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.
If American publications had 1/100th the intelligence, insight and wit of the Economist, most of them wouldn't be on the verge of bankruptcy right now. The Economist is arguably one of the world's best news sources.
But given the dearth of culture and sophistication I experienced during my short time in Phoenix...such a reaction is not surprising.
I used to like the Economist ... until I read the wretched article quoted by the OP. The article was factually incorrect in several ways:
-- Alexi's Grill (the restaurant owned by the person quoted in the beginning of the article) is in Midtown, not Downtown
-- Light rail was not imposed by city leaders; it has been approved by voters in two separate elections
-- Light rail will not go to Scottsdale; Scottsdale continues to have trouble making up its mind about transit
It was also one-sided in interviewing ASU faculty about crime, but not talking to any local law enforcement officials. Likewise, the Morgan Quitno numbers are mentioned without any discussion of the controversy surrounding them -- not just in Phoenix, but nationwide. Don't get me started about the utter nonsense regarding chain restaurants "dominating the landscape."
After seeing the Economist get so many of the basic facts wrong about a city I know so well, I have come to doubt just about everything I read in that publication and have let my subscription lapse. Clearly, the Economist lets its anonymous staff writers run wild with their personal biases. In this case, the writer got grumpy during his lunch break in Phoenix, talked to a cranky restaurant owner, interviewed a few ASU faculty who may be here only temporarily, and then wrote a shallow and ill-informed article.
New Mexico has a population of a little under 2 million...so when some drug deals go bad or some domestic violence leads to murder the numbers get skewed.
It doesn't necessary make it more dangerous then NYC or Los Angeles...it just has a smaller population so the actual number stand out.. If you get murdered in NM it most likely is by someone you know...not 100% true of a place like LA or Dallas...
so the 406 people killed in LA this year is a hard number...just because the population is 20 million doesn't make it any "safer"...those people would be alive if they lived in Las Cruces or Carlsbad....
One murder can occur in a city like Raton, NM and it is going to have the same murder rate as a Compton...trust me..Raton is 100% safer...
If American publications had 1/100th the intelligence, insight and wit of the Economist, most of them wouldn't be on the verge of bankruptcy right now. The Economist is arguably one of the world's best news sources.
But given the dearth of culture and sophistication I experienced during my short time in Phoenix...such a reaction is not surprising.
The Economist is a great magazine. It's aimed for business makers and opinion leaders who need a wide range of information. It's edgy, insightful and informative.
I don't understand anyone takeing it on a personal level
what or how anyone else feels about a city, or state. Its just rediculous really to get so personally upset at negatives being pointed out. I think Pink did a great job! sounds like a person that checks the facts and has an opinion to me.
Forty minutes to write that? Wow, well, I just got home and am off to bed in about 20 minutes so I will be “quick.” First off, I will say one thing. I don’t believe Phoenix to be crime free or a haven of some sort. What I take issue with concerning posts like yours is the ignorance some have in regards to other cities. Do I think crime in Phoenix is a problem? Well, yes as it is in NYC, L.A. and any other city despite a fall in crime for the largest U.S. cities including Phoenix. What I take issue with is when someone like you (pink velvet) berate Phoenix for its problems and ignore the same issues in your own city and others that are far worse than Phoenix.
As for violent crimes and personal safety, Phoenix metro area is still safer than NYC, L.A., Houston, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc. Yes, there is a lot of auto theft in Phoenix and larceny also is among the highest in Phoenix, but this in NO way relates to how dangerous a city is. Here is the rate of violent crimes for the 5 largest cities; these are per 100,000 people: NEW YORK CITY'S MURDER RATE RISES 8% - New York Post
Murder Rape Robbery Assault
1. New York 6.6 19.2 303.5 387.9
2. Los Angeles 11.8 29.3 303.9 557.4
3. Chicago 9.8 42.6 272.4 408.1
4. Houston 8.4 36.3 372.1 447.5
5. Phoenix 8.2 27.5 177.1 359.4
As I posted before, I would rather someone steal my car then rape, murder, rob or assault me which is more likely to occur in another city. I would much rather someone walk away with the intent to defraud me of property (larceny) than harm me personally, and I would rather be burglarized than harmed as well. No crime is fun, but physical harm and loss of life is much more horrible than a loss of a material possession.
