I work in the fifth most safest city in the country.
Dearborn, Flint, and Detroit ring me (and Troy) to the southwest, northwest, and southeast (respectively).
I guess what they say about suburbs being bastions of white suburbia has something to it. I live in and around a safe haven, but the further away I get from it, the more dangerous things become. North to Flint is dangerous, south to Detroit is dangerous.
Though quite frankly, I'd be scared out of my wits to go to Flint, but I have absolutely no fear at all walking down Woodward during most times in Detroit. Maybe it's because I grew up in the shadow of the city and spend a lot of time there, I don't know, but I'd bet the crime is focused in a few specific warrens of Detroit, and not in the downtown, and not in a lot of perfectly safe neighborhoods. It sucks to see a large city labelled as the second most dangerous city in America when there's so many great things about the city, and when there's so many great places to live in and around it.
And incidentally....
quote: 269. Greensboro, N.C.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
DC's #353/371. Not much surprise there.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What would be neat is if someone could organize those into a map-- where the Safe cities were colored green, and as the scale progresses, they become red.
That way we could see at a glance where the safest geographic locations of the country are-- highest ratio of greens to reds.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Should be doable on google maps, but I have no idea how.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
Interesting. Just yesterday I watched a study with my roommate Beth that said that Detroit is the number two most dangerous city in the country, after St. Louis.
Where do all these places get their information from?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The link says the FBI provides the information; I'm not sure how the FBI gets it, or what the parameters for 'safe' are.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Amherst, NY (where my in-laws live) just recently fell to number 2 on the list. Buffalo (where I work) is all the way down at 340. Ouch. I'm surprised Cheekta-vegas is at 36, I guess tacky lawn decorations is not an accurate predictor of relative safety.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
It's not nice to poke fun at Cheektowaga that way. *giggling*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Detroit is safer depending on who you are. The crimes there rarely cross racial lines.
I lived in Palmer Park in Detroit for seven months and never saw so much as a mugging. Our air bags did get stolen once (from the church parking lot!), but that's it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Your air bags were stolen? How's that even possible?
And WHY? Is there a big demand on the black market for air bags?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yeah, they pried them out of the car.
Airbags can fetch $100 - 200, because they cost almost $300 apiece to replace. You can pop them out quickly. If there's only one thing to steal, steal the airbags.
We joked that we'd get the same airbags back when we got the car fixed. What a racket!
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What is more interesting is to compare the final standings in pro-baseball with city safety. (#1 St. Louis World Series champs. #2 Detroit, American League Pennant Winners )
Is there correlation. Does baseball lead to crime?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Maybe it's just that in big baseball cities the populace is just so bored that they have to go out and commit crime. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe the city is wasting money on the sports teams instead of education and police.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
So New York City (145) is safer than Ogden, UT (182) and far far safer than Salt Lake City (247)?
I've been to those two Utah cities, and when I was there I felt like I could have left my wallet on the sidewalk, and then been confident that it would still be there when I returned.
Interesting that my impression appears to be so far off.
I just can't believe I'd be safer walking alone at night in a non-Manhattan borough like Brooklyn than I would be walking alone at night in Ogden.
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
It seems like Alabama fared pretty badly. All the cities big enough to make the list are down towards the bottom. And of course, my hometown, New Orleans, they're still trying to come up with language strong enough to describe how unsafe it is.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:Should be doable on google maps, but I have no idea how.
This can also be done using MapInfo and geocoding.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
I hate lists like this. So its made based on the cities reported crime stats. Is it weighted? Like are they considering a mugging the same as a murder? And is it based on some per capita % or a combination of the metro area for each city?
I highly doubt St Louis is the most dangerous place in the country. I'd go there before I ever went to NYC or Camden or Compton for goodness sakes.
And Little Rock is a delightful city. It may not belong in the top 100 but that low is just ridiculous.
On the other hand, I live in a Memphis suburb. I have no problem with where they have Memphis rated. LOL
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
They posted this over at woot, and pointed out that this ONLY takes into account crime within city limits. The same group that came up with these stats also has data based on Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
Detroit is still second on the list, of course if you include Dearborn and Livonia.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:327. Miami
Miami... where? I'm assuming Florida, but there are three Miami's in the US that I know of.
At least we beat Orlando by 20 places...
*EDIT*: Coral Springs, Florida is listed as #10, even though it's less than three miles away from Ft. Lauderdale, which is listed as #271?!?
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Hooray, Phoenix isn't last this time!
Wait, how is Phoneix 313th and Gilbert is 22nd?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There are exactly 371 cities in the U.S.? Really?
Almost all the safe cities in SoCal are safe because they are BORING. They have little or no cultural life, so their residents all come to L.A. to party, etc. No wonder we're down at #250.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Nighthawk, similar to Boston and Newton which are actually contiguous to each other.
-Bok
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Maybe it's just that in big baseball cities the populace is just so bored that they have to go out and commit crime
quote:Maybe the city is wasting money on the sports teams instead of education and police.
I don't agree, but there is something pleasing about the exchange.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Odd, I didn't see any Maryland cities on that list in my quick scan. Of course, the lack of standard postal abbreviations makes the page hard to search...
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Maybe the city is wasting money on the sports teams instead of education and police.
The irony being, that in Detroit, sports bring in a hell of a lot more money than is spent on sports.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
It's not a question of whether there's an accounting profit in the amount spent vs. the amount collected; it's a question of whether there's an economic profit - if the money wouldn't bring a bigger (long-term) benefit if spent elsewhere.
