Why the hatred for the suburbs?

[billfish678]

@Maeglin

So as long as the criminal acts are invisible to you, you are ok with it. I think I understand perfectly now.

Do you understand the difference between victimless crime and NON victimless crime?

Or are rapes in the hood the same as some WASP going 65 in a 55 mph zone to you?

[Troy_McClure_SF]

@billfish678

I like living where people take pride in their yards and houses. Are considerate of their neighbors. Get involved in their kids schools. Want their kids to go to good schools. Don’t tolerate crime or participate in it. That get on their kids asses if they misbehave. That have hobbies other than sitting on the front step with a loud ass bomb boxes and cat calling at any woman who walks by. That will report something shady looking to the cops rather than look the other way. That are responsible and hard working and have decent/good paying jobs as a result.

So, the San Francisco neighborhood I grew up in.

@Maeglin

Instead of the typical, low-life scumbag criminal, it’s the kids in suburbia who use and deal, all driving around in their Lexuses. I grew up in a place like this, and the denial was pea-soup fog thick.

Seriously. Baseball and the mall can only entertain high school kids for so long. Sure, we drank a bit and smoked a little weed, but it’s the kids from the suburbs who were perma-stoned by age 20.

[brazil84]

@Maeglin

So as long as the criminal acts are invisible to you, you are ok with it.

:shrug: I simply prefer to live in an area where my family and I are less likely to be victimized by criminals and other destructive types. I’m not sure why that’s so hard for you to understand.

[buttonjockey308]

@BrightNShiny

I should clarify, I am using the term “suburban” to mean “less dense” development, rather than to signify any sort of specific city boundaries. I would, for example, consider large parts of Los Angeles to be suburban in nature, even though the areas I’m talking about are within the city boundaries.

There is a whole array of regulations, subsidies and regulations that incentivize people towards less-dense living and away from more dense living. Kimstu mentioned the home mortgage deduction, and I’ve mentioned zoning regulations already. Other things include, subsidizing highway and road development without providing equivalent subsidies for mass transit or pedestrian or bicycle transport. Or paying to maintain roads in less-dense environments that don’t have as dense traffic patterns. Or placing height restrictions on buildings. Or providing better funding for certain public schools vs. other public schools. Or failing to properly capture all the externalities from car usage. There is a whole list of these things that mean that the true cost of suburban dwelling isn’t captured by the people who live there and that the government has distorted the market to incentivize people to live in suburban environments.

For me, since I don’t care either way whether people live in less-dense or more-dense environments, I don’t see why the government should be purposefully favoring one over the other.

Your statement lacks perspective. First, a home mortgage deduction applies to everyone who owns real estate, from farm country to Manhattan. Secondly, state motor fuel taxes are subsidizing road and bridge infrastructure projects state wide in most cases, so some of Chicago’s money pays for Springfield’s roads and some of Springfields money pays for the Tollway and so on (in Illinois, anyway). Using greater Chicagoland as an example, there are 9.5 Million people in the area, including collar counties and there are 2.8 million people in Chicago. That’s 6.7 million people that live outside of Chicago. 3 times as many live outside as in the city proper. The towns and counties surrounding Chicago pay more in to the regional system than Chicago does, by default. The idea that for every dollar you spend on roads that an equal dollar should be spent on mass transit is ludicrous based on population alone. Not to mention that because most mass transit systems lose money by default, that there is no inherent tax/revenue stream (i.e. motor fuel taxes) to create capital improvement initiatives. Zoning regulations aren’t incentives and don’t do anything to help one or hurt another, that makes no sense.

In Illinois, the system for funding schools comes from local property taxes and frankly, it’s right in line with capitalist, free market thinking. We balk at this because not everyone has “the same chance” but that’s how it works, and changing that is actually “de-incentivizing” the motivated to allow their children to remain in and support public schools. If I own my own business that’s a wild success and I have enough money to send my child to the best schools, that’s what I’m going to do. If that school so happens to be public school that I’m already paying for through my taxes, well, that’s better.

