Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understood what you meant and agree. It really is much more complected than that.
Having lots of cops isn't necessary for a city to be safe.
Adding a bunch more cops doesn't seem to necessarily make a place safe.
To add to that:
Increasing the number of cops in an area seems to sometimes, maybe even usually result in a decrease in certain specific crimes in that area...but at what long term cost?
I mean yes, locking up more people can sometimes help lower crime in the short run, maybe...or at least Thats what some conservatives argue is the cause for the decrease of crime in the US between the 70s and now. Lock up the poor people so they can't commit more crimes.
But crime has also dropped in places that don't lock up the number of people we do and in places that didn't adapt the "Broken Window Policy" and stuff.
The truth is we don't know for sure what caused crime to drop since the 90s and to pretend we do know is intellectually dishonest.
Thats without considering the financial and human cost of locking so many people up....it costs alot of money and ruins alot of lives.
Yea. But when bad guys are in jail it's tough for them to wreck innocent people's lives.
The guy several posts back lamenting what's happening in NYC is correct. The place is sliding back towards what it was in the '80s and '90s.
We have a little place in Chelsea Manhattan. Thirty-ish years ago much of that area and specially our building was a no go zone. Then gay men moved in - funny how gay men have re-pioneered so many "bad" neighborhoods across The US - cleaned the place up etc. Then it became a hot area, expensive and quite frankly very nice. Now it's going the other way again. The next year is crucial for that area. Releasing 10-20-50 time losers on PR and tiny cash bonds isn't working.
Thank goodness you're not one of those insufferable posters who are common in the Texas forum who claim that typical Texas subdivisions are horrible because it's "people living on top of one another." Thank you for stating factual reality.
I mean, get it though.
I mean I think the issue with alot of Texas suburbs (or just suburbs in general) is while you arn't sharing a wall with someone, you aren't surround by much open area around you and there are a ton of rules about what you can and cant do.
You don't get the full benefits of living in a city or rual area in a suburb. You won't get urban Walkability but also don't get the benefits of living in a rural area or small town. Those benefits being Personal freedom, some open land around you, little to no traffic etc.
A Karen will call the HOA if you park your RV in the wrong place or paint your house an unapproved color or if you have backyard chickens.
Alot of these rules, laws, HOAs etc are based on a history of racism, classism and xenophobia. They enforce, though an overreach of the law, WASP sensibilities and make behaviors WASPs associate with poor people or minorities illegal.
Example: Plano still doesn't allow backyard chickens though Dallas and Fort Worth do. The fact that as of last i heard this was a "hotly debated issue" shows how deep rooted these outdated and racist ideas really are with upper middle class people. In a lot of ways and in alot of cases you have more personal freedom in either a city or in a rural area.
I mean you have to be incredibly silly to oppose chickens.
So while your neighbors aren't literally on top of you in a suburb, you don't have alot of space and you don't have alot of freedom to use the space you do have the way you might want to.
Plus, I mean look at the houses in Frisco or McKinney or almost any newer suburb on google maps....the back yards are tiny. You have big houses on small lots...so even if they are not on top of eachother you don't really have that much space they sure look silly with a huge home on a small lot.
I mean I think the issue with alot of Texas suburbs (or just suburbs in general) is while you arn't sharing a wall with someone, you aren't surround by much open area around you and there are a ton of rules about what you can and cant do.
You don't get the full benefits of living in a city or rual area in a suburb. You won't get urban Walkability but also don't get the benefits of living in a rural area or small town. Those benefits being Personal freedom, some open land around you, little to no traffic etc.
A Karen will call the HOA if you park your RV in the wrong place or paint your house an unapproved color or if you have backyard chickens.
Alot of these rules, laws, HOAs etc are based on a history of racism, classism and xenophobia. They enforce, though an overreach of the law, WASP sensibilities and make behaviors WASPs associate with poor people or minorities illegal.
Example: Plano still doesn't allow backyard chickens though Dallas and Fort Worth do. The fact that as of last i heard this was a "hotly debated issue" shows how deep rooted these outdated and racist ideas really are with upper middle class people. In a lot of ways and in alot of cases you have more personal freedom in either a city or in a rural area.
