[traveler guy]

Originally Posted by Rocket Power

Can't nothing top Port Arthur. Good old PA could even give The Big Easy a run for its money when it comes to crime and corruption.

How bout Laredo I think this border town can take that spot.

[elvalle_mayne]

^ Edinburg and Weslaco would still top Laredo. Laredo averages right around 500 for its crime rate.

[Worldbfree007]

I grew up in Alief in southwest Houston. When I lived there I never really noticed how bad of a reputation it had....but when i got older and got to see other places I realized that i had grown in a very rough neighborhood. My middle school had a drive-by....insanity. You kind of got used to it. Alief and Sharpstown areas definitely have to be some of the worst in Houston and maybe even Texas. Just last week my old neighborhood gas station clerk was shot dead....again...very sad.

[traveler guy]

Originally Posted by elvalle_mayne

I would say anything under 500 for a crime rate is good for a city's image. Houston's crime rate averages roughly 650 overall for their three highest years for crime. Crime-ridden cities such as Detroit average over 1,000 for their crime rates on a consistent yearly basis.

Don't you know crime rate statistics aren't useful for comparing how bad a city Like Houston's ghettos from a city like Detroit's ghetto is. It dosen't give you a fair comparison cause cities like Houston try to absorb their surrounding suburbs distorting it's crime rates while Detroit has a much smaller land square milage that only run thourgh it's decaying core. In other words if Detroit were to annex some of it's surrounding suburbs like houston does it would have a much smaller crime rate. Though it would probably still be worst then Houston I just saying it's not as bad as it looks.

[jfre81]

Thing is, a lot of the rough parts of Houston are in - well, formerly suburban areas I guess - that have gone downhill.

[elvalle_mayne]

Originally Posted by traveler guy

Don't you know crime rate statistics aren't useful for comparing how bad a city Like Houston's ghettos from a city like Detroit's ghetto is. It dosen't give you a fair comparison cause cities like Houston try to absorb their surrounding suburbs distorting it's crime rates while Detroit has a much smaller land square milage that only run thourgh it's decaying core. In other words if Detroit were to annex some of it's surrounding suburbs like houston does it would have a much smaller crime rate. Though it would probably still be worst then Houston I just saying it's not as bad as it looks.

Regardless, Detroit still has a lower population with higher number of murders on the absolute scale, not just on the 100,000 per resident scale. Also in crime stats there's really no such thing as "annexing" of suburbs. The suburbs are extensions of their big cities not the other way around, at least for the most part. In other words the city came first THEN the suburb so therefore it is part of the city-metro regardless. You can say it distorts numbers by why do other large cities such as San Antonio who also have suburbs integrated into their city metro have low crime rates. Same goes for New York City who's "suburbs" i.e. Brooklyn, Staten Island etc. are actually where majority of crime resides within the cities-metro, still maintain one of the lowest crime rates (overall) in the nation? What about cities such as New Orleans (Pre-Katrina) who had a population nearly 4x LESS than that of Houston but still contributed almost more murders on the absolute scale than Houston? The only places where numbers could be truly distorted are border towns where in some cases a murder of a Mexican citizen or illegal immigrant gets chalked up to crime stats in the city they resided from in Mexico.

[traveler guy]

Originally Posted by elvalle_mayne

Regardless, Detroit still has a lower population with higher number of murders on the absolute scale, not just on the 100,000 per resident scale. Also in crime stats there's really no such thing as "annexing" of suburbs. The suburbs are extensions of their big cities not the other way around, at least for the most part. In other words the city came first THEN the suburb so therefore it is part of the city-metro regardless. You can say it distorts numbers by why do other large cities such as San Antonio who also have suburbs integrated into their city metro have low crime rates. Same goes for New York City who's "suburbs" i.e. Brooklyn, Staten Island etc. are actually where majority of crime resides within the cities-metro, still maintain one of the lowest crime rates (overall) in the nation? What about cities such as New Orleans (Pre-Katrina) who had a population nearly 4x LESS than that of Houston but still contributed almost more murders on the absolute scale than Houston? The only places where numbers could be truly distorted are border towns where in some cases a murder of a Mexican citizen or illegal immigrant gets chalked up to crime stats in the city they resided from in Mexico.

Did you read my post? I clearly stated Detroit would still have a larger crime rate but it would be much less then it's current crime rate if the surrounding suburbs of Detroit were annexed to the core city. You also mentioned SA which is also like Houston and annexes it's surrounding areas which is why it's crime rate is low too. If you were to count only it's urban core and not the suburban areas these cities routinely annex then their rates would go up drastically. New York's Crime has gone down cause of gentrification and which is a different story. I'm talking about cities like SA, Houston, Phoenix, and LA whose population consist of a decaying urban core and newer suburban areas that have been brought up through the process of annexation which all these cities have in common. While other cities such as Miami, STL, Cleveland, etc... let other suburbs become incorporated cities depleting there population and giving them a even worst rep then they actually should get.

[elvalle_mayne]

Originally Posted by traveler guy

Did you read my post? I clearly stated Detroit would still have a larger crime rate but it would be much less then it's current crime rate if the surrounding suburbs of Detroit were annexed to the core city. You also mentioned SA which is also like Houston and annexes it's surrounding areas which is why it's crime rate is low too. If you were to count only it's urban core and not the suburban areas these cities routinely annex then their rates would go up drastically. New York's Crime has gone down cause of gentrification and which is a different story. I'm talking about cities like SA, Houston, Phoenix, and LA whose population consist of a decaying urban core and newer suburban areas that have been brought up through the process of annexation which all these cities have in common. While other cities such as Miami, STL, Cleveland, etc... let other suburbs become incorporated cities depleting there population and giving them a even worst rep then they actually should get.

I did read your post, did you read MY post. My assessment was that even if Detroit incorporated suburbs they would still have a very SLIGHT decrease in stats. Including suburbs really makes no real significant difference because "core" wise Detroit still has an intense crime rate. Their are about 900k people living in Detroit with a -3% decrease in population every year yet they still have more murders than Houston despite its population of nearly double that. You can also bet that not all the "suburbs" are safe or low in crime there's plenty of them that add to the crime rate...i.e. if you were to turn McAllen-Metro area into a legit city and incorporate all the "suburbs" such as Pharr, Edinburg, Weslaco etc. it would increase the crime rate, which is actually going to happen eventually within the next 10-15 years. It really makes no real significant difference. Their are suburban areas in L.A. that have generally high crime rates than the core of the city. It's just the fact that some cities are safer than others plain and simple. Also you completely ignored the fact that I pointed out New York's suburban areas are where majority of the crime resides and yet they still have one of the lowest overall crime rates, which I thought it was interesting how you nitpicked my post. Also St. Louis does incoroporate suburbs into their stats but that still didn't stop them from being murder capitol a couple years back.