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.
omg when I research these places, I research them as a whole,
So let's apply this logic to Essex County. If you apply the same logic to "Essex County" "as a whole", you would conclude that "as a whole", it is quite bad, on the basis of what happens in Irvington, Newark, and Orange alone.
Quote:
If you look up jersey City on a website it will give you the number of certain crimes and murders, not by area, by the whole city. Whatever happens in the city no matter where it is, it counts as a jersey city crime. Im not saying all of Jersey City is bad. But mathematically, if you take the population of people and the number of personal crimes committed you can figure out the percent of how dangerous some of the city can be.
Right, so a high crime rate in aggregate indicates that a lot of crime occurs somewhere in Jersey City. But those numbers don't tell you where.
I think all of jersey City would go somewhere on your list, but there are parts of Jersey City that would be a (1), and parts that would be a (5), and a large chunk somewhere in between there.
However, it's simply not true that most of the town is comparable to the Newark.
Quote:
and Essex county has a high crime rate, but there are alot of towns in Essex county that are nice with little crime, but we all know NEWARK and IRVINGTON and ORANGE and EAST ORANGE is what makes up most of the crime in Essex county
Right, but this supports my point that if you lump together two very different areas, and add up the crime numbers, you get a misleading picture. Even though "Essex County", "as a whole" has a high crime rate, that crime rate is driven by about 1/3 of the towns in the county. By land area, by number of towns, etc, most of Essex County is quite desirable.
Quote:
and im not saying those places dangerous based on statistics, im saying that they are dangerous because they really are,
Right, I understand that (lived in Newark for a while, everyone there gets robbed)
Quote:
And Jersey City was one of them, when you look up Jersey City it doesnt explain statistics by each area,
There are crime maps where you can obtain more detailed information on this.
Quote:
no, it counts as a whole.
Statistics are no use if they are not accompanied by insight. You can't add up two things that are completely different and treat them "as a whole". Just like doing statistics on Essex County "as a whole" will give you misleading numbers, so will doing the same on a town that has several fundamentally different neighborhoods (e.g. from projects to fancy waterfront luxury condos)
So let's apply this logic to Essex County. If you apply the same logic to "Essex County" "as a whole", you would conclude that "as a whole", it is quite bad, on the basis of what happens in Irvington, Newark, and Orange alone.
Right, so a high crime rate in aggregate indicates that a lot of crime occurs somewhere in Jersey City. But those numbers don't tell you where.
I think all of jersey City would go somewhere on your list, but there are parts of Jersey City that would be a (1), and parts that would be a (5), and a large chunk somewhere in between there.
However, it's simply not true that most of the town is comparable to the Newark.
Right, but this supports my point that if you lump together two very different areas, and add up the crime numbers, you get a misleading picture. Even though "Essex County", "as a whole" has a high crime rate, that crime rate is driven by about 1/3 of the towns in the county. By land area, by number of towns, etc, most of Essex County is quite desirable.
Right, I understand that (lived in Newark for a while, everyone there gets robbed)
There are crime maps where you can obtain more detailed information on this.
Statistics are no use if they are not accompanied by insight. You can't add up two things that are completely different and treat them "as a whole". Just like doing statistics on Essex County "as a whole" will give you misleading numbers, so will doing the same on a town that has several fundamentally different neighborhoods (e.g. from projects to fancy waterfront luxury condos)
I understand your point, but comparing Essex county to Jersey City isnt accurate because Essex County is a county made up of different towns, its not the same as Jersey City made up of Different sections. Its still a city, and I count it as a whole even though there are sections, but that's just like alot of cities, example, The Bronx, Brooklyn, etc. However it would be too confusing to people if I nammed each part of Jersey city. Why not name parts of every city listed, then people would still complain all the way down to the block or street. If a murder happens on one end of Jersey City and another murder happens in another part of Jersey City it still goes on a count of how many murders happened in Jersey City. Its not a county made up of Cities, its still a city made up of Sections. Greenville Jersey city is the worst I believe so, I would but that section on the Class 5 list, however others would maybe get a Class 3, or Class 4.
I understand your point, but comparing Essex county to Jersey City isnt accurate because Essex County is a county made up of different towns, its not the same as Jersey City made up of Different sections. Its still a city, and I count it as a whole even though there are sections, but that's just like alot of cities, example, The Bronx, Brooklyn, etc.
But it's not valid to count it "as a whole", and I explained why.
