Crime in St. Louis dropped last year (stats, murders)

[cab2312]

I mean RISK as good as return........

[aragx6]

I agree. I wouldn't work late hours in Wellston. Very depressed area.

But what's ironic is that Wellston isn't St. Louis, it's a suburb, so this doesn't have anything to do with St. Louis and its crime rate.

[northoceanbeach]

Originally Posted by cab2312

Stlcardsblues....

With all due respect, maybe I didn't clarify enough. I am extremely inexperienced with these types of areas. Also, the job duties included that I stay after hours to check trucks in the facility. Also, when I left, the door was unlocked. I just think that if you saw this facility, you may also think twice against working there. Also, a drug addict doesn't need you to join them in doing crack, heroin, whatever to see that your facility has money and/or assets to rob from. If the pay was better, I really don't know. Maybe a combination of greed and wanting to build a life would make me somehow change my mind. But as every good businessman knows, if the return isn't as good as the return, don't do it.

If you'll read the rest of this topic you'll see that stlblues1969 feels that the ONLY crime in this fine city is perpetrated on one drug addict by another drug addict. And of course the statistics are way off and skewed and it's really a nice place to take your girlfriend on a walk as long as it's before 12.

Next time I visit I'll go to the north side and stroll around at 11.30 not looking for drugs and it will be alot of fun.

It's lucky for all of you to live in a city where there are no innocent victims ever. The couple times I visited I felt quite nervous. I don't think you should have to walk around being on guard all the time. Last night here, I walked along the beach at night and took a swim and lay there for a little while looking at the stars. Right there in the heart of the city. I wasn't afraid. If you were doing the same thing at the same time in front of st. louis' downtown on the mississippi, not only would it not be safe, but the water is too polluted to swim in.

I'm interested in America and all it's cities, good and bad. You've just got to be objective when you look at them. This "homer" mindset where you live in the best damn place, no matter where it is is unfair. There are good and bad places everywhere. And it's just a plain fact that St. Louis is one of the most dangerous cities in this country. Wherever you set the city limits, the central core of the city is rotten. It needs to be fixed, not defended.

[aragx6]

Shoo troll, don't bother me.

[ucfjtm]

Originally Posted by northoceanbeach

Last night here, I walked along the beach at night and took a swim and lay there for a little while looking at the stars. Right there in the heart of the city. I wasn't afraid. If you were doing the same thing at the same time in front of st. louis' downtown on the mississippi, not only would it not be safe, but the water is too polluted to swim in.

I'm interested in America and all it's cities, good and bad. You've just got to be objective when you look at them. This "homer" mindset where you live in the best damn place, no matter where it is is unfair. There are good and bad places everywhere. And it's just a plain fact that St. Louis is one of the most dangerous cities in this country. Wherever you set the city limits, the central core of the city is rotten. It needs to be fixed, not defended.

Please. You're comparing an obviously safe area of Honolulu with St. Louis as a whole. Most of the murders in STL occur in areas that visitors and many middle class citizens won't be walking around anyway:
STLtoday - STLtoday - MultiMedia - St. Louis homicides: 2005-08 (http://www.stltoday.com/mds/news/html/1576 - broken link)
North of Delmar, and in certain sections around east Chippewa and east of South Grand. Over the last 4 years, there are only a small number of murders in places a visitor or middle class resident would be - Washington St, CWE, Clayton, U. City, Dogtown, Maplewood, Shaw, The Hill, Tower Grove, etc. Like *all* major cities, the crime is mostly isolated to the poorer neighborhoods.. take Orlando for example:
Orlando-Area Murder Map 2008 -- OrlandoSentinel.com
I'd bet that if you can find a murder map of Honolulu, it'd be mostly confined to the poorer neighborhoods. Being Honolulu and the associated cost of living in much of the nicer parts of the city, the few poorer neighborhoods will be far from those nice beaches you're walking on at night. Rural poorer neighborhoods have far less crime than urban poorer neighborhoods. You're comparing apples to oranges. Try apples to apples by comparing the visitor areas and middle class areas of major cities and see what you find. Your comparison of Honolulu to STL as a whole is flawed. I've been to Honolulu, but I don't know it well enough to make a comparison. A more appropriate comparison would be to view downtown STL to north STL like comparing south Manhattan to the Bronx. If you want to start making fair comparisons, try it with cities that have a similar cost of living. There's a reason why crime is definitely going to be lower in Hawaii - the cost of living keeps the poorer neighborhoods to a minimum.

Yes, the crime issue in the poorer neighborhoods of STL needs to be fixed, but those are areas that most of us wouldn't have any business being in anyway. Saying you're not safe in *historically safe* areas is just being ignorant to the truths of a city. As you said, you've got to be objective when you look at them.

