Comparing Chicago and NYC as they presently are, why has NYC become a much safer city than it was while Chicago hasn't? (radical, violent crime)

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by compactspace

NOLA is right in this case. Economics, demographics, government priorities and corruption. NY is a exceptional case in the US in pretty much every regard.

I just hope and pray that Chi will start getting it together.

The thing is that the crime has been going down (this year it's up, for the most part, although across the nation it is up in many cities which is strange) for quite awhile just like most places. The trend is most definitely downward in every regard and even compared to 10 or 12 years ago it is a good deal safer statistically. Unemployment is down a lot too in the last two years and is better than LA and not much worse than NYC at this very moment. The last official unemployment percentage (not seasonally adjusted) was for August. LA was at 7.4%, Chicago was at 6.4% and NYC was at 5.3%. August of 2013 for Chicago was over 10%, so it's come down almost 4% in two years which is great progress. SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

[compactspace]

Originally Posted by marothisu

The thing is that the crime has been going down (this year it's up, for the most part, although across the nation it is up in many cities which is strange) for quite awhile just like most places. The trend is most definitely downward in every regard and even compared to 10 or 12 years ago it is a good deal safer statistically. Unemployment is down a lot too in the last two years and is better than LA and not much worse than NYC at this very moment. The last official unemployment percentage (not seasonally adjusted) was for August. LA was at 7.4%, Chicago was at 6.4% and NYC was at 5.3%. August of 2013 for Chicago was over 10%, so it's come down almost 4% in two years which is great progress. SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Undoubtedly. I was referring to the city government in general, which has a way to go.

[personone]

Originally Posted by UsAll

So the leadership of Chicago over the many past decades doesn't have the will for making reducing crime the #1 priority over all other priorities? They don't think it is warranting of such investment of attention and energy? Is it because, as some have asserted, the violent crime is, for the most part (or at least purportedly) confined to certain neighborhoods which consist primarlly of people-of-color and hence the "powers-that-be" don't care as much as long as the patterns and pervasiveness of violent crime doesn't spread out at-large to the entire city at-large?

I've only lived in Chicago for a little over 3 years now (Rahm Emanuel era), but no, to answer your question, I don't think that reducing crime is the #1 priority over all others by leadership. There's been tons of nice commercial development around downtown and other parts of the city since I've lived here; but every weekend since I've lived here, especially in the summer months, you hear the same outrageously high crime statistics. Many times it's the same neighborhoods where the crime is occurring. So I can't say that reducing crime is the leadership's #1 priority over all others. Of course as others have mentioned, it's a complex issue that involves economics, demographics, politics, etc.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by existant

I don't know but I've wondered if it's because NY state and particularly NYC had an atypically serious and early campaign to combat childhood lead exposure. They passed earlier and more restrictive laws on both lead pain and leaded gasoline. The lead exposure fell more significantly and more quickly than other major cities. Crime fell more significantly and more quickly than other major cities. NYC continued to push where other cities haven't. The demand for housing in NYC is significantly higher too which reduces the portion of residents in bad housing conditions that have higher environmental health hazards.

Look at the recent data:





As you can see, Cook County is drastically higher in childhood lead exposure when compared to each of the five boroughs.

You can also see the same pattern with other cities that haven't gotten the lead out. The bad neighborhoods of Philly and Baltimore aren't much better than 25 years ago, aren't they? Similarly old decrepit housing stocks with high levels of lead paint dust in their bad neighborhoods.

I don't know if NYC has active coal power plants but Pilsen has been blanketed with lead for decades from the now defunct coal plant there, so it's not just leaded paint dust that has caused problems for children but also lead in the air from coal power and lead on the ground from past leaded gasoline.

It's a fact that children with elevated lead exposure are more likely to have issues with impulse control and violence when they're older. We know that childhood lead exposure is significantly associated with propensity to violence on an individual level, and we know how the average exposures have changed over time in various places. And it ties together in the USA and other nations in a way that raises the strong possibility that childhood lead exposure can have a significant impact on crime rates, if following the patterns of when each country had exposure increases or reductions and the correlations with their crime rates. Obviously there are other factors too, but this *might* be a serious one.

I also wonder about how significantly NYC's demographics have changed, and how big of a factor that is. Just because a neighborhood is still 90% black in NYC doesn't mean it's the same poor underclass as 30 years ago. Some of the poorest native born blacks have been priced out and black immigrants (who have lower crime rates) have taken their place. I don't know how big of a factor that is though.

NYC is considered by some to fudge their crime data to a very strong degree as well, although I don't know if they can avoid counting homicides, and those have fallen very sharply.

Links: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...osure+violence
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?s...exposure+crime
CDC - Lead - Childhood Lead Poisoning Data, Statistics, and Surveillance

C'mon. What's next on the excuse list? Legalized abortions were considered to have reduced crime now lead paint, prohibited in 1978, is a cause of violent crime. What was the reason for the violent crime explosion in the 1960s?

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by existant

I don't know but I've wondered if it's because NY state and particularly NYC had an atypically serious and early campaign to combat childhood lead exposure. They passed earlier and more restrictive laws on both lead pain and leaded gasoline. The lead exposure fell more significantly and more quickly than other major cities. Crime fell more significantly and more quickly than other major cities. NYC continued to push where other cities haven't. The demand for housing in NYC is significantly higher too which reduces the portion of residents in bad housing conditions that have higher environmental health hazards.

