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 think the point is that living in a high crime area because crime is to be 'expected' or that it should be 'tolerable' seems as HurricaneDC put it, defeatist. I think the county, the local community and the cities that have high crime get a clear message when people do not want to move there. That in itself seems to invoke change, which is one of the reason why you see gentrification working. If people always thought that being in an area of high crime is tolerable then what would be that areas incentive to improve the community? People will continue to move there, so why change?
One thing I've learned about PG County, especially in the past few years is that we have the resources to prevent a lot of our problems, but we lack the leadership to properly implement feasible solutions. People simply do not demand more.
And I guess the biggest thing to take away from all of this is that we all have some level of tolerance. If we were intolerable to every thing that we as individuals perceived to being wrong or out of place, this world would be worse off than it is. At some point, people in the south had to tolerate the freedom of slaves. It's all about personal beliefs, preferences, and perception. I can't call someone a coward if they aren't up in arms about the car that gotten broken into across town. I think there is confusion between apathy and tolerance. Some people just don't care what goes on around them. Others care, but have a level of tolerance that doesn't cause them to uproot themselves and move across the country for their own perceived better quality of life. Ask those who live in Georgetown will they sell their million dollar homes and move to VA because of the few burglaries and muggings that happen in Georgetown every year. They would probably agree that they have a certain level of tolerance for those crimes that keeps them where they are. It doesn't mean they are apathetic. It just means that those crimes haven't turned their world upside-down. They aren't cowards. They are prudent and have a big does of realism that there will be crime wherever they live, even in the most exclusive and "safest" neighborhoods. And regardless of the crime in Georgetown, people still choose to live there because they accept the level of risk in doing so.
The same can be said about people who live in higher crime areas. They are willing to accept the higher level of risk based on a number of things. Maybe they live in the home they grew up in. Perhaps they love where they live and find that by being their they can make a difference. By being there, they have accepted a certain level of risk that they can tolerate. It doesn't mean they are apathetic, they could be part of their neighborhood watch for all we know. What about the white people that choose to live in known high crime areas like those along Rhode Island Avenue? They decided they could accept the higher level of risk by living there. They feel the benefit of where they choose to live outweighs the crime in that area.
Even in a world with zero tolerance for crime, crime still exists. And I think people realize this. I disagree that people don't demand more. My civic association is very active and proactive concerning crime in our neighborhood. And as active as we are, there is still crime. But crime is not bad enough for us all to put our houses up for sale and relocate. the reason people aren't walking around with sticks and guns is because the level of crime is not at a point that requires the national guard. I'm not sure how that can be perceived as being a coward or apathetic.
Zero tolerance to me, and from what I can tell how some people in this discussion feel, means that a person can not live or be around any form of crime and that they pick up and move to where they perceive is a safer place to live. That's not a practical or realistic way to live for many. But hey, to each his own.
I was reading an article in the NY Times about the South Side of Chicago and how although crime is down citywide in certain neighborhoods (predominantly black ones) crime is stubbornly high. For the family the article featured it has severly curtailed the family's life. Yet when the police instituted more agrressive policing tactics they and the community complained.
Now I'm not advocating for some type of police state but I was baffled as to how do these people think the police are going to be able to tackle crime? Or if they even could?
This is what I mean by tolerance for crime. Certainly folks complain and or are exasperated by crime in the black community but I don't believe the community is willing to confront it in a serious way.
IMHO, I think that black community wants to confront crime, but there are several intervening (and sometimes conflicting) factors (which I am not making a judgment about either way):
1. Fear of police profiling
2. Fear of police brutality
3. Fear of witness and resident intimidation (related to a "no snitching" code, which to me is not really an honor code but a staying the hell alive code)
4. Fear of family members being caught up in and "victimized" by the "aggressive policing tactics."
The issue of tackling crime in poor black areas is complex and historically has been complex. Some people are socialized to be tolerant and resigned to certain situations, generation after generation. It's like learned helplessness -- all about survival but not extending that to living well. How do you change this generational socialization? I am not sure, but the solutions won't be easy or quick.
And I guess the biggest thing to take away from all of this is that we all have some level of tolerance. If we were intolerable to every thing that we as individuals perceived to being wrong or out of place, this world would be worse off than it is. At some point, people in the south had to tolerate the freedom of slaves. It's all about personal beliefs, preferences, and perception. I can't call someone a coward if they aren't up in arms about the car that gotten broken into across town. I think there is confusion between apathy and tolerance. Some people just don't care what goes on around them. Others care, but have a level of tolerance that doesn't cause them to uproot themselves and move across the country for their own perceived better quality of life. Ask those who live in Georgetown will they sell their million dollar homes and move to VA because of the few burglaries and muggings that happen in Georgetown every year. They would probably agree that they have a certain level of tolerance for those crimes that keeps them where they are. It doesn't mean they are apathetic. It just means that those crimes haven't turned their world upside-down. They aren't cowards. They are prudent and have a big does of realism that there will be crime wherever they live, even in the most exclusive and "safest" neighborhoods. And regardless of the crime in Georgetown, people still choose to live there because they accept the level of risk in doing so.