I'm not well versed in sports economics, but I believe that most studies find that (all) of the benefits from sports teams aren't worth the money spent on the teams; the money could be put to a better use, and either return larger (accounting) profits, or, in most cases, return profits period.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The city of Detroit has three sports teams actually in the city.
Hockey - Red Wings
Football - Lions
Baseball - Tigers
The city of Detroit doesn't even spend any money that I know of on the teams, and if it does, the millions, and in the case of last year's superbowl BILLIONS of dollars that these events bring into town are well more than worth it, especially considering the bill for the teams is mostly footed by the owners and the franchise in one way or another, and the profits come from the citizens of the city, and it finds it's way back into the city coffers.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
I thought the abbreviations they used were awful odd, it was completely arbitrary, some cities weren't good enough to have states included, some had postal codes, and for others the whole name was written out. It really made me feel unsafe just naviating about the site.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: Odd, I didn't see any Maryland cities on that list in my quick scan. Of course, the lack of standard postal abbreviations makes the page hard to search...
--j_k
Only Baltimore made the list and it's at 360. According to all the news reports, that's an improvement, since it's no longer one of the 10 worst cities. Yay?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
How did this study define "safe"? Lowest crime rate? Lowest violent crime rate? Lowest accidents per capita? Lowest death rate? Lowest rate of natural disasters? Lowest rate of terror attacks? Lowest rate of environmentally related diseases? Lowest rate of allergies? Lowest rate of food poisoning?
Safest from what?
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Methodology Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Risuena:
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: Odd, I didn't see any Maryland cities on that list in my quick scan. Of course, the lack of standard postal abbreviations makes the page hard to search...
--j_k
Only Baltimore made the list and it's at 360. According to all the news reports, that's an improvement, since it's no longer one of the 10 worst cities. Yay?
360 out of 371? Sounds about right, though I wonder how Richmond, VA is only about three places better than Baltimore. --j_k
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The city of Detroit has three sports teams actually in the city.
Hockey - Red Wings
Football - Lions
Baseball - Tigers
Miami has only one, basketball's Heat, and there have been times that even that was at risk of moving North. The Miami Dolphins and Florida Marlins play thirty miles away, less than a quarter mile from the Broward County line. The Florida Panthers play even farther, in Broward, but it can be argued that they're not a "Miami" team (as is the case with the Marlins, for that matter).
Yes, I'm bitter about that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
MrsM could talk more about Richmond than I can...but (I think) it has to do with the vast amount of poverty on the East side of I-95.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"Coral Springs, Florida is listed as #10, even though it's less than three miles away from Ft. Lauderdale, which is listed as #271?!?"
I could understand that there'd be a big difference between the two (though not 250 place difference). Ft. Lauderdale is much busier and crazier than Coral Springs.
"94. Plantation, Fla"
We made the top 100 .
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote: 371. St. Louis MO
This makes me feel good.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Maybe it's just that in big baseball cities the populace is just so bored that they have to go out and commit crime.
quote:Maybe the city is wasting money on the sports teams instead of education and police.
Maybe the presence of a sports team has no direct correlation with the crime level of an area.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I can't believe San Antonio is only 197. We're safer down here than in Boston or Seatle?
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
That's hilarious...LA's safer than Greensboro????
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
One of the problems with this type of study is the definition of "city" in the US. Cities are defined based on political boundaries and not community boundaries. So for example the population of Salt Lake City is ~197,000 while the population of the Salt Lake Metro area is closer to 1 million. The city of Seattle has a population of 560,000 but the Seattle metro area is closer to 2.5 million.
How does this distort crime statistics?
Well look at Salt Lake for example. Crime rates are counted based on the number of city residents. But the number of people who are in the city limits is at times much much greater than the number of residents because people from all over the metro area commute to Salt Lake to work, go to Jazz games, go to restaurants and bars, attend the Symphony or the Ballet, attend the University of Utah and dozens of other activities. That means that the crimes committed inside the Salt Lake City boundaries are committed by and on people from all over the metro area. As a result, the crime rate for Salt Lake City is artificially high because the wrong population is in the denominator. In contrast, Draper (a city about 15 miles south of Salt Lake which has become a bedroom community in recent years) has an artificially low crime rate. Why? Because for 8 to 12 hours a day, most Draper residents aren't in Draper. If Draper residents commit a violent crime or have one committed on them, its most likely not while their at home asleep in Draper.
The end result is that if you look at the violent crime rate for Salt Lake City, alone, you get a number that is double the rate for the entire metro area and this isn't because neighborhoods in Salt Lake City proper are fundamentally more dangerous than neighborhoods in West Valley, Murray, or Draper. Its because we have defined the wrong population associated with the crimes.
The end result is that cities like San Antonio that have very expansive city limits which include most of the metro area will end up having lower crime rates than cities like Seattle, Boston and Salt Lake where the city limits don't accurately represent the size of the metro area.
[ November 01, 2006, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
w00t 63
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
30 out of the top 100 are in California. Pretty good odds. Unfortunately, Berkeley is 226.
I say this after recently learning that 10 people were injured in a Halloween party shooting in SF (#270) last night. Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Strange list. Is Chicago no longer a city? I wasn't seeing it on there.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's not. They must not report crime stats.
Posted by Arthur (Member # 4026) on :
The site I linked to earlier for the folks that made the list explains it, something to do with the way Chicago reports their data for rape that makes their numbers not usable on the list.
(This is TheTick, my wife didn't log out on the laptop)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)