"Arizona had ranked No. 4 in overall vehicle theft in 2005 and 2006 but fell to No. 8 in 2007, according to the National Insurance Crime Bureau." http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...stats0610.html
Since 2008 is not over, 6 months to go, there is no 2008 ranking for crime or auto thefts. Lets wait until Jan. 09, I bet AZ and Phoenix fall further than in 2007.
I will continue with my response but must sleep. Out late tonight. But to pinkvelvet, you say air conditioning use in Arizona is an energy nightmare? Here is just a little bit of information to read up on until I write a little more on the energy usage of regions like the Northeast, Midwest, etc.:
“Since air-conditioning is inherently more efficient than heating (that is, it takes less energy to cool a given space by 1 degree than to heat it by the same amount), the difference has big implications for greenhouse gases.
In the Northeast, a typical house heated by fuel oil emits 13,000 pounds of CO2 annually. Cooling a similar dwelling in Phoenix produces only 900 pounds of CO2 a year. Air-conditioning wins on a national scale as well. Salving the summer swelter in the US produces 110 million metric tons of CO2 annually. Heating the country releases nearly eight times more carbon over the same period. Meanwhile, chilly Northeasterners can at least take heart in one thing: With global warming you can turn the heat down.” http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_02ac
As for violent crimes and personal safety, Phoenix metro area is still safer than NYC, L.A., Houston, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc. Yes, there is a lot of auto theft in Phoenix and larceny also is among the highest in Phoenix, but this in NO way relates to how dangerous a city is. Here is the rate of violent crimes for the 5 largest cities; these are per 100,000 people: NEW YORK CITY'S MURDER RATE RISES 8% - New York Post
Murder Rape Robbery Assault
1. New York 6.6 19.2 303.5 387.9
2. Los Angeles 11.8 29.3 303.9 557.4
3. Chicago 9.8 42.6 272.4 408.1
4. Houston 8.4 36.3 372.1 447.5
5. Phoenix 8.2 27.5 177.1 359.4
As I posted before, I would rather someone steal my car then rape, murder, rob or assault me which is more likely to occur in another city. I would much rather someone walk away with the intent to defraud me of property (larceny) than harm me personally, and I would rather be burglarized than harmed as well.
are you even reading your own "data"? a murder rate of 6.6/100K is lower than one of 8.2/100K, placing NYC 5th out of the largest 5 cities according to the data you provide. thanks for proving PV's point.
maybe you're hung over and susceptible to confusion. that list of 5 cities above is listed in order of total population genius.
all this from someone who thinks blogspot is more credible than the economist?
I would just like to say it again, to both of you, again, that stats don't dictate how safe you will be in any given place. It's your location in that city and who you associate with that will, in the end, dictate how safe you will be. Talk to any police officer, they will agree.
For example: If I lived in a smaller city, with a low crime rate, but was married to a abusive man, my chances of being killed there would be higher than living in a city with a higher crime rate, but in a area of low risk, and no envolvement with a violent enviroment.
Although mute, I still think it's funny to see someone get "called out" on the city-data forum. It's like getting called out for a chess game. The most "computer nerd" fun I have had in awhile. Two "stats" freaks using the keyboard, it's like the pinball wizard. ha ha ha ha All be it useless and unproductive. I am impressed on using a new thread for it, I must say. Let me guess, debate team in high school? If not you both missed your calling. lol Both are intelligent and detailed, I feel overwhelmed by information. It's like a mega brochure.
Kuddos to both of you for the brain power. It makes mine hurt just looking at your detail. I think I'll hop over to the auto thread and talk about cars instead, now talk about pinball wizards, those guys are amazing. Maybe I will learn to fix my own car. ha
Later
Do you both dance? Later you could meet up and have a "dance off" for the final round.
ha ha
are you even reading your own "data"? a murder rate of 6.6/100K is lower than one of 8.2/100K, placing NYC 5th out of the largest 5 cities according to the data you provide. thanks for proving PV's point.
maybe you're hung over and susceptible to confusion. that list of 5 cities above is listed in order of total population genius.
all this from someone who thinks blogspot is more credible than the economist?
