Is the national and international perception of Chicago's crime a necessary evil in order effectuate positive changes? (Bloomington: section 8, apartment complexes)

[Northwest Indiana]

I love the city of Chicago (all areas, not just downtown and the north side) despite the costs, taxes, and some issues with crime. I have lived in the Chicago area my entire life and while I enjoy traveling, I really cannot find another place that I would like to call my forever home.

As most of us know all too well, the perception of Chicago on a national and international scale has been getting rather poor due to the violent crime issues. Those of us from the area know that while crime violent crime occurs and can occur in every neighborhood, violent crime in this city is pretty isolated to some south side and west side neighborhoods. In my opinion, for far too long, the crime in Chicago has just been dismissed as "oh well, just stay out of the bad neighborhoods and you'll be fine" or "just stay away from ALL of the south side and west side and you'll be fine" because people in neighborhoods that seemed like a totally different world than higher-crime areas did not appear to care what was going on in other city neighborhoods because it did not personally affect them on a daily basis. Most people can live their entire lives on the north side and never have to have a good reason to travel to the south side.

However, what we are seeing these days are people on a national and international level feeling like they need to the avoid the city all together, which is truly upsetting...however, is this the type of response needed in order to have some changes occur in the city? I hear people all the time say things like "Chit-cago" or "the whole city is a ghetto" and my first instinct is to tell them "NO! Every city has bad and good areas just like Chicago"...but then I get to thinking that MAYBE if the WHOLE city starts getting a negative perception, it will mean that the city may finally become more united in dealing with crime issues and other issues as a whole and not just pushing it off to that section of a city.

Maybe this is just some far-fetched utopian dream of mine, but as someone who really loves Chicago, I do honestly think that the negative (and often wrong) statements and poor perceptions of the ENTIRE city can be a positive thing to really get people moving to effectuate some change.

Sorry for being long-winded, but this is a topic that I have wanted to post about for a while.

Note: I am not one of those "screw Illinois, come to Indiana" type of folks because 1) Chicago's downfall would have a profoundly negative impact on NWI" and 2) Indiana has it's major issues as well (increasing crime that of course is being blamed on south side residents being pushed out over here which is not 100% them causing crime), and 3) while I do like many aspects of living in Indiana, there are many areas of Illinois that I would live in over Indiana if I could comfortably afford to.

[personone]

The national/international reputation for violent crime does potentially motivate the city to act, but it doesn't seem to have made a big difference so far (although everyone always points out how much better it has gotten since the 90s). The mayor visibly showed that the reputation got to him when he met with Spike Lee to try to get him to change the name of the movie "Chiraq."

To be honest, even as a critic who thinks the city should be doing more, it does seem like they have attempted many different strategies. I just can't understand how a city like NYC that is so much larger than Chicago can have less violent crime even when looking at "raw" numbers. I guess if the reputation gets so bad that you get a mayor to run on the platform of making lowering violent crime their #1 priority and devote a bunch of resources to doing that, then the negative rep could directly pressure change. But again, currently, it seems like they have recognized the problem and tried a lot of different strategies (albeit not super successfully).

As of now, I think most Chicagoans just let the negative rep flow off our back. I've lived in DC, Philly, and Baltimore also, and Chicago (have lived downtown and now north side) is by far the city I've felt the most safe in out of those. Haven't had or experienced any problems with crime in my 4 yrs here, so I take the negative rep with a grain of salt. BUT, I still really want to see the crime get better in those bad neighborhoods. The greater public can't just ignore the problem as "just the south and west sides," or else the city leaders won't continuously feel the pressure to keep working on improving the crime issue.

[BRU67]

I don't know if it is really a problem you can shame the city into fixing. The problem is the city is so segregated and the violence is occurring in areas, a few areas, which have no social fabric. I'm not sure how are you fix that that if you are a government. New York is different because it's not as segregated.

Probably about the only thing they could do that would have any serious impact on crime would be get the most troubled demographics to move out of the city. That would be accomplished by a massive eminent domain project. That's how they fixed the area around Cabrini-Green. This sort of thing is always very controversial but I think you will see that happen again at least on some scale.

[thefallensrvnge]

I'm not sure that perception will change Chicago's crime. Even if Chicago cleaned up all its crime, the city would probably still hold on to its mobster reputation. An image like that dies hard and is seeded all the way back to Chicago's birth.

That said, I think one of the greatest factors that hinders Chicago's ability to tackle its crime is largely due to a poorly run political system that is so mismanaged, bureaucratic, and corrupt that it destroy the ability for proper leadership to not only be elected, but for strategies and needed legislation to pass and allow change. Chicago's crime reputation has alway been somewhat exaggerated; however, its reputation for corruption...not as much.