Look, do you know anything about stats ? Basically, if you have normally distributed statistics, then the median and the mean are about the same.
But when statistics are positively skewed, the median will usually be much lower than the average. In other words, if you "average" things that are of a quite different nature, then you will end up with a number that does not represent anything "as a whole".
In other words, it might well be the case that the average crime rate for Jersey City is not representative of anywhere in Jersey City besides Greenville (just like the "average" crime rate for Essex County isn't representative of most of Essex County)
The same is true of Brooklyn. The crime rate in East new York or Coney Island has no relevance to the personal safety of someone who is living in a million dollar park slope brownstone.
Quote:
However it would be too confusing to people if I nammed each part of Jersey city.
Anyone who would find your so-called "research" useful -- that is, those who are seriously thinking about moving into Jersey City (or for that matter, any large city) will need to take the time to learn about the neighborhoods there.
It is better to risk "confusing" someone than posting something that is misleading.
Quote:
Why not name parts of every city listed,
Because most cities aren't nearly as large as Jersey City. For example, Verona in Essex County has a population of a couple of thousand, and it does not . There isn't much point talking about "different neighborhoods" in Verona, because there are not identifiable regions that are demographically different.
Quote:
then people would still complain all the way down to the block or street. If
For the most part, different blocks and streets are not identifiable regions that are demographically different.
Quote:
Its not a county made up of Cities, its still a city made up of Sections.
Why is this distinction important anyway ? As far as my criticism of your methodology is concerned, the distinction isn't relevant at all. Your methods are wrong for exactly the same reason that they'd be wrong if you used them with Essex County. I understand that it makes your job as the so-called "researcher" easier, because that is how you can find crime counts on the internet.
How would you apply this argument to Brooklyn ? Is it a "city with different sections" or is it a county ?
If you were you, I would listen to what people who actually been or been around those towns would say instead of people who just go by what other people say.
From what I can tell you, all of those places you named have bad and good parts. But personally, you're going to hear it from me, I would leave Irvington alone off the strength of many of the people that are living there now. Not all the areas of Irvington look run down but due to the fact that there happens to be certain people gathering in all sorts of areas loitering, drug dealing in Irvington, I wouldn't move there. Over there is too hot. It seems like random shootings just happen and it seems like unless the police clamp down on it, that it's gonna get bad.
These towns are bad, but I feel like its rare to be randomly shot. If I went for a walk in Irvington (average build white male) I feel i would not be bothered perhaps a stray dog would attack me but I do not feel like Id be shot or mugged.
Per capita Irvington is a lot worse, it just isn't large enough to be considered a city so it won't show up in large crime studies. I remember actually reading somewhere that Irvington is worse than Camden.
As for the OP's question,
Jersey City: not as bad as people say. Outside of one neighborhood it's a nice up-and-coming city IMO.
Elizabeth: borderline. Has some bad parts but isn't a downright dump. It's not perfect by any means, but at the same time it's definitely not in the class of Irvington, EO, Newark, etc
Linden: people say it's bad, I've never had problems there and I've been there dozens of times. A lot nicer than Elizabeth, which I don't think is too bad a city
Irvington: god awful. There was traffic on the Parkway one time going north so I got off an exit early and ended up in the middle of the back streets in Irvington Let's just say I don't care how bad the traffic is, I won't get off there again!
Union City: a lot like Elizabeth. If you don't act like a moron, you should be able to make it through unscathed
Interesting theory, I never thought of that. It does make sense. What about West New York does it fall in the same category as UC, pretty nice but people still think of it as how it use to be?
Yes Dorian, in my opinion they get bad raps for a cou[le of reasons. When you look at the most urban areas of all NJ, Hudson County is number 1. Because of it's large latino population, it is also nortorious for being very urban. Some of the most violent gangs in the states is of latino heritage. There are Latin Kings and MS13 and Vatos Locos among other organized street gangs located in these areas. But because these areas are so small in geographic terms, a large police presence is applicable and the number of crimes is controlled. Union City and West New York are probably 3.5 square miles between the two cities. Yet, there is approximetly 95,000 population between the two. Under the circumstances, I think both Union City and West New York are relatively safe areas, if you're looking for an urban feel to live in, of course!
union city isnt as bad as newark or others but not really safe u can get robbed jumped stabbed and there are gangs there also and since its close to nyc it has some notorious nyc gangs in it
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.
Let's just say I don't care how bad the traffic is, I won't get off there again!