Whose the genius! I wasn't just comparing NYC to Phoenix hence the reason I included the five largest cities. I can keep adding cities and the situation actually gets worse in other areas. NYC murder rate might be slightly lower, but they make up for it in assaults and robbery...you know, muggings, hold-ups, purse-snatching, car-jackings, etc. And the other cities far exceed Phoenix in all categories. Are you reading the data? And twiggy, wow, sure I guess it depends on what area of the city you are in, but really, these stats are for metropalitan areas and not for some small town. Here's an interactive map of the most dangerous cities in the country for 2007. Look at where these cities are concentrated. I included the blogspot article because I thought it was interesting to read a perspective from a third party. However, their numbers, as included in their facts are from the FBI. http://www.mibazaar.com/unsafecities/
Thanks for the compliment! All fixed now, and had you looked at the URL, then you should have been able to see the problem and found the correct address yourself. Somehow I get the feeling that you didn't want to read them because they showed what you choose to ignore.No, that would be your credibility considering that you didn't bother trying to fix the URL's yourself, and for also criticising a source. It's common knowledge in forums that people that attack reliable sources, such as The Economist are doing so because they are in denial. If you have any reason why the The Economist should be dismissed and that the article is made-up lies, then please share it.And since then, there has been more imported since then. It's irrelevant anyway as the total amount seized in Arizona in the past 12 months is second only to CA, which is about equal per capita, and that is the bottom line.That doesn't make any sense to me at all. You didn't even check the links, but you already are suggesting that you're going to "have fun" with my post. That is proof that you're in denial, and that you have no intention whatsoever of accepting an alternate view.
I already have my expected responses ready to simply copy and paste with a further list of sources anyway. I didn't share everything now because I knew that you would be attempting to deny and dismiss, so do what you feel you have to do. My response to your expected response is ready to post after you do it.Well let me know where in the New York forum you plan on posting this. I am a realist though, so I don't get defensive as you do, so it won't bother me, and besides it's quite obvious that New York City is definitely overall a better city, despite her flaws.The links do work, but if you wanted them to work, then you should have been able to figure it out for yourself. The links became corrupted during posting, but the problem should have been obvious to anybody.I'm not interested in fighting, but if I was, then you'd definitely win your money! I spent time in Phoenix, and I just like to give a balanced view and I feel confident that the facts and reality speaks for themselves.That's not fair to personally attack a poster. Which part of my post are you actually disputing? I see that you have posted more than I have, so does that automatically mean that you have more time on your hands than I do? You don't know how long it took me to compile that post, and I actually enjoyed using the 40 minutes that it took, and the 40 minutes that it took to compile a response to 'fcorrales80's' expected future response.
Again, which part of my post are you disputing? Which part is out of date? Which part are double-standards? Which part are apples and oranges comparisons? Which part is "either-or" thinking? Which cliches and stereotypes are you referring to exactly?
I definitely agree with this, and I certainly haven't made anything up.
Pls understand I'm not trying to be rude, just curious here. Your posts are thoughtful and articulate and I appreciate that in a post...I'm just confused as to why you find it interesting (I imagine you do find posting about Phx interesting) to bash Phx, to spend a lot of time and enegy gathering information which portrays Phx as a hellhole. I don't like some of the mid-west cities, i.e., Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis...I don't have any desire to go to one of those boards and opine about how wretched they are. I truly do understand you have every right to post your opinion. I just don't quite get it? Would you take a moment and explain. I'm sure others are just as curious. Did you get hurt here or have something really horrendous happen while visiting? Thanks for taking the time if you choose to answer.
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.
I don't understand anyone takeing it on a personal level
All fixed now, and had you looked at the URL, then you should have been able to see the problem and found the correct address yourself. Somehow I get the feeling that you didn't want to read them because they showed what you choose to ignore.No, that would be your credibility considering that you didn't bother trying to fix the URL's yourself, and for also criticising a source. It's common knowledge in forums that people that attack reliable sources, such as The Economist are doing so because they are in denial. If you have any reason why the The Economist should be dismissed and that the article is made-up lies, then please share it.And since then, there has been more imported since then. It's irrelevant anyway as the total amount seized in Arizona in the past 12 months is second only to CA, which is about equal per capita, and that is the bottom line.That doesn't make any sense to me at all. You didn't even check the links, but you already are suggesting that you're going to "have fun" with my post. 
That is proof that you're in denial, and that you have no intention whatsoever of accepting an alternate view.