Look at the recent data:





As you can see, Cook County is drastically higher in childhood lead exposure when compared to each of the five boroughs.

You can also see the same pattern with other cities that haven't gotten the lead out. The bad neighborhoods of Philly and Baltimore aren't much better than 25 years ago, aren't they? Similarly old decrepit housing stocks with high levels of lead paint dust in their bad neighborhoods.

I don't know if NYC has active coal power plants but Pilsen has been blanketed with lead for decades from the now defunct coal plant there, so it's not just leaded paint dust that has caused problems for children but also lead in the air from coal power and lead on the ground from past leaded gasoline.

It's a fact that children with elevated lead exposure are more likely to have issues with impulse control and violence when they're older. We know that childhood lead exposure is significantly associated with propensity to violence on an individual level, and we know how the average exposures have changed over time in various places. And it ties together in the USA and other nations in a way that raises the strong possibility that childhood lead exposure can have a significant impact on crime rates, if following the patterns of when each country had exposure increases or reductions and the correlations with their crime rates. Obviously there are other factors too, but this *might* be a serious one.

I also wonder about how significantly NYC's demographics have changed, and how big of a factor that is. Just because a neighborhood is still 90% black in NYC doesn't mean it's the same poor underclass as 30 years ago. Some of the poorest native born blacks have been priced out and black immigrants (who have lower crime rates) have taken their place. I don't know how big of a factor that is though.

NYC is considered by some to fudge their crime data to a very strong degree as well, although I don't know if they can avoid counting homicides, and those have fallen very sharply.

Links: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...osure+violence
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?s...exposure+crime
CDC - Lead - Childhood Lead Poisoning Data, Statistics, and Surveillance

NYC is providing more economic opportunities for residents and immigrants. Police tactics such as quality of life, stop and frisk and concentrating on certain areas helped, or did, until the DeBlasio administration and the current anti-police sentiment.

[ParaguaneroSwag]

NYC hasn't only become a safer city than it was, it has become one of the safest major cities in the US. Safer than Chicago is right now. As well as Houston, Miami, Los Angeles. Take a look at the murder rates.

(Per 100,000)
NYC: 5.61
Chicago: 16.1
Houston: 12.6
Miami: 14.1
Los Angeles: 8.11

San Francisco's are actually relatively low despite popular belief

[emathias]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

NYC hasn't only become a safer city than it was, it has become one of the safest major cities in the US. Safer than Chicago is right now. As well as Houston, Miami, Los Angeles. Take a look at the murder rates.

(Per 100,000)
NYC: 5.61
Chicago: 16.1
Houston: 12.6
Miami: 14.1
Los Angeles: 8.11

San Francisco's are actually relatively low despite popular belief

Houston's rate is deceptive considering how their political boundaries are set. Houston city comprises 35.4% of their metro area. Chicago city comprises 28.6% of its metro area. What this means is that Houston incorporates more suburban-type areas than Chicago. If you compare total metro area murder rates, Chicago is safer than Houston. In fact, for whole metro area, Chicagoland is one of the safest large city areas in the nation

[LeotheOrangeCat]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Actually Chicago is a lot safer today than it was in the 80s and 90s, but NYC progressed more in that regard. Saying that Chicago is not much safer statistically than it was even 15 years go is flat out factually wrong. There were 943 homicides in 1992 alone. In 2014 there were 415. It's not even close to what it used to be. If you look at every single category, it's all down drastically since what it used to be.

yeah but the homicide rate has been about the same since 2004; there was a big reduction before that but no progress since

[Larry Siegel]

Good government? Giuliani and Bloomberg actually tried to enforce the laws. The Daley administration(s) benefited from aging and depopulation of the ghettoes, but if they followed the New York model a lot of lives would have been saved.

Rahm seems like a generally good mayor but he does not seem to have the gumption to stand up to the anti-police crowd.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by TBideon

The reason New York and LA's crime numbers have fallen whereas Chicago has gone up is they're extremely expensive, desirable, cosmopolitan international cities with unique industry near-monopolies (Wall Street and Hollywood).

Chicago is far more affordable (in part because we don't have a single major industry that sets us apart), which means low income people, including criminals, aren't getting out-priced.

That doesn't make much sense, as poverty rates in the NYC area are similar to the Chicago area, and poverty rates in LA are actually higher than the Chicago area. And relative affordability (% of income going to housing costs) is about the same in NYC and Chicago (though higher in LA).

And the Bronx had the biggest crime rate decline. The Bronx has a much lower crime rate than Chicago, yet is hardly some super-desirable yuppie zone. People aren't getting gentrified out of the Bronx, at least until very recently, yet crime levels had massive drops.

Originally Posted by TBideon

There are plenty of other factors too - taxes, weather, political corruption, perception and reputation (national news is disproportionately negative with Chicago than NY and LA), location, etc.

It isn't clear to me how this would affect crime. Why would someone murder someone else because of national news or taxes or weather? And how did these things change in the last 15 years or so? I'm pretty sure the weather and taxes and perception aren't that different than in the past.