Police expecting a rough summer ahead, in the city. (Boston: design, farms)

[Boston Shudra]

Originally Posted by MrDee12345

So if that's correct, that means that Boston's murder rate was 5.8/100,000 if we use the 2020 census to calculate our rate. That makes Boston slightly more dangerous than NYC (5.5/100,000), but below the national average for 2020, which was 6.6/100,000. That means as people brag about how safe Boston has gotten (that's true), it's still technically more dangerous than NYC, a city that some of you have written off. As it stands, Boston and NYC have murder rates BELOW THE NATIONAL AVERAGE, which is rare for any city.

When comparing Boston to legacy cities (like NYC) that annexed all their suburbs in the late 1800s, it can make sense to include Boston's inner suburbs in this mix. When you do, I'm pretty sure that rate of 5.8/100,000 falls far below NYC's 5.5/100,000.

[WestieWhitie]

Originally Posted by MrDee12345

This is taken from a post I made in another forum, but I think it'll give us some perspective here.

According to this article, Boston only had 39 murders as of Dec 20:

https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/23...-massachusetts

And it doesn't seem like there were any more murders after the 20th in 2021, at least according to Universal Hub: https://www.universalhub.com/crime/murder/2021

So if that's correct, that means that Boston's murder rate was 5.8/100,000 if we use the 2020 census to calculate our rate. That makes Boston slightly more dangerous than NYC (5.5/100,000), but below the national average for 2020, which was 6.6/100,000. That means as people brag about how safe Boston has gotten (that's true), it's still technically more dangerous than NYC, a city that some of you have written off. As it stands, Boston and NYC have murder rates BELOW THE NATIONAL AVERAGE, which is rare for any city.

For the entire state of Massachusetts? If we use the numbers up to Dec 20 (I'm sure there might have been one or two murders somewhere in the state after that and before the new year), we have 148 murders. The rate for the entire state is 2.1/100,000

In a sad point of comparison, Jackson MS (population 160,000) had two more murders than the entire state of Massachusetts (population approx 7 million). And I'll agree with many of you that the whole "defund the police" push is idiotic, many conservative southern states and cities have FAR higher murder rates despite having stricter laws.

States with larger criminal underclass will have much higher crime rates, in other news sky is blue and water is wet. Also have you ever bothered checking who runs all those large red state cities that are drowning in blood, with murder rates higher than anything outside of an active warzone?

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by Boston Shudra

When comparing Boston to legacy cities (like NYC) that annexed all their suburbs in the late 1800s, it can make sense to include Boston's inner suburbs in this mix. When you do, I'm pretty sure that rate of 5.8/100,000 falls far below NYC's 5.5/100,000.

i don't think it does... because NYC didnt. Boston annexed along with NYC... it annexed Hyde Park in 1912. Cities that opted like Brookline opted out due to concerns surrounding immigrants and crime that existed in the 1870s in Boston like they do today. Annexation lasted 18 years longer in Boston than it did in NYC.

Places like Beaver Country Day existed in Brookline because Brookline saw itself as the country and did not want to be dealing with Boston. TO an extent, that sentiment exists today. Just like Mount Vernon and Westchester opted not to be a part of NYC back in the day, Cambridge and Brookline opted not to be a part of Boston you're creating a difference that doesn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston...debate_of_1873
"On October 7, 1873, Brookline, Massachusetts rejected annexation by a larger neighboring city when it voted down annexation by Boston. When its citizens voted 707-299 to keep its independence, Brookline not only stopped Boston's string of annexations, it also set an example for wealthy suburbs throughout America. The vote was a significant event in the history of American suburbs."

^This isnt some random minor thing thats just happenstance..

Boston is already more suburban than NYC in its borders.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by MrDee12345

This is taken from a post I made in another forum, but I think it'll give us some perspective here.

According to this article, Boston only had 39 murders as of Dec 20:

https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/23...-massachusetts

And it doesn't seem like there were any more murders after the 20th in 2021, at least according to Universal Hub: https://www.universalhub.com/crime/murder/2021

So if that's correct, that means that Boston's murder rate was 5.8/100,000 if we use the 2020 census to calculate our rate. That makes Boston slightly more dangerous than NYC (5.5/100,000), but below the national average for 2020, which was 6.6/100,000. That means as people brag about how safe Boston has gotten (that's true), it's still technically more dangerous than NYC, a city that some of you have written off. As it stands, Boston and NYC have murder rates BELOW THE NATIONAL AVERAGE, which is rare for any city.

For the entire state of Massachusetts? If we use the numbers up to Dec 20 (I'm sure there might have been one or two murders somewhere in the state after that and before the new year), we have 148 murders. The rate for the entire state is 2.1/100,000

In a sad point of comparison, Jackson MS (population 160,000) had two more murders than the entire state of Massachusetts (population approx 7 million). And I'll agree with many of you that the whole "defund the police" push is idiotic, many conservative southern states and cities have FAR higher murder rates despite having stricter laws.

The fact of the matter is Boston's homicide rate has routinely been 2-3x NYCs since 2003. Only changing in 2020 and 2021.

It has also been higher and probably still is in virtually every crime category.