I mean you have to be incredibly silly to oppose chickens.
So while your neighbors aren't literally on top of you in a suburb, you don't have alot of space and you don't have alot of freedom to use the space you do have the way you might want to.
Plus, I mean look at the houses in Frisco or McKinney or almost any newer suburb on google maps....the back yards are tiny. You have big houses on small lots...so even if they are not on top of eachother you don't really have that much space they sure look silly with a huge home on a small lot.
Yea. But when bad guys are in jail it's tough for them to wreck innocent people's lives.
I would agree with you if it was that simple. But it isn't.
Depends what you mean by "Bad Guys"
Most of the people in the US "Justice" system arn't bad guys. Plenty of them arn't even guilty of the crime they are accused of. A shocking number of people who take plea deals are not guilty either.
You need to understand that your perspective as a rich, old, white guy is very different many other people. Not that you being rich, old or white are bad things. Not that you can't have opinions if you are rich, old and white..but I think it is really important to know where out blind spots are.
If you have money, of course you look more favorably at our legal system. Money is key to making it work in your favor. Show up with a good lawyer and you stand a pretty good chance.
If you have a public defendant you are most certainly screwed.
For a Working Class, or even Middle Class person, simply being arrested or charged with a crime is an incredible financial burden. My buddy who is a lawyer who always says that just entering the Justice System, for the average person amounts to a loss, even if they "Win".
I have a friend whos practiced in a couple other states who by the way is no hater of Texas, she decided to move back here to practice and is quite conservative, but she said "Texas is a terrible state of be accused of a crime, even worse if you are a person of color"
Where she went to law school they would often bring up examples of what "not to do" taken straight out of Texas. When she moved here and took the bar she said they had cleared up a couple of those, so it is heading in the right direction, and the orientation thing tried to make a big deal about some of the changes, but over all she said it is still a terrible place to be accused of a crime.
I have plenty of examples from my own life. I've known a rich kid and poor kid who have gotten DWIs.
One acquaintance got off with a slap on the wrist even though he was a complete dumpster-fire, addicted to drugs and dealing. Had already been busted for a couple minors in position charges.... But guess what, his dad was rich so he had awesome representation and got off with a slap on the wrist.
Another kid i know, got a DWI. No criminal record or anything, didn't even smoke pot. He got the book thrown at him, cost him thousands and he didn't graduate college for a few years. It nearly ruined his life. Kid was poor.
Not that drunk driving is ok, but regardless of what we as a society decide is the correct punishment for that sort of thing is, there shouldn't be such a huge discrepancy based on what amounts to money.
I've got an uncle who sold beer to a kid with a fake, a good fake at that. Cop only busted him because he knew him, he was in his son's highschool class. Cop admitted it was a good fake.
DA still pressed charges because they were on a crusade against underage drinking. Uncle prob has an IQ of 70 and works at a gas station. Of course he was stuck with the Public Defendant. The PD talked him into taking a plea deal even though there was literally security footage of him checking the Kid's ID.
The Public Defendant wasn't confident that my uncle was smart enough to not be tricked into saying something stupid in court. I also think he was just trying to not have to go to court.
I think the fine was like 5k, which was a crippling amount of money for him.
This simply isn't a situation you would ever find yourself in. I mean heck, to you taking the plea deal might make sense, only 5k. Shoot. Chump change to a wealthy man. Or if the principle of that matter mattered to you, you pay a good lawyer and win. You have those options.
Now from your perspective, it makes sense that it is better if the system locks up more people:
1) You are unlikely because of your age, race and class to enter the system to begin with.
2) If you did enter the system, you have the resources to get most likely get the favorable outcome possible, regardless of if you are guilty or innocent.
3) People you love and care about most likely also benefit from 1) and 2).
I said Dallas does allow chickens. Fort Worth does too. Historically most cities that allow chickens either don't allow roosters or only allow 1 so your concern is non existent.
The Default used to be allowing 4-10 hens and 0-1 roosters. Perfectly reasonable.
The cities that don't allow them are mostly either 1) cities who changed their rule later to try to appeal to suburban sensibilities, or 2) They are White Flight Suburbs themselves.