[treemoni]

The perception of Chicago's crime will change as soon as Obama leaves office.

[OyCrumbler]

It's not a necessary evil, but it can work in Chicago's favor in reducing crime rates. It shouldn't have to be though.

[Northwest Indiana]

Thanks everyone for the responses so far. Very interesting viewpoints. In response, I do think that in an effort to reduce blight, crime, and long-term expenditure on social resources, there is the high possibility of a large-scale relocation of many residents (whether in public housing or using vouchers) to areas outside of the city (vast majority south/far south burbs and Indiana - not just Northwest Indiana (mainly Gary) but to other cities such as Indianapolis, Lafayette, South Bend, Fort Wayne, Kokomo, Bloomington, Evansville, and Jeffersonville/Clarksville in the Louisville metro area.

In each municipality, one of the things to watch for are the granting of "section 42 program funds" which are used to renovate old apartment complexes (usually market-rate) and turn them into income-based (meaning low-income) housing. This has just happened recently in Gary to two complexes, Concord Commons and Woodlake Village and has happened around the Indianapolis area as well. These complexes were market-rate but did accept some section 8 vouchers and there were not many problems. However, now, the complexes were purchased by a new company, renovated with section 42 funds, and now many long-time tenants are being forced out of their apartments because they make too much money. Take a look at the meeting minutes in your municipalities and look for things regarding section 42. Too often, folks are most concerned with section 8 but it seems like section 42 should be just as big of a concern. Just wanted to add this information if anyone was interested in how many of these large-scale relocations occur sometimes.

Here is an article referencing to my paragraph above: Hundreds of Gary residents may be displaced

[Maintainschaos]

Did worldwide perception of Chicago's crime rates do anything to change it in the 90s when it was significantly higher than it is now? Is that what drove down rates in LA and NYC? Is that what is driving up rates in places like Indianapolis and Milwaukee?

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Northwest Indiana

Thanks everyone for the responses so far. Very interesting viewpoints. In response, I do think that in an effort to reduce blight, crime, and long-term expenditure on social resources, there is the high possibility of a large-scale relocation of many residents (whether in public housing or using vouchers) to areas outside of the city (vast majority south/far south burbs and Indiana - not just Northwest Indiana (mainly Gary) but to other cities such as Indianapolis, Lafayette, South Bend, Fort Wayne, Kokomo, Bloomington, Evansville, and Jeffersonville/Clarksville in the Louisville metro area.

In each municipality, one of the things to watch for are the granting of "section 42 program funds" which are used to renovate old apartment complexes (usually market-rate) and turn them into income-based (meaning low-income) housing. This has just happened recently in Gary to two complexes, Concord Commons and Woodlake Village and has happened around the Indianapolis area as well. These complexes were market-rate but did accept some section 8 vouchers and there were not many problems. However, now, the complexes were purchased by a new company, renovated with section 42 funds, and now many long-time tenants are being forced out of their apartments because they make too much money. Take a look at the meeting minutes in your municipalities and look for things regarding section 42. Too often, folks are most concerned with section 8 but it seems like section 42 should be just as big of a concern. Just wanted to add this information if anyone was interested in how many of these large-scale relocations occur sometimes.

Here is an article referencing to my paragraph above: Hundreds of Gary residents may be displaced

Yup, in complex urban planning terms, that's called the pack 'em up and ship 'em out strategy. People get into a lather about gentrification in Pilsen and Humboldt Park but there haven't been many protests about what's happening over at Cabrini-Green. It's not really fixing the problem as much as it is moving it somewhere else.

But anyway, it would reduce crime in Chicago itself, and I'm sure we haven't seen the last of it. I could also see them going one step further and not just relocating section 8 voucher holders, but, rather by using eminent domain on entire blighted and troubled neighborhoods, and then flipping that over to private development.

[Northwest Indiana]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Yup, in complex urban planning terms, that's called the pack 'em up and ship 'em out strategy. People get into a lather about gentrification in Pilsen and Humboldt Park but there haven't been many protests about what's happening over at Cabrini-Green. It's not really fixing the problem as much as it is moving it somewhere else.

But anyway, it would reduce crime in Chicago itself, and I'm sure we haven't seen the last of it. I could also see them going one step further and not just relocating section 8 voucher holders, but, rather by using eminent domain on entire blighted and troubled neighborhoods, and then flipping that over to private development.

I agreed with the bolder red part. I was going to include that too in my response.