It certainly appears to be in the suburbs. Pretty sure this is not an Obama administration issue tho as the AFFH is just a restatement of policy from the 60's . The jump in suburban crime stats certainly appear to be a unintended consequence however.
Now this was a good read. Thanks for sharing.
The criminal element just moved.
2003?
lol
Why are you scared now?
Exactly. But the problem is unquestionably worse for the new locale...ie the suburbs.
I'd have to look at the numbers for each one in question. They were talking about midsized cities like Memphis a lot but the overall crime trend (including violent crime) has still been downward there since the article came out.
As for the program itself -- sure, some tweaking could be done, but looking at this long term, I'm less worried than if the huge concentration camp style projects remained for more generations.
And got worse.
Unproved.
Just vomiting up a link to a paper from 12 years ago doesn't mean you did anything.
You have to quantify that the crime in the suburbs is worse than the crime in the urban areas ever was.
Good luck with that.
Surely you have data to dispute Galster's claims.
Sorry, this is your claim.
Your claim is suburban crime is now worse than inner city crime ever was.
Prove it.
Galston's observed trend in 2003 -> reasonable inferences therefrom -> moar anecdotes -> QED
Lately, though, a new and unexpected pattern has emerged, taking criminologists by surprise. While crime rates in large cities stayed flat, homicide rates in many midsize cities (with populations of between 500,000 and 1 million) began increasing, sometimes by as much as 20percent a year. In 2006, the Police Executive Research Forum, a national police group surveying cities from coast to coast, concluded in a report called “A Gathering Storm” that this might represent “the front end … of an epidemic of violence not seen for years.” The leaders of the group, which is made up of police chiefs and sheriffs, theorized about what might be spurring the latest crime wave: the spread of gangs, the masses of offenders coming out of prison, methamphetamines. But mostly they puzzled over the bleak new landscape. According to FBI data, America’s most dangerous spots are now places where Martin Scorsese would never think of staging a shoot-out—Florence, South Carolina; Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri; Reading, Pennsylvania; Orlando, Florida; Memphis, Tennessee.
While fewer Americans live in high-poverty neighborhoods, increasing numbers now live in places with “moderate” poverty rates, meaning rates of 20 to 40 percent. This pattern is not necessarily better, either for poor people trying to break away from bad neighborhoods or for cities, Galster explains. His paper compares two scenarios: a city split into high-poverty and low-poverty areas, and a city dominated by median-poverty ones. The latter arrangement is likely to produce more bad neighborhoods and more total crime, he concludes, based on a computer model of how social dysfunction spreads.
Studies show that recipients of Section8 vouchers have tended to choose moderately poor neighborhoods that were already on the decline, not low-poverty neighborhoods. One recent study publicized by HUD warned that policy makers should lower their expectations, because voucher recipients seemed not to be spreading out, as they had hoped, but clustering together. Galster theorizes that every neighborhood has its tipping point—a threshold well below a 40 percent poverty rate—beyond which crime explodes and other severe social problems set in. Pushing a greater number of neighborhoods past that tipping point is likely to produce more total crime. In 2003, the Brookings Ins ution published a list of the 15 cities where the number of high-poverty neighborhoods had declined the most. In recent years, most of those cities have also shown up as among the most violent in the U.S., according to FBI data.
So, what's your take on your most recent cut and paste?
It doesn't say quite the same thing as the previous one.
Hey, pastebot -- try actually backing up your claim:
It's Galster's claim, and he has pretty compelling evidence backing it.
No, it's your claim -- and none of your pasting has proved it at all.
Try again.
Your claim is suburban crime is now worse than inner city crime ever was.
Prove it.
You manufactured that claim on your own.
Sorry. Your words.
Feel free to walk back anytime. That or whining are the only moves you have left.
There is nothing to walk back, those are my words, and your claim is still manufactured. More total crime = got worse.
"Galster theorizes that every neighborhood has its tipping point—a threshold well below a 40 percent poverty rate—beyond which crime explodes and other severe social problems set in. Pushing a greater number of neighborhoods past that tipping point is likely to produce more total crime."
Got worse overall?
In the nation?
In some neighborhoods?
Increasing up to the present day?
You're talking out of your ass. It's fun to watch you constantly try to scare yourself.
Some Mexicans moved in right next to my NW SA suburban house.
They were loud last night during the Super Bowl, the end is near.
Do me a favor and read what Galster wrote as that is all I've referenced. I'm not doing a pointless back and forth when the answers you seek have been posted multiple times. You are arguing with yourself at this point as you are making up claims I never made.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