Well there is a distinct difference between a little bit of crime in Georgetown, versus repeated crime in Capitol Heights, for example. I don't expect people to get up and move out of Georgetown yet, because the crime hasn't become insurmountable, yet. If Georgetown has consistently bad crime, let's see what those people in the million-dollar homes do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
The same can be said about people who live in higher crime areas. They are willing to accept the higher level of risk based on a number of things. Maybe they live in the home they grew up in. Perhaps they love where they live and find that by being their they can make a difference. By being there, they have accepted a certain level of risk that they can tolerate. It doesn't mean they are apathetic, they could be part of their neighborhood watch for all we know. What about the white people that choose to live in known high crime areas like those along Rhode Island Avenue? They decided they could accept the higher level of risk by living there. They feel the benefit of where they choose to live outweighs the crime in that area.
Some of those areas have traditionally had a sizable white population. There are some parts of PG where the white people who have lived here for generations refuse to leave. Everybody has their reasoning for staying in those places. Interesting enough, those areas at least have some things that offset high crime (access to public transportation, development, unique housing stock), but in general there is a overwhelming over tolerance, in my opinion, of crime and given what you can get in other areas, why would most tolerate it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
Even in a world with zero tolerance for crime, crime still exists. And I think people realize this. I disagree that people don't demand more. My civic association is very active and proactive concerning crime in our neighborhood. And as active as we are, there is still crime. But crime is not bad enough for us all to put our houses up for sale and relocate. the reason people aren't walking around with sticks and guns is because the level of crime is not at a point that requires the national guard. I'm not sure how that can be perceived as being a coward or apathetic.
That's your civic association but can you say that most of Adelphi is proactive? Fighting crime takes much more than a group of people. There are people in my community that try to fight crime too, but there are a lot who do not care. I'm not talking about a select few, I'm talking about the pulse of the people in this county.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
Zero tolerance to me, and from what I can tell how some people in this discussion feel, means that a person can not live or be around any form of crime and that they pick up and move to where they perceive is a safer place to live. That's not a practical or realistic way to live for many. But hey, to each his own.
That's not it. It just comes to a certain point where you get sick of it. I mean I don't believe we have white flight strictly because all these white people are racist. There are some that just get tired of the crime that may come to their towns. Some black people who are doing the same thing with neighborhoods that get even more black people. You're taking the stance to the extreme. No one is saying that crime should not happen, but when there is an overall complacency of crime that is happening, you get sick of it. You said Adelphi had 3 or 4 murders so far this year, why is that okay? Do you feel as though your city is doing enough? Most people I know would not want to live near a place like that.
IMHO, I think that black community wants to confront crime, but there are several intervening (and sometimes conflicting) factors (which I am not making a judgment about either way):
1. Fear of police profiling
2. Fear of police brutality
3. Fear of witness and resident intimidation (related to a "no snitching" code, which to me is not really an honor code but a staying the hell alive code)
4. Fear of family members being caught up in and "victimized" by the "aggressive policing tactics."
The issue of tackling crime in poor black areas is complex and historically has been complex. Some people are socialized to be tolerant and resigned to certain situations, generation after generation. It's like learned helplessness -- all about survival but not extending that to living well. How do you change this generational socialization? I am not sure, but the solutions won't be easy or quick.
IMHO, I think that black community wants to confront crime, but there are several intervening (and sometimes conflicting) factors (which I am not making a judgment about either way):
1. Fear of police profiling
2. Fear of police brutality
3. Fear of witness and resident intimidation (related to a "no snitching" code, which to me is not really an honor code but a staying the hell alive code)
4. Fear of family members being caught up in and "victimized" by the "aggressive policing tactics."
The issue of tackling crime in poor black areas is complex and historically has been complex. Some people are socialized to be tolerant and resigned to certain situations, generation after generation. It's like learned helplessness -- all about survival but not extending that to living well. How do you change this generational socialization? I am not sure, but the solutions won't be easy or quick.
IMHO, I think that black community wants to confront crime, but there are several intervening (and sometimes conflicting) factors (which I am not making a judgment about either way):
1. Fear of police profiling
2. Fear of police brutality
3. Fear of witness and resident intimidation (related to a "no snitching" code, which to me is not really an honor code but a staying the hell alive code)
4. Fear of family members being caught up in and "victimized" by the "aggressive policing tactics."
The issue of tackling crime in poor black areas is complex and historically has been complex. Some people are socialized to be tolerant and resigned to certain situations, generation after generation. It's like learned helplessness -- all about survival but not extending that to living well. How do you change this generational socialization? I am not sure, but the solutions won't be easy or quick.