[WestieWhitie]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

i don't think it does... because NYC didnt. Boston annexed along with NYC... it annexed Hyde Park in 1912. Cities that opted like Brookline opted out due to concerns surrounding immigrants and crime that existed in the 1870s in Boston like they do today. Annexation lasted 18 years longer in Boston than it did in NYC.

Places like Beaver Country Day existed in Brookline because Brookline saw itself as the country and did not want to be dealing with Boston. TO an extent, that sentiment exists today. Just like Mount Vernon and Westchester opted not to be a part of NYC back in the day, Cambridge and Brookline opted not to be a part of Boston you're creating a difference that doesn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston...debate_of_1873
"On October 7, 1873, Brookline, Massachusetts rejected annexation by a larger neighboring city when it voted down annexation by Boston. When its citizens voted 707-299 to keep its independence, Brookline not only stopped Boston's string of annexations, it also set an example for wealthy suburbs throughout America. The vote was a significant event in the history of American suburbs."

^This isnt some random minor thing thats just happenstance..

Boston is already more suburban than NYC in its borders.

And what exactly is wrong with not wanting your safe affluent suburb to turn into a Brookchester or Miltappan?

[Lampert]

Originally Posted by MrDee12345

So if that's correct, that means that Boston's murder rate was 5.8/100,000 if we use the 2020 census to calculate our rate. That makes Boston slightly more dangerous than NYC (5.5/100,000), but below the national average for 2020, which was 6.6/100,000. That means as people brag about how safe Boston has gotten (that's true), it's still technically more dangerous than NYC, a city that some of you have written off. As it stands, Boston and NYC have murder rates BELOW THE NATIONAL AVERAGE, which is rare for any city.

You should compare the murder rate (or violent crime rate) by metro area (or better, urban area). City limits are not very relevant for these kind of comparisons because they are arbitrary and don't reflect the reality of living in a certain city.

[Lampert]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Boston is already more suburban than NYC in its borders.

I mean, yes but so what? That's just how the city developed. A place like Houston is basically a giant suburb.

Even more to show that city limits aren't necessarily a good way to draw borders when doing analysis. Cambridge is more part of the "urban Boston" than West Roxbury

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by Lampert

I mean, yes but so what? That's just how the city developed. A place like Houston is basically a giant suburb.

Even more to show that city limits aren't necessarily a good way to draw borders when doing analysis. Cambridge is more part of the "urban Boston" than West Roxbury

There you are- proving my point . Trying to say the city should encompass your desired amount of random Boston suburbs until it crime slower than NYC is hilarious- that’s not how the city developed- it’s just a nonsensical argument that ignores the history of why Boston developed how it did and why it’s demographics are what they are.

Creati no an alternate reality where Boston is 3x bigger makes no sense. If anything Boston never reaches the density of NYC so you should have to expand NYC until it’s density lowers to Boston levels then compare. Not the other way around. The only suburbs of NYC touching NYC are Westchester County/NY State and Long Island so you’d start there.

Cambridge is more a part of urban Boston than West Roxbury . Lol so? West New York NJ is more a part of urban NYC than Jamaica Queens or Staten island- like, what is your point? Boston is not a unicorn here…This is like saying Hartford fine and dandy and a safe city because West Hartford is right there- not how it works IRL. I mean maybe for suburbanites.

Trying to transpose metros areas is silly too. Who experiences crime like that??? NYC metro is physically the largest MSA in the WORLD. As big as CT a state…. ridiculous to try to gauge the safety of the city that way.

Bostonians are just like this- can’t tell them their ish stinks. It does us no good.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

And what exactly is wrong with not wanting your safe affluent suburb to turn into a Brookchester or Miltappan?

No I don’t. Bostons a fine city and a relatively safe city the needless dumping on other cities and states by MA residents is pathetic though: they’re talking like Boston is this tiny ghetto when in reality it’s demographics should still render it a less crime filled city than NYC if we’re going if % of black and Latino residents and impoverished residents…as is basically the what people think of, but it’s doesn’t.

[Lampert]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

There you are- proving my point . Trying to say the city should encompass your desired amount of random Boston suburbs until it crime slower than NYC is hilarious- that’s not how the city developed- it’s just a nonsensical argument that ignores the history of why Boston developed how it did and why it’s demographics are what they are.

Creati no an alternate reality where Boston is 3x bigger makes no sense. If anything Boston never reaches the density of NYC so you should have to expand NYC until it’s density lowers to Boston levels then compare. Not the other way around. The only suburbs of NYC touching NYC are Westchester County/NY State and Long Island so you’d start there.

Cambridge is more a part of urban Boston than West Roxbury . Lol so? West New York NJ is more a part of urban NYC than Jamaica Queens or Staten island- like, what is your point? Boston is not a unicorn here…This is like saying Hartford fine and dandy and a safe city because West Hartford is right there- not how it works IRL. I mean maybe for suburbanites.

I stated my point pretty clearly. Crime rates (or really any metric) by city limits are of little value. Should look at crime rates by urban area. And I have no idea how crime rates by urban area look like in NY, you are adding areas of high crime in NJ but also areas of low crime in Long Island.

I think it's pretty obvious that a boom in homicide in Cambridge is a problem for Boston too, even though in a statistic by city it doesn't show up in Boston.