Why the hatred for the suburbs?

[brazil84]

@Maeglin

Think about what you just said for a moment. How many of your neighbors do you know in a suburb versus in a city?

In my case, it’s about the same. I can’t speak for others.

How many clerks at local shops? At your video store? Other parents of kids in your school district?

Again, it’s about the same, except that I never sent my children to school in an urban area.

In suburbs and small towns, everyone knows everyone.

That may be true in some small towns in rural areas, but it’s just not true in suburbs. For example, the vast majority of people in my town of ten to twenty thousand are people whom I do not know.

In any event, my point still stands even if you just look at family members. For example, according to the chart at the bottom of this page, the rate of homicides between intimates (spouses, ex-spouses, boyfriends, girlfriends, etc.) was a lot higher in rural areas than in suburbs and a lot higher in suburbs than in urban areas.

[ITR_champion]

@Maeglin

The data do not support the perception of the safety of suburbs exhibited here and even in the other thread. Violent crimes are only incrementally less likely to be committed in the suburbs than they are in the cities on average. If a suburb apologist here were to argue that a 1% decrease in the likelihood of being the victim of a violent crime justifies his flight from the city, I would accept that completely. That 1% decrease would simply be worth more to him than it is to me. We all have different thresholds about which we make life decisions.

But at least the apologist would be honest. He would not deny that there is nontrivial criminality and social ill in the suburbs, or that any evidence of such just represent isolated instances of “bad parenting”.

I would very gladly pay considerable money for a one percent decrease in the probability of me being a victim of violent crime. Luckily, I don’t have to make such a decision. The suburbs are less expensive and safer. No one has ever claimed that suburbs are perfect, only that there is a sizable difference between crime rates in the cities vs. the suburbs.

I would not put too much stock in studies that compare “urban” and “suburban” environments, since as already mentioned there are different types of suburbs. I would expect that within the class of suburbs, the most dangerous ones are the ones closest to cities, and the ones with easy access. I’d expect that the exurbs that are farthest out and provide the least access also have the lowest crime rates. For example, according to this website, Nashville has a crime index of 675. Goodlettesville, which is the suburb with closest proximity to downtown, has a crime index of 499. But distant exurbs such as Gallatin and Brentwood have very low crime indexes: 187 and 91, respectively. All of which confirms what was said in the article I linked earlier.

[billfish678]

@mswas

Something I would like to see data is on the variation in violent crime based on cohort.
…

.

I’d be surprised if you could seperate out that effect for urban vs suburban settings. But, like you, I’d like to hear em.

When people talk about crime, I almost always think “was it criminals on criminals or just some poor schmoo in the wrong place at the wrong time”

Cause, to be honest, I don’t give a rats ass about the first. One of the main reasons I wouldnt have anything to do with anyone remotely into crime. Thats gotta help the odds a lot IMO.

[brazil84]

@Richard_Parker

Could you expand on this a bit without using euphemism? What’s the causation there, in your estimation?

That’s a subject for another thread. If you start it, I will try to answer the question.

And what does “tends to be rather unpleasant” mean?

The usual urban ills: Violent crime; homelessness; graffiti; litter; property crime; bad schools; etc. Also, reactions to the same: metal bars; glass shields; metal detectors at schools; etc.

[buttonjockey308]

@Maeglin

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.

You cannot possibly serious. You want to offhandedly use statistics that you admit don’t exist? You’re saying you’re sure you know what the LE agencies don’t know they don’t know.

I’ll do a local comparison from City