Very well said. These are very real and arguably valid reasons. These people are the disenfranchised who feel that they don't have a voice even if they did complain and engage the local authorities. We can blame black people all day, but we also have to look at the systemic problems in law enforcement and how they perceive the people that live in these neighborhoods. For some people, they feel more comfortable talking with a black cop then a white one. There is large distrust for authority and to a small extent, it can be justified. We see examples of profiling and harsher treatment all the time. For some, they feel that the police see guilty first, innocent later. And for some, innocent later is after a few years in jail.
So, some may think the black community is apathetic about crime, but I say that they would prefer to live in safety as anyone would. Unfortunately, the poorest of them don't have the means to relocate. And let's be real, the politicians are VERY aware of crime. We have to ask what are THEY doing about it? Are they organizing the residents? Are they coming up with ideas that bring people together in neighborhoods and fostering a sense of community? We can just blame the residence. The problems go up the chain.
Well there is a distinct difference between a little bit of crime in Georgetown, versus repeated crime in Capitol Heights, for example. I don't expect people to get up and move out of Georgetown yet, because the crime hasn't become insurmountable, yet. If Georgetown has consistently bad crime, let's see what those people in the million-dollar homes do.
So why is any other neighborhood different? The crime apparently isn't the issue. How can you put a limit on crime and how people react? Some would say those who tolerate less crime are punks who live in fear 24/7. Why is someone else considered less tolerable because they live in an area with more crime? Everyone has their own level of tolerance. It is unfair to say that because their level of tolerance is higher than yours that they are somehow wrong or apathetic to what's going on around them.
Quote:
Some of those areas have traditionally had a sizable white population. There are some parts of PG where the white people who have lived here for generations refuse to leave. Everybody has their reasoning for staying in those places. Interesting enough, those areas at least have some things that offset high crime (access to public transportation, development, unique housing stock), but in general there is a overwhelming over tolerance, in my opinion, of crime and given what you can get in other areas, why would most tolerate it?
Get what in other areas? Less house for your money? More traffic? Less diversity? More risk of profiling from the local police because you look "out of place?" Why should someone have to move because there is crime in their area? Let's be real, the more "safe" areas have the biggest barriers to new residents with lower incomes. Let's not even talk about Homeowners Associations and fees, etc.
Quote:
That's your civic association but can you say that most of Adelphi is proactive? Fighting crime takes much more than a group of people. There are people in my community that try to fight crime too, but there are a lot who do not care. I'm not talking about a select few, I'm talking about the pulse of the people in this county.
You just described every community in America. There are always a select few who care more than the majority.
Quote:
No one is saying that crime should not happen, but when there is an overall complacency of crime that is happening, you get sick of it. You said Adelphi had 3 or 4 murders so far this year, why is that okay? Do you feel as though your city is doing enough? Most people I know would not want to live near a place like that.
Who said four murders is okay? Again, what do you want me to do? Hold a press conference? I mean what do we have a police force for? I think you are blaming the wrong people. I think you need to take a look at your politicians and your police department. They have a direct impact on crime levels in the neighborhood. All I can do is vote and write to my local politicians. My taxes pay for them to do their job. That job is to keep me and my family and the broader community safe. If they aren't doing their job, then I have the power of my vote and my pen. Outside of that, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to convey low tolerance. And for most of us, moving is not an option. Especially when two people have jobs in the area. This is not an economy where people can pick up and find jobs elsewhere. I like where I live. Yes, there is crime all around me. But until otherwise convinced that the benefits of staying where I am don't outweigh the threat to my family's lives, I'll stay put for now and do what I can to make my neighborhood a better place to live.
So why is any other neighborhood different? The crime apparently isn't the issue. How can you put a limit on crime and how people react? Some would say those who tolerate less crime are punks who live in fear 24/7. Why is someone else considered less tolerable because they live in an area with more crime? Everyone has their own level of tolerance. It is unfair to say that because their level of tolerance is higher than yours that they are somehow wrong or apathetic to what's going on around them.
I don't think you're understanding my point. There is no limit, but there comes a certain point when you wonder how reasonable it is to consider if crime has gotten out of control. Four murders in the same area , would be a red flag for most, including myself. There's a certain point where it appears that crime has gotten out of control. There is no way of quantifying it, it's just a matter of opinion. I mean sometimes you have to ask yourself, is it a trend, is it just an anomaly, or is this a repetitive thing. I do however believe that people tend to make excuses. Well there is a little bit of crime, but we are about to get that new Whole Foods so I'm good. I don't necessarily believe that people are wrong for being more tolerant than me, but I do question what people value when they make excuses. Just look at the facts. If your community has high crime, don't tell me that crime happens everywhere. That maybe true, but if it's happening more in your area (not talking about you, but speaking in general) then deal with that fact. Saying things like crime happens everywhere is the type of attitude that comes from people who become tolerant, defensive and look for excuses for their communities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
Get what in other areas? Less house for your money? More traffic? Less diversity? More risk of profiling from the local police because you look "out of place?" Why should someone have to move because there is crime in their area? Let's be real, the more "safe" areas have the biggest barriers to new residents with lower incomes. Let's not even talk about Homeowners Associations and fees, etc.
