Denver more dangerous than New York, San Francisco (Colorado Springs, Aurora: violent crime, neighborhoods)

[ditto]

DETROIT — Denver is more dangerous than New York or San Francisco, according to a private research group's controversial analysis, released Sunday, of annual FBI crime statistics.

The study drew harsh criticism even before it came out. The American Society of Criminology launched a pre-emptive strike Friday, issuing a statement attacking it as "an irresponsible misuse" of crime data.

The 14th annual "City Crime Rankings: Crime in Metropolitan America" was published by CQ Press, a unit of Congressional Quarterly Inc. It is based on the FBI's Sept. 24 crime statistics report.

http://www.denverpost.com/newsheadlines/ci_7506346

[ColoWeb]

While I do not have the data to back this up, this simply does not seem, looks, or feels right. While Denver may not be the safest, compared to other cities of this size on all other crime sites, Denver was among the safest city and I did not see much change that would indicate otherwise.

[denverian]

I live in Denver and have yet to be murdered, robbed, or molested! But then I'm a professional, not in a gang, don't do drugs and I'm always aware of my environment. Car break-ins seems to be the worst thing going on here for the average person. But common sense can help avoid that too. I just don't see Denver as an unusually dangerous city.

[b.adams]

That study is crazy. Comparing small towns like Colorado Springs to New York City ?? According to this study, Aurora, Colorado Springs and Denver all more dangerous than Detroit. They gave these cities a 2x as dangerous as detroit -- pleasssseee!!!

Denver is by in large pretty safe. I commute into the area daily and its not scary.

[tfox]

Originally Posted by b.adams

That study is crazy. Comparing small towns like Colorado Springs to New York City ?? According to this study, Aurora, Colorado Springs and Denver all more dangerous than Detroit. They gave these cities a 2x as dangerous as detroit -- pleasssseee!!!

Denver is by in large pretty safe. I commute into the area daily and its not scary.

No, actually Detroit was the "worst" city in that particular study. I think St Louis also ranks very poorly as well, due to its miniscule population and geographic footprint.

Large cities like NYC always fare well in these rankings, because of the huge population and expansive city boundaries -- everything is per-capita, so individual incidents don't spike the stats. Plus, in recent years NYC has been able to push a lot of its poverty outside city limits. Ditto SF -- much of their poverty got relocated to the east bay.

Denver fares poorer than expected because of its relatively small population of residents, its large daytime population (it grows to twice its size during the day M-F), its geographically small city boundaries, the relative lack of nightlife outside city limits (people from the suburbs tend to go into Denver for entertainment, and occasionally get drunk and in trouble there), and the continued presence of many low-rent neighborhoods in the city limits (think Montbello).

Also, the higher crime 'hoods in Denver like Montbello tend to be in out of the way areas that the average metro resident never sees. The places in the city where most people are out and about (downtown, Central Denver, etc) don't see a lot of visible crime, at least not before midnight anyway.

One thing Denver could do right now that would greatly reduce a big source of crime is to let the bars out on a gradual basis, rather than all at once at 2am. The abrupt removal of a bunch of drunk patrons at 2am, tossing them out on the streets, has led to a lot of street altercations and some violence of late that probably could have been completely avoided.

[McGowdog]

Nice post, Fox.

I'm intriqued about that one stat, Denver doubles in size during the day M-F. That explains the extreme traffic during rush hour and my theory that Denver has about 2 million with another 1 million driving around.

Well just look at the traffic piling into Denver and Colorado Springs every morning and heading out every evening.

I've known some work commuters that live in Colorado Springs and drive all the way to Denver for work! That just seems insane to me! That is NOT living, folks! That's being a puppet for somebody else!

Hey, to each his own.

The Dog from Pueblo.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by McGowdog

Nice post, Fox.

I'm intriqued about that one stat, Denver doubles in size during the day M-F. That explains the extreme traffic during rush hour and my theory that Denver has about 2 million with another 1 million driving around.

Well just look at the traffic piling into Denver and Colorado Springs every morning and heading out every evening.

I've known some work commuters that live in Colorado Springs and drive all the way to Denver for work! That just seems insane to me! That is NOT living, folks! That's being a puppet for somebody else!

Hey, to each his own.

The Dog from Pueblo.

In some cases it might not be that bad; Someone could commute from the extreme North Colorado Springs (very suburban) to the extreme south end of the Denver area (DTC, lots of jobs) in a semi-reasonable 40 minutes - especially if they left early and the roads weren't like they were this morning (I'm still shaking here at work....).

[McGowdog]

True that, I guess. If you could get onto that Kelly Johnson road or whatever it's called and commute to Centennial or the Tech Center, it may not be that bad. If you're on I-25 and beat the morning rush hour, you may avoid that backup that begins at about MM-167!

[steveco.]

How many people are victims of violent crimes during rush hour or during the day at all for that matter?

[livecontent]

Originally Posted by tfox

One thing Denver could do right now that would greatly reduce a big source of crime is to let the bars out on a gradual basis, rather than all at once at 2am. The abrupt removal of a bunch of drunk patrons at 2am, tossing them out on the streets, has led to a lot of street altercations and some violence of late that probably could have been completely avoided.

I think a better answer is to further restrict the approval of more bars--there are just too many concentrated in the downtown area.

Going further, I would change the regulations to actually diminish the concepts of bars, over time, and encourage establishments to serve alcohol to only patrons who are seated and eating a full meal.

In addition, I would have more liquor licenses only for service of wines and beers and prohibit the serving of spirits, and fortified alcoholic beverages.

Also, I would end all drink promotions and events that encourage heavier drinking:

1. no discounts to women or anybody.
2. no drinks bought by the bar for patrons
3. no two for one
4. no shots poured by roaming matrons
5. no happy hour discounts
6. no drinking games
7. no sponsered event in a alcoholic establishment that encourages drinking

I would move to the idea that alcohol should be considered a food and be served with food.

I would heavily tax bar establishments, establish minimum high cost
for drinks and restrict the establishment and concentration of these businesses. I would give big tax incentives to businesses which establish moderate alcoholic use under the new regulations and guidelines.

I would establish alcoholic free zones in the city or areas banned to bar drinking and which only allow beer and wine with dinner (and no spirits) that allow people of all ages to enjoy entertainment and dining without the annoyance of people who heavily drink.

I would go further and fence off bar drinking zones, like a dog park, you enter with full proof of age on an access approved ID, no weapons, and you exit to parking on the outside--you exit sober to your car, your bike, the street or you exit drunk to jail with punishing restrictions: temporary no access or a ban with no access ID.

And if you do not like this, go live in Detroit.

Livecontent