You’re incentivized as a citizen to do well, then buy a bigger house thus paying a larger percentage in taxes and that larger percentage equals better paid teachers, newer text books, better facilities and an overall better education. The problem is that model effects the downtrodden in an equal, negative way. The argument should not be for this pseudo-socialist robin hoodism, rather, the answer is to more effectively manage what you DO have and make it better, leading by example. The problems in some city schools are largely cultural ones that socially reward thuggish behavior and see violence as typical and accepted. These schools are typically in economically depressed neighborhoods with a high number of single parent households, which, on it’s face is fine, but like any teacher will tell you, having as much involvement in the education of your child as possible, (which is hard with only one parent) is key to successful learning. Of course, it doesn’t boil down to just that, but certianly the taxes I pay for my house should go to MY school for MY kid. My taxes shouldn’t prop up education for YOUR kid, especially if I’m involved and you’ve decided not to be.

What other externalities can we as vehicle owners POSSIBLY pay? We pay taxes on everything that goes into, onto, or under our vehicles. There’s nothing extra that we don’t give into the system for.

It costs more to live in the city only because you’re paying the city every time you turn around. I pay an extra $.16 for a cup of Starbucks that goes to the city. Just last night I bought; a 1/2 gallon of milk, a heath bar and one of those little Heineken Kegs, It was $27.02 before taxes, after taxes it was $29.47. I paid 2.45 in overall taxes, including .07 to the county and $.18 to the city, just for the beer.

I pay a LOTin taxes and I use none of the services of the city, conversely, there are people who use the services and don’t pay taxes, which in their hearts are what the people who move from the large cities into the burbs (both ex and sub) object to in the first place.

[Maeglin]

@billfish678

Do you understand the difference between victimless crime and NON victimless crime?

Or are rapes in the hood the same as some WASP going 65 in a 55 mph zone to you?

I do not think you know what you are talking about. These crimes are hardly victimless. You just don;t perceive them.

For example, in picturesque North Haven, Connecticut, where you’d least expect to find prescription drug addiction problems, 14 youths were arrested recently after a two-year crime wave involving a dozen robberies of homes and businesses, and more than 40 thefts from automobiles – dating back to early 2006 – just to fuel illicit prescription and street drug addictions.

Imagine that.

Suburban adolescents reported significantly more illicit substance abuse than the urban students. Inner-city teens had witnessed more community violence, but suburban teens were just as likely to report victimization as were their urban counterparts. The only difference was on having been shot or having been shot at. Suburban teens who reported high victimization were more likely to be using illicit drugs than their inner-city counterparts. It may be that the suburban teens are putting themselves in risky situations at school, but it is more likely that they are traveling to other communities where they are likely to be victimized in conjunction with their high-risk activities. The conclusion of the study suggests that urban teens are exposed to violence at least in part because of their environment, while suburban teens are exposed more as a function of their behavior.

This isn’t driving 65 in a 55. This is suburban rot that its denizens deny to justify their lifestyle choices.

[buttonjockey308]

@Maeglin

This isn’t driving 65 in a 55. This is suburban rot that its denizens deny to justify their lifestyle choices.

Horseshit. That’s bad parenting through and through.

[Maeglin]

@brazil84

:shrug: I simply prefer to live in an area where my family and I are less likely to be victimized by criminals and other destructive types. I’m not sure why that’s so hard for you to understand.

Another one in denial.

Wake up.

Analysis of the raw UCR data shows that (1) suburban areas are not safe, nor is violent crime rare and (2) blacks and whites had comparable rates of offense. Regression analysis primarily shows that whites were more likely than blacks to feel privileged within the criminal justice system. This research leads us to question whether arrest data reflects the actual criminal activity of whites because white respondents felt that they received partial treatment by criminal justice authority figures.

[Troy_McClure_SF]

@buttonjockey308

Secondly, state motor fuel taxes are subsidizing road and bridge infrastructure projects state wide in most cases, so some of Chicago’s money pays for Springfield’s roads and some of Springfields money pays for the Tollway and so on (in Illinois, anyway).

Focusing on this small point, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to say that the suburban/rural areas are paying for the city’s freeways. Technically, it’s true, but who’s going to use those freeways more, people in the city or people driving in from the suburbs every morning?