They were banned because poor people, immigrants, and black people all kept chickens and other non pet animals for food when they moved into cities from the country or internationally. They were seen as something people did because they needed to, because they were poor, not a cool thing to do. Went hand in hand with red lining
Yea. But when bad guys are in jail it's tough for them to wreck innocent people's lives.
The guy several posts back lamenting what's happening in NYC is correct. The place is sliding back towards what it was in the '80s and '90s.
We have a little place in Chelsea Manhattan. Thirty-ish years ago much of that area and specially our building was a no go zone. Then gay men moved in - funny how gay men have re-pioneered so many "bad" neighborhoods across The US - cleaned the place up etc. Then it became a hot area, expensive and quite frankly very nice. Now it's going the other way again. The next year is crucial for that area. Releasing 10-20-50 time losers on PR and tiny cash bonds isn't working.
Can you back up with data:
1) That higher incarceration rates mean less crime
2) That crime in NYC has risen more than other cities in the US
The OP said businesses are boarded up in Midtown Manhattan because of crime. While the increase in crime there (and across most U.S. cities) is terrible and needs to be addressed, I take issue with the claim that it's just because of crime. Isn't Midtown the main office center of NYC? And office occupancy has been basically nil since COVID. Businesses that depended on weekday office worker spending have suffered terribly. Couldn't that be as much of a reason? I can say it really hurt businesses in Downtown Houston and to some extent in the Energy Corridor here.
I mean I think the issue with alot of Texas suburbs (or just suburbs in general) is while you arn't sharing a wall with someone, you aren't surround by much open area around you and there are a ton of rules about what you can and cant do.
You don't get the full benefits of living in a city or rual area in a suburb. You won't get urban Walkability but also don't get the benefits of living in a rural area or small town. Those benefits being Personal freedom, some open land around you, little to no traffic etc.
A Karen will call the HOA if you park your RV in the wrong place or paint your house an unapproved color or if you have backyard chickens.
Alot of these rules, laws, HOAs etc are based on a history of racism, classism and xenophobia. They enforce, though an overreach of the law, WASP sensibilities and make behaviors WASPs associate with poor people or minorities illegal.
Example: Plano still doesn't allow backyard chickens though Dallas and Fort Worth do. The fact that as of last i heard this was a "hotly debated issue" shows how deep rooted these outdated and racist ideas really are with upper middle class people. In a lot of ways and in alot of cases you have more personal freedom in either a city or in a rural area.
I mean you have to be incredibly silly to oppose chickens.
So while your neighbors aren't literally on top of you in a suburb, you don't have alot of space and you don't have alot of freedom to use the space you do have the way you might want to.
Plus, I mean look at the houses in Frisco or McKinney or almost any newer suburb on google maps....the back yards are tiny. You have big houses on small lots...so even if they are not on top of eachother you don't really have that much space they sure look silly with a huge home on a small lot.
Historically in urban areas (and for this purpose of this discussion the suburbs are urban) people including homeowners didn't have a whole bunch of space around them. That concept was an aberration of the 1950s-1970s. I totally agree with most suburban subdivisions lacking many things that make more traditional urban living appealing (walkability etc.). But "living on top of each other" or "like ants"? Such an opinion is utterly ridiculous. So ridiculous, in fact, that it is no longer an opinion but a lie. The CityData fact-checker says to that claim, "Pants on Fire!" That is even true of California subdivisions, which have even smaller lots and open yards. They are not living on top of each other either. Even SF, with detached homes that have no side yards. Same thing. Unless you're living in a stacked situation, the "living on top of each other" claim has zero basis.
The OP said businesses are boarded up in Midtown Manhattan because of crime. While the increase in crime there (and across most U.S. cities) is terrible and needs to be addressed, I take issue with the claim that it's just because of crime. Isn't Midtown the main office center of NYC? And office occupancy has been basically nil since COVID. Businesses that depended on weekday office worker spending have suffered terribly. Couldn't that be as much of a reason? I can say it really hurt businesses in Downtown Houston and to some extent in the Energy Corridor here.
That makes sense to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