[northoceanbeach]

Originally Posted by ucfjtm

Please. You're comparing an obviously safe area of Honolulu with St. Louis as a whole. Most of the murders in STL occur in areas that visitors and many middle class citizens won't be walking around anyway: But you have a higher proportion of these poor, crime ridden areas. The areas you describe are like half the area of the city. And don't forget your neighbour E. STL It's one of the worst parts of the entire western world. How can you argue St louis is safe when one of the worst places is within a mile of downtown. Where's Honolulu's E. STL? It doesn't have one. Where's Hon's north side. Doesn't have one.
STLtoday - STLtoday - MultiMedia - St. Louis homicides: 2005-08 (http://www.stltoday.com/mds/news/html/1576 - broken link)
North of Delmar, and in certain sections around east Chippewa and east of South Grand. Over the last 4 years, there are only a small number of murders in places a visitor or middle class resident would be - Washington St, CWE, Clayton, U. City, Dogtown, Maplewood, Shaw, The Hill, Tower Grove, etc. Like *all* major cities, the crime is mostly isolated to the poorer neighborhoods.. take Orlando for example: I'm not taking Orlando because I'm comparing a low crime city.
Orlando-Area Murder Map 2008 -- OrlandoSentinel.com
I'd bet that if you can find a murder map of Honolulu, it'd be mostly confined to the poorer neighborhoods. But my point is there are less poorer neighborhoods and less crime in general because it's a thriving city with alot of police, respectful citizens and much much pride. We don't LET it become St. Louis, the MAJORITY of people here are glad they're here and keep it up. Even the poor areas aren't ghettos' like STL Because those people too have civic pride. Being Honolulu and the associated cost of living in much of the nicer parts of the city, the few poorer neighborhoods will be far from those nice beaches you're walking on at night. The beach I'm walking on at night is Waikiki, it's famous, and people come here for a reason, and they don't come to stroll the Mississippi, because once you leave the arch it's run down and you've spent 50 years pumping your raw sewage into the water. Rural poorer neighborhoods have far less crime than urban poorer neighborhoods. There are no rural areas on Oahu. You're comparing apples to oranges. Try apples to apples by comparing the visitor areas and middle class areas of major cities and see what you find. Your comparison of Honolulu to STL as a whole is flawed. I've been to Honolulu, but I don't know it well enough to make a comparison. A more appropriate comparison would be to view downtown STL to north STL like comparing south Manhattan to the Bronx. If you want to start making fair comparisons, try it with cities that have a similar cost of living. I think it's fair to campare cities of similar size. I live in a nice one, I picked it because it's nice. I wasn't born here. If I only compared to other inexpensive cities it wouldn't make any sense because cities are cheap because there are no jobs and noone wants to live there. So I would be comparing apples to apples yes, but what's the point in that. They are both bad, and both declining and both the same. There's a reason why crime is definitely going to be lower in Hawaii - the cost of living keeps the poorer neighborhoods to a minimum. The cost of living keeps poor people poorer and harder working.

Yes, the crime issue in the poorer neighborhoods of STL needs to be fixed, but those are areas that most of us wouldn't have any business being in anyway. Saying you're not safe in *historically safe* areas is just being ignorant to the truths of a city. As you said, you've got to be objective when you look at them.

I'm not a troll. Just because I have a different opinion. That's the whole point of a forum. To get different perspectives. I think the reason no one agrees with me is because everyone have city pride and you're all the holdouts still in STL or you've left but time has either made the city worse or softened your memory to the point nostalgia has replaced logic. I know the feeling. I often remember the best parts of places I have lived.

[ucfjtm]

Originally Posted by northoceanbeach

I'm not a troll. Just because I have a different opinion. That's the whole point of a forum. To get different perspectives. I think the reason no one agrees with me is because everyone have city pride and you're all the holdouts still in STL or you've left but time has either made the city worse or softened your memory to the point nostalgia has replaced logic. I know the feeling. I often remember the best parts of places I have lived.

For me, it's not about city pride. I lived there for two years when I was a kid, but I've lived in a lot of places. I know the logic - I visit all the time and I have family who moved there after college and had never lived there before. They love the family-oriented lifestyle of the city and people in the Midwest. I'm moving up there from "beautiful" Florida because STL has more to offer me than many other cities in the US. Just because you don't think it's an ideal place to live or visit doesn't mean the places the rest of us visit in the city are "dangerous." I keep to Washington Ave, the Landing, and the stadiums downtown. I keep to Forest Park, CWE, the Loop, Tower Grove, The Hill, and the rest of the nice neighborhoods and I have never felt "unsafe" or that I "need to watch my back" as I walk around in the evenings. I don't stay out past 2am, but I don't feel like I have to be overly cautious walking Washington or CWE around midnight. I'm comfortable with where I care to visit in STL as I am walking much of Manhattan. Would I go walking North STL city? No more than I would walk most of the Bronx. I don't have a reason to, so what's the point of arguing "danger" for areas that we'll never visit?