Around here we’re arguing about the main artery, Doyle Drive, between the Golden Gate Bridge/Marin County and downtown SF. SF is looking to replace it but needs funding, and one of the ideas was toll collection on Doyle Drive. Marin residents are pissed because they feel it’s basically a Marin tax, but, well, they’re the ones using it. The road is fairly useless for SF residents, very few of which commute to Marin (not to say we don’t go north ourselves ever, but we do in much smaller numbers than those commuting in every morning).

[Maeglin]

@buttonjockey308

Horseshit. That’s bad parenting through and through.

Let’s test the bad parenting hypothesis, shall we?

Parents who think they can shield their teenagers from the dangers of sex, drugs and alcohol in the suburbs need to think again, according to a new national study.

The study from the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research found that alcohol, tobacco and illegal drug use and sex are just as common – if not more common – among suburban high school students as they are among city students.

So the incidence of this kind of criminality is worse in the suburbs than it is in the inner cities. So we can safely conclude that inner city parents are better than their middle class or affluent suburban counterparts.

Right?

[brazil84]

@Maeglin

Another one in denial.

Wake up.

Your source does not seem to be comparing suburban and urban crime rates. Can we agree on that? Or did I misunderstand somehow?

[billfish678]

@Troy_McClure_SF

So, the San Francisco neighborhood I grew up in.
.

So your data on living in an urban paradise cancels out my data on living in a surburban paradise.

Next.

Geez, this debate quickly (post 100 was spot on IMO) boilded down to:

Who subsidizes who?

And,

Personal (percieved) preference of living conditions.

Geez, if only some really smart and insightful poster had seen this early on and posted some pithy/sarcastic remarks fortelling as much.

Naw, such a chosen one (cough, cough, me) would be warned by the powers that be…risking their wrath…

[skylyn12]

@Maeglin

I do not think you know what you are talking about. These crimes are hardly victimless. You just don;t perceive them.

Imagine that.

This isn’t driving 65 in a 55. This is suburban rot that its denizens deny to justify their lifestyle choices.

Your cite is absolutely worthless, it selects a few students from one particular suburb and a few students from one particular urban area. Hardly definitive.

Here are the facts:

The average annual 1993-98 violent crime rate in urban areas was about 74% higher than the rural rate and 37% higher than the suburban rate.

Urban males experienced violent victimizations at rates 64% higher than the average combined suburban and rural male rate and 47% higher than urban females.

Property crimes were generally completed at higher rates against urban households than against suburban or rural households.

Although most violent crimes in urban (60%), suburban (68%), and rural (70%) areas were committed without a weapon, firearm usage in the commission of a violent crime was higher in urban areas when compared to suburban or rural areas (12% urban versus 9% suburban and 8% rural).

In 2005-
Urban residents had the highest violent victimization rates, followed by suburban resident rates. Rural residents had the lowest rates.

Six urban residents, four suburban residents and four rural residents per 1,000 were victims of an aggravated assault.

Homicides per location:
large city:9,513 small city: 2,158 suburban: 3,722

Cite

Cite

[skylyn12]

Wanted to add urban versus suburban violent crime victimizations in 2006: urban was 30 per 1000 persons and suburban was 19 per 1000. Cite

Suburbs are definitively safer in every category I could find when compared to urban areas. That might make them attractive to some people, for others, it might not…

[Maeglin]

@skylyn12

Your cite is absolutely worthless, it selects a few students from one particular suburb and a few students from one particular urban area. Hardly definitive.

I don’t think that means what you think it means.

Here are the facts:

Here are some facts. Naturally they are contingent on reported crimes only, which for many reasons is extremely misleading. Also misleading is your interpretation. Look at the absolute values if you want to make a fair assessment of crime between urban and suburban areas.

Let’s take rape & sexual assault for example. The urban rape rate is 20% higher than the suburban rate in 2006. The urban rate is 1.2, the suburban rate is 1.0.

Let’s look at robbery. My goodness, urban incidence of robbery appears to be double the rate in suburbia. But that rate is 4.4 to 2.2. Per thousand persons age 12 or older or per 1000 households.

The difference is statistically significant due to the size of the population. This should not be confused with the magnitude of the difference, which to any sane person, is quite small.