You ask most people in this country what is the most important thing to have in a community, I'm sure most will tell you safety. After all, if you are worried about break ins you won't enjoy your home, if you are worried about getting robbed you won't enjoy shopping when you want to and if you are worried about murders you are just worried about surviving.
It is true that profiling is a legit concern especially for black people but guess what, black people don't just get profiled by non-black police officers, we get profiled by our own, so the neighborhood has little to nothing to do with it. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, I would remind you of the gentlemen who was harassed at Woodmore Town Centre just because he didn't buy anything. It happens all the time, demographics doesn't have anything to do with racial profiling, it's all about if you fit a certain description to do a certain crime. And I'm not advocating for people to move to white neighborhoods. I don't understand why you are inferring that. There are safe neighborhoods that have plenty of black people in them, but if you want to live a safer neighborhood, you will more than likely have to live in a middle class and up neighborhood which more than likely will have more whites. Unfortunately when you include lower income residents, crime tends to pick up. That's not always true, but it's more true than other class of people.
And as far as why should someone move? I think that is a legitimate question, but I would wonder when enough is enough. I'm not saying move when the first gun shot goes off, but if crime keeps happening and despite efforts, it does not change, why stay? Why put yourself at danger? Obviously there is only so much that you can do, so why not protect yourself and your family? What exactly is going to change if you stay, if you live in an area that has had consistently bad crime? Are you going to wait around until something happens to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
You just described every community in America. There are always a select few who care more than the majority.
Well if those select few aren't having an impact then what's the point? There are some places, especially where people have money that have people who can get the police to get things done at the snap of a finger. We unfortunately don't live in those type of places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
Who said four murders is okay? Again, what do you want me to do? Hold a press conference? I mean what do we have a police force for? I think you are blaming the wrong people. I think you need to take a look at your politicians and your police department. They have a direct impact on crime levels in the neighborhood. All I can do is vote and write to my local politicians. My taxes pay for them to do their job. That job is to keep me and my family and the broader community safe. If they aren't doing their job, then I have the power of my vote and my pen. Outside of that, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to convey low tolerance. And for most of us, moving is not an option. Especially when two people have jobs in the area. This is not an economy where people can pick up and find jobs elsewhere. I like where I live. Yes, there is crime all around me. But until otherwise convinced that the benefits of staying where I am don't outweigh the threat to my family's lives, I'll stay put for now and do what I can to make my neighborhood a better place to live.
And there lies the problem. Do you think the current make up of our county is going to result in major change of our police department or politicians. We have corrupt leaders who do little to nothing for our people because they have no accountability. It's no coincidence that the wards in DC with the higher democratic support tend to have the same issues as PG. When one party rules a place, the results are often bad. The leaders simply have no competition. We have people who vote these individuals because they look good on a billboard, or because they came to their neighborhood, or because they came to a Carribean festival or because they have heard of their name before, but these same people know NOTHING about what these individuals will do for their town. Do you think this is going to change county wide? Within your local district? Within your local delegation?
Do you guys think PG County needs more white people?
I've been reading on this forum for awhile, and there seems to be a LOT of dissatisfaction with the black community and a lot of desire for "change" but I have no idea how you could change the culture in PG County or anyplace else faster than throwing in a bunch of new people. And those people are most likely going to be white people (or maybe Hispanics). And *IF* we were to believe this is the case, should PGC be making an actual effort to try to attract white people somehow? I don't even know how you could do go about doing that. Put up signs? "Hey white people come live here we don't bite!" lol. Would attracting more white people create the "diversity" the county needs? I am honestly not trying to be provocative or make people angry I am just asking how people feel about this.
As a white person who has been house hunting in PG county I can tell you that I have no problem with the color of the neighborhood. I am more concerned about safety (perception does have a big part to play in this). The problem I have been having in my search is that you find a nice enclave in PG county and within walking distances is a not so great area. Seems the more rural you get the better.
Also, I think you have to be honest with your self about reality. Most people, regardless of race/religion/sex want to be around people who are similar. Throughout history communities have been split into enclaves, not sure you will ever completely abolish it, but it can be mitigated to a degree. One way to help would be to hold festivals that bring people together and into a neighborhood, even if they choose not to buy a house there.
Last edited by Fast GTO; 02-07-2012 at 12:49 PM..
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.
