How safe is Ballston?

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by gomason

I was waiting on Carlingtonian to come and tell the poster how scary Ballston is and that she should carry a knife at all times.

Uh, whatever. I've never said anything close to that.

I have lived very near the area in question--at one point right next to the Ballston Metro (Richmond Square Apartments on N. 9th) and after that maybe 1/2 mile from that intersection. I would say it's quite safe during the day, but I would advise any woman not to walk around there alone late at night. Nine times out of 10 you might be OK, but all it takes is that one time--and there has recently been a series of sexual assaults around the R-B Corridor. The crime that does happen in North Arlington happens disproportionately more often near the Metro stations, late at night. And that makes sense; areas with lots of people in one place mean lots of potential victims.

As to walking her dog: Depends on what kind of dog. If it's a large enough dog to be threatening, you'll be fine, even late at night. If it's a toy breed, stick to walking him before 8PM or so.

[tysonsengineer]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

Uh, whatever. I've never said anything close to that.

I have lived very near the area in question--at one point right next to the Ballston Metro (Richmond Square Apartments on N. 9th) and after that maybe 1/2 mile from that intersection. I would say it's quite safe during the day, but I would advise any woman not to walk around there alone late at night. Nine times out of 10 you might be OK, but all it takes is that one time--and there has recently been a series of sexual assaults around the R-B Corridor. The crime that does happen in North Arlington happens disproportionately more often near the Metro stations, late at night. And that makes sense; areas with lots of people in one place mean lots of potential victims.

As to walking her dog: Depends on what kind of dog. If it's a large enough dog to be threatening, you'll be fine, even late at night. If it's a toy breed, stick to walking him before 8PM or so.

I've actually found the opposite from reviewing crime data. Crime typically happens where there are less people, especially violent crime like the kind you are describing. Who knew in ballston 10% of female walkers have a potential of being attacked at any time. There aren't a lot of rapists or murderers who attack people in crowds. Those who do thankfully go to jail or death row pretty quickly.

eye roll

If you think R-B corridor is unsafe, there is no safe place for you in this world. Does crime happen? Yes. It happens in Mayberry too for that matter, and probably more frequently than the R-B corridor.

Come on.

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by tysonsengineer

I've actually found the opposite from reviewing crime data. Crime typically happens where there are less people, especially violent crime like the kind you are describing. Who knew in ballston 10% of female walkers have a potential of being attacked at any time. There aren't a lot of rapists or murderers who attack people in crowds. Those who do thankfully go to jail or death row pretty quickly.

eye roll

If you think R-B corridor is unsafe, there is no safe place for you in this world. Does crime happen? Yes. It happens in Mayberry too for that matter, and probably more frequently than the R-B corridor.

Come on.

Let me guess: You're basing your "crime data" on per capita crimes, right? Which show that when there are 10 assaults in a square mile that has 5,000 people living in condos and apartments, the crime rate is lower than if there are 10 assaults in a square mile down the way, where there are 2,000 people living in houses. Right?

Well, per-capita makes no sense, because with crime, one does not experience risk on a per-capita basis but on a basis of area traveled. If I'm walking through a square mile where 10 murders occurred last year, my risk is the same regardless of how many people live in that square mile. (If we knew for a fact that the perpetrators of these crimes lived within that square mile, then we could count "perps per capita"--but obviously, we don't know who's a perp till they've been convicted.)

Per capita stats only make sense when the number of people actually influences the event being counted--consumption, purchases, voting, etc.

Based on crimes per square mile, any casual glance at spotcrime or crimereports or any other such site will show you that violent crimes tend to happen more often where there are lots of people gathered. Ballston (unlike Tysons Corner, actually) also has pockets of lower-income rental housing nearby, where the marginally employed and formerly incarcerated could actually afford to live.

In other words: Incidence of crime isn't correlated with the number of residents (population density) but with the number of potential targets to rob, assault, etc. (potential-victim density, if you will).