[Troy_McClure_SF]

@billfish678

So your data on living in an urban paradise cancels out my data on living in a surburban paradise.

No, my data on living in an “urban paradise” cancels out your ignorant assumption that sexual harassment, bad parenting and “boom boxes” are exclusive and standard to cities.

Naw, such a chosen one (cough, cough, me) would be warned by the powers that be…risking their wrath…

Whargarbl.

[billfish678]

@Maeglin

Let’s take rape & sexual assault for example. The urban rape rate is 20% higher than the suburban rate in 2006. The urban rate is 1.2, the suburban rate is 1.0.

Let’s look at robbery. My goodness, urban incidence of robbery appears to be double the rate in suburbia. But that rate is 4.4 to 2.2. Per thousand persons age 12 or older or per 1000 households.

WTF?

Everything in your post says urban living is MORE dangerous crime wise than suburban living…
Did you forget what side you were on? Did I ?

WTF again…

And besides, crime is by NO means the only reason, and probably not even the first/major reason some people like the burbs…

[skylyn12]

@Maeglin

I don’t think that means what you think it means.

Here are some facts. Naturally they are contingent on reported crimes only, which for many reasons is extremely misleading. Also misleading is your interpretation. Look at the absolute values if you want to make a fair assessment of crime between urban and suburban areas.

Let’s take rape & sexual assault for example. The urban rape rate is 20% higher than the suburban rate in 2006. The urban rate is 1.2, the suburban rate is 1.0.

Let’s look at robbery. My goodness, urban incidence of robbery appears to be double the rate in suburbia. But that rate is 4.4 to 2.2. Per thousand persons age 12 or older or per 1000 households.

The difference is statistically significant due to the size of the population. This should not be confused with the magnitude of the difference, which to any sane person, is quite small.

So let me see if I understand your argument here (because I’m not sure I’m following you), there is a significant difference in urban vs. suburban crime rates, but it isn’t significant because…? Just a minute ago you were arguing that crimes rates in the burbs were as high if not higher than in urban areas. Please clarify why these statistics are not relevant, but your ERIC data (with a whopping 200 participants) are relevant.

[billfish678]

@Troy_McClure_SF

Whargarbl.

Go back and look if you don’t believe me

[Maeglin]

@billfish678

WTF?

Everything in your post says urban living is MORE dangerous crime wise than suburban living…
Did you forget what side you were on? Did I ?

WTF again…

And besides, crime is by NO means the only reason, and probably not even the first/major reason some people like the burbs…

The picture you are painting is of a suburb free of all the old lady beatings and drive-bys that occur in the city, committed by unpleasant non-white people.

No one has argued that in general, crime is lower in urban areas than in the suburbs. I am arguing two things.

One, suburbia is beset by its own flavor of social & criminal ills that affect it at least as badly as it affects urban areas.

Second, in general, while criminality may be lower in the suburbs, it really is not all that much lower than it is in the city. A comparison of the absolute rates per thousand is very instructive. The overall rate of violent crime in urban areas in 2006 was 27.9 and 18.9 in the suburbs. This is a difference of fewer than 10 people per thousand, or less than 1%. It might be more visible in the cities because of higher population density, but the actual magnitude of the difference is very slight.

[Maeglin]

@skylyn12

So let me see if I understand your argument here (because I’m not sure I’m following you), there is a significant difference in urban vs. suburban crime rates, but it isn’t significant because…? Just a minute ago you were arguing that crimes rates in the burbs were as high if not higher than in urban areas. Please clarify why these statistics are not relevant, but your ERIC data (with a whopping 200 participants) are relevant.

There is a difference between statistical significance as a term of art and significance in a general sense. In this context, statistical significance just tells us that the difference in rate is not due to random variation up to a given level of confidence.

The difference in rates can be statistically significant but practically speaking, insignificant. The difference in the rape rate is statistically significant, but is the difference between 1.0 and 1.2 actually significant?

This has nothing to do with the ERIC cite. Much of the crime and delinquency in suburbia is under- or unreported, so it would never show up in the DoJ figures to begin with. The fact that these crimes are not in the DoJ statistics does not mean that they do not exist. They cannot be fully measured since they are not directly observed, hence the value of interview and survey data.