[ucfjtm]

Originally Posted by northoceanbeach

But you have a higher proportion of these poor, crime ridden areas. The areas you describe are like half the area of the city. And don't forget your neighbour E. STL It's one of the worst parts of the entire western world. How can you argue St louis is safe when one of the worst places is within a mile of downtown. Where's Honolulu's E. STL? It doesn't have one. Where's Hon's north side. Doesn't have one.

Hawaii's demographics are vastly different from the rest of the US, so it's always going to be an apples to oranges comparison. I was referring to comparing another city (Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Oakland/SF, Seattle, Chicago, Miami, etc) to STL. They ALL have poorer areas, and frequently they're near the "main" downtown area. That's a part of the 200+ year history of most of these cities. Honolulu hasn't been a major city for very long, and the native population doesn't have the inherent social problems of the urban continental US cities. Why compare waterfronts? ANY river won't be as nice as most oceans, especially when you consider the closest major city to Hawaii is a thousand miles away. Have you tried swimming in the Hudson river in NYC? How about the Missouri river in Kansas City? And anywhere in the Chesapeake Bay? Ohio River in Cincinnati? All of these bodies of water have pollution too bad to enjoy, and a lot of it is due to farm runoff and pollution from cities upstream. It's not St. Louis' fault that it's just downstream of the intersection of the two largest rivers in the US - Missouri and Mississippi, both having quite a few major cities (Omaha, Kansas City, Minneapolis/St. Paul) and millions of acres of farm runoff. Have you looked at the Mississippi at New Orleans?!

Have you ever taken a float trip down the Meramec River just 45 minutes southwest of STL? It's beautifully clean water with amazing scenery of rock cliffs and sand bars in the middle of a small mountain forest..

Originally Posted by northoceanbeach

I'm not taking Orlando because I'm comparing a low crime city.

Then compare STL to any other city with similar social history - Chicago, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Detroit, etc.

Originally Posted by northoceanbeach

But my point is there are less poorer neighborhoods and less crime in general because it's a thriving city with alot of police, respectful citizens and much much pride. We don't LET it become St. Louis, the MAJORITY of people here are glad they're here and keep it up. Even the poor areas aren't ghettos' like STL Because those people too have civic pride.

You never have to worry about it becoming STL, but it has nothing to do with police and pride. Hawaii never had the problems associated with the social history of any major eastern US city. Geographic isolation helps immensely. Also, you have a MASSIVE influx of tourism money to help you out simply due to a habitat that makes it one of the top vacation sites in the country.

Originally Posted by northoceanbeach

The beach I'm walking on at night is Waikiki, it's famous, and people come here for a reason, and they don't come to stroll the Mississippi, because once you leave the arch it's run down and you've spent 50 years pumping your raw sewage into the water.

I've been to Waikiki, and it's quite nice. It didn't compare to Penang in Malaysia, but it's more convenient. People don't stroll the Mississippi because water isn't why people come to STL. Again, you can't blame the water quality of the Mississippi on St. Louis - it's bad on both tributaries before it comes near STL. Off the top of my head, I can't think of ANY major US city where people come for a large river. People go on camping/float trips to the Meramec National Forest & Meramec River to see the beauty of nature instead.

Originally Posted by northoceanbeach

I live in a nice one, I picked it because it's nice. I wasn't born here. If I only compared to other inexpensive cities it wouldn't make any sense because cities are cheap because there are no jobs and noone wants to live there. So I would be comparing apples to apples yes, but what's the point in that. They are both bad, and both declining and both the same.

There's a word for this statement, and it's called elitist. It's also simply untrue. Many US cities similar to St. Louis, and St. Louis itself, are actually reversing the decline, and have been for a few years now. I missed two summers of vacations to STL, and when I came back this summer, I was stunned at the improvements. Many people consider Miami to be a great destination, but I have a lot more jobs available in my field (software engineering) in St. Louis with equal or better salaries. To say there aren't any jobs isn't true as well.

Originally Posted by northoceanbeach

The cost of living keeps poor people poorer and harder working.

Again, the social history aspect of Hawaii is simply different than the rest of the country. The poor in Hawaii are more like the poor in rural small towns across the US than urban eastern cities. Hard working, respectful, and proud people - not the sort who resort to violence and crime as a result of social injustice. Again, try an apples to apples comparison of St. Louis to another major continental US city. There are plenty of aspects of Hawaii that are simply not worth living there for many people, and I'm not even talking about the cost of living differences.

[skipcromer]

Originally Posted by northoceanbeach

I'm not a troll. Just because I have a different opinion. That's the whole point of a forum. To get different perspectives. I think the reason no one agrees with me is because everyone have city pride and you're all the holdouts still in STL or you've left but time has either made the city worse or softened your memory to the point nostalgia has replaced logic. I know the feeling. I often remember the best parts of places I have lived.

I think nobody agrees with you because your opinion is full of ignorance. You spent one day riding your bike around St. Louis and now trump yourself as an expert on St. Louis crime.

[ShadowCaver]

friendly reminder to keep the debate and discussions civil.

thanks