I never said the R-B is "unsafe." That's so imprecise as to be meaningless. I will stand by my common-sense advice--based on years of living in the R-B corridor--that most people would be well advised not to walk around there alone late at night, with the risk increasing in the wee hours of the morning and with being a young woman. (Although a man, Carl Diener, was murdered near Clarendon a couple of years ago, RIP.)

[tysonsengineer]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

Let me guess: You're basing your "crime data" on per capita crimes, right? Which show that when there are 10 assaults in a square mile that has 5,000 people living in condos and apartments, the crime rate is lower than if there are 10 assaults in a square mile down the way, where there are 2,000 people living in houses. Right?

Well, per-capita makes no sense, because with crime, one does not experience risk on a per-capita basis but on a basis of area traveled. If I'm walking through a square mile where 10 murders occurred last year, my risk is the same regardless of how many people live in that square mile. (If we knew for a fact that the perpetrators of these crimes lived within that square mile, then we could count "perps per capita"--but obviously, we don't know who's a perp till they've been convicted.)

Per capita stats only make sense when the number of people actually influences the event being counted--consumption, purchases, voting, etc.

Based on crimes per square mile, any casual glance at spotcrime or crimereports or any other such site will show you that violent crimes tend to happen more often where there are lots of people gathered. Ballston (unlike Tysons Corner, actually) also has pockets of lower-income rental housing nearby, where the marginally employed and formerly incarcerated could actually afford to live.

In other words: Incidence of crime isn't correlated with the number of residents (population density) but with the number of potential targets to rob, assault, etc. (potential-victim density, if you will).

I never said the R-B is "unsafe." That's so imprecise as to be meaningless. I will stand by my common-sense advice--based on years of living in the R-B corridor--that most people would be well advised not to walk around there alone late at night, with the risk increasing in the wee hours of the morning and with being a young woman. (Although a man, Carl Diener, was murdered near Clarendon a couple of years ago, RIP.)

Shaking head, even incidence rates per square mile make it one of the safest places in america when you compare apples to apples. Ok so if you compare R-B to Smallville, Iowa (population 4) yea Smallville has less crime (duh) because it has less people and therefore less people = less criminals = less crime. That's stupid though.

Compare R-B to other midsized cities of population 40k to 100k and it will be top of the list in safety.

The fact that Arlington goes years between murders, and has a lower sexual violence rate than most college campuses in America should be clue number 1.

Are there bad people? Yes. That's a reality of life not an indictment of Ballston.

[gomason]

Originally Posted by tysonsengineer

Shaking head, even incidence rates per square mile make it one of the safest places in america when you compare apples to apples. Ok so if you compare R-B to Smallville, Iowa (population 4) yea Smallville has less crime (duh) because it has less people and therefore less people = less criminals = less crime. That's stupid though.

Compare R-B to other midsized cities of population 40k to 100k and it will be top of the list in safety.

The fact that Arlington goes years between murders, and has a lower sexual violence rate than most college campuses in America should be clue number 1.

Are there bad people? Yes. That's a reality of life not an indictment of Ballston.

Stop trying to use reason. It won't work, believe me. I stopped trying a long time ago.

Hopefully if the word gets out how terrible it is, my rent will come down.

[BarqCider]

if you think courthouse/ballston is a crime ridden haven...

I think you lived a very sheltered life and would probably have cardiac arrest if I take you to some "hood" in Baltimore or Pittsburgh.

[NOVA_guy]

No where is perfect but I don't really think there's any real "hood" or crime ridden areas in NoVA, with the exception of some very small pockets of Alexandria. I could be wrong though.

[gomason]

Originally Posted by NOVA_guy

No where is perfect but I don't really think there's any real "hood" or crime ridden areas in NoVA, with the exception of some very small pockets of Alexandria. I could be wrong though.

Don't tell that to some of the people who've lived around here forever. They'd tell you Manassas is dangerous and Arlington is sketchy.