Crime Down In L.a. (Los Angeles, San Francisco: crime rate, most dangerous, stats)

[majoun]

Originally Posted by snb3

Such as illegally attempting to take over the schools. Wonder why...hmm? Charter schools.....

>So you prefer LAUSD as it is? I'd hate to be your kid. IMO, let the charters take over, they'd do a much better job.

I saw that article recently. If anyone reads LA Times on a regular basis, you might've read that article about violent crimes skyrocketing in the Mid-Wilshire/ Koreatown disctrict. I welcome anybody who believes that crimes are on the downturn to drive past there anytime after dark. Or better yet, walk a block.

That's been a pretty unsafe area for quite some time. I do drive through Koreatown quite often at night over the years when I'm on my way to Silver Lake or Echo Park, and based on what I've observed there's no way in hell I'd ever advise anyone to live around that area. (I certainly wouldn't walk around that area at night.) The LA Times and the Daily News, in reporting the increase in gang crime despite the decrease in total crime, mentioned that the only LAPD bureau in which gang crime decreased was the West Bureau. The LAPD's own site said that the Hollywood Division had the biggest drop in crime in the whole city, followed by the Pacific Division. This suggests that there was a big drop in crime in the West Bureau which made up for the increase in crime in the Valley and in some other areas.

[UB50]

Originally Posted by snb3

I saw that article recently. If anyone reads LA Times on a regular basis, you might've read that article about violent crimes skyrocketing in the Mid-Wilshire/ Koreatown disctrict. I welcome anybody who believes that crimes are on the downturn to drive past there anytime after dark. Or better yet, walk a block.

We go to Koreatown quite often after dark. In fact, most of the times we go after dark. It may be a high crime area but most of the crimes I've read about seem to take place between midnight and 5 a.m. -- and we aren't there then. It also seems like a lot of the violent crimes are taking place between people who know each other. When we go down there, usually between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m., we see a lot of people walking on the streets, even a lot of families and moms with kids in strollers. I don't get the feeling the area has a horrendously high crime rate. I actually like the area and I think I would like to live there.

Also, if crime was below average before, it doesn't take a lot to make it "skyrocket." Glendale normally has a few murders a year -- one year it had 18 (which is skyrocketing!) but the next it had two. A city of 200,000 people with only two murders is amazing.

[James T]

The exact amount of crime from any year to another will change at least somewhat. However, on average, the crime of the last ten years is up, way up, over what it was in say, the 1930's. But hey, at least we have "multiculturalism". Whoopee!

[majoun]

Originally Posted by James T

The exact amount of crime from any year to another will change at least somewhat. However, on average, the crime of the last ten years is up, way up, over what it was in say, the 1930's. But hey, at least we have "multiculturalism". Whoopee!

The population is much larger than in the 1930s, so that is to be expected. To give you an idea, it was in 1930 that L.A. surpassed San Francisco in population.

The crime in L.A. in the early 1990s was higher than today.

[newportbeachsmostwanted]

Originally Posted by majoun

The crime in L.A. in the early 1990s was higher than today.

That is true, but do you agree there has been an influx of residents too hesistant to report crime (immigration status)?



here's my multi-faceted theory:
^illegals. ^crime. ^population growth.
v compstat. v gentrification. v good economy. v crime rate.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by newportbeachsmostwanted

That is true, but do you agree there has been an influx of residents too hesistant to report crime (immigration status)?



here's my multi-faceted theory:
^illegals. ^crime. ^population growth.
v compstat. v gentrification. v good economy. v crime rate.

And, as noted before, the biggest increase in crime seems to have been in the San Fernando Valley, which - even though little of the 1992 rioting took place there - did see more "white flight" post-riots than any part of LA, even places closer to the riots, and which has had a huge growth in the illegal immigrant population. It is also largely off the gentrification radar except for the extreme southeastern end. It does seem like the areas with the most gentrification have seen the biggest drops.

[James T]

Originally Posted by majoun

The population is much larger than in the 1930s, so that is to be expected.

Per capita crime was lower in the 1930's. Same with the 1940's and 1950's. Ask anybody who was alive back then.

We live in a more dangerous society, a great deal of which is due to Los Angeles not being populated by the same sorts of people who once populated it.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by James T

Per capita crime was lower in the 1930's. Same with the 1940's and 1950's. Ask anybody who was alive back then.

We live in a more dangerous society, a great deal of which is due to Los Angeles not being populated by the same sorts of people who once populated it.

An L.A. Times article awhile back said that 1932 levels of youth crime were not reached again until 1990 ( nationwide) There was oddly a decrease in crime in the mid 1930s, oddly right in the middle of the Depression, due to the New Deal programs and the end of alcohol prohibition, and it would take many years for early 1930s levels of crime to be reached again.

This suggests a possible way out of our current dilemma.

[Josh22]

Originally Posted by majoun

The Valley seems to be where things are getting worse more than anywhere else. As for downtown LA, gentrification has taken hold of parts of it (the only reminders of its seedy past in the gentrified parts of downtown are the huge numbers of prostitutes) but other parts are as bad as ever. BTW, I made a post about those stats in another thread - Compton had the second highest murder rate in California next to Richmond and was only one of four California cities which made the 25 worst murder rates in the US (the others being San Bernardino and Oakland - and I wouldn't want to live in any of those 4)

Actually, incorrect... Compton has the highest rate in california, and the country.


Richmond, CA
2005
Murders per 100,000 = 40.3


Oakland, CA
2005
Murders per 100,000 = 23.3


San Bernardino, CA
2005
Murders per 100,000 = 31.3


Compton, CA
2005
Murders per 100,000 = 69.5



Other non CA cities:

East St. Louis
2005
Murders per 100,000 = 63.4


Detroit, MI
2005
Murders per 100,000 = 37.2


Camden, NJ
2005
Murders per 100,000 = 41.3

(stats taken directly from this website). As you can see, Compton has the highest rate, higher than East St louis, Camden, Detroit, and all other CA cities.

[UB50]

Why are so many people bound and determined to prove that their area has high crime? Is there some sort of merit badge for that?

I feel that crime is down in the areas I frequent. I base that on the fact that I don't feel fearful in areas where I used to feel scared.