L.A. Sees 14% Drop In Violent Crime In First Quarter 2013 (Lancaster: low income, homes)

[DynamoLA]

Through the end of March, overall violent crime was down nearly 14% compared with the same period last year — a drop of 593 incidents, the city figures showed. Property crimes, such as burglary and auto theft, were down about 7% for the same period.

The 66 homicides recorded so far this year are nine fewer than during the same period in 2012. If that pace holds, the city would finish 2013 well below last year's historic low of 298 killings.

LA Times

Keep it up LA!

[Charles]

While that is good news, I'd take a 14% increase in crime for a 14% decrease in traffic.

[DynamoLA]

You live in South OC, why would you care about traffic in LA, and why would you want an increase in violence?

[Charles]

Originally Posted by DynamoLA

You live in South OC, why would you care about traffic in LA, and why would you want an increase in violence?

I grew up in LA and I travel into LA occaisionally.

An increase in violence is not a good thing. I guess what I meant was, I'd accept a 14% higher chance of being a victim of crime to reduce traffic. Meaning, instead of 1 in 5000 chance, a 1 in 4300 chance.

[jm1982]

Thanks for this great news! I'm so happy I could start a riot!

[Chicano3000X]

Nice, I can walk through my hood at night with a white T again!

[John23]

I think the crime is totally baffling....given the economy. The price of gas.

-How can crime go down (and hit historic lows) if we're suppose to be in a recession or depression. Are there other examples of crime hitting lows as the economy also does poorly?

It's also kind of ironic, if you've lived here since the 80's or early 90's.....gas was $1 something in 1992. Homes were more in line with income. Yet there were about 3x as many murders, lol. Also the income disparity since then has certainly grown.

[HarryKerryJr]

Originally Posted by Charles

I grew up in LA and I travel into LA occaisionally.

An increase in violence is not a good thing. I guess what I meant was, I'd accept a 14% higher chance of being a victim of crime to reduce traffic. Meaning, instead of 1 in 5000 chance, a 1 in 4300 chance.

Considering the greatest reduction in crimes over the last several years have been in areas you don't frequent that had the most crime, and such and increase in crime is not likely to affect you. I, for one, would endure a bit more traffic if it means people in low income areas have a little less fear and bullet less likely to kill innocent 9 year olds or grade A high schoolers who are university bound OUT of the neighborhood. To each his own.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by John23

I think the crime is totally baffling....given the economy. The price of gas.

-How can crime go down (and hit historic lows) if we're suppose to be in a recession or depression. Are there other examples of crime hitting lows as the economy also does poorly?

It's also kind of ironic, if you've lived here since the 80's or early 90's.....gas was $1 something in 1992. Homes were more in line with income. Yet there were about 3x as many murders, lol. Also the income disparity since then has certainly grown.

It's not that puzzling if you think about demographics.

As for previous decreases in crime during bad economic times, there was a massive decrease in crime in the mid 1930s, due to the end of Prohibition. The equivalent of that has not happened now, but perhaps the advent of dispensaries and the related reduction of street dealing has made a difference.

[jm1982]

This article is pretty interesting from the Wall St Journal. it attempts to explain why crime supposedly didn't increase during these bad financial times.

"The economic downturn has not led to more crime—contrary to the experts' predictions. So what explains the disconnect? Big changes in American culture, says James Q. Wilson."
Why Crime Keeps Falling - WSJ.com


In regards to L.A the city has gotten a lot more expensive when when accounting for inflation. I've also heard a lot of the criminals from L.A metro area moved to Lancaster / Palmdale areas too ..but I'm not too sure about that theory.

New York City also had higher crime when property values/rents were a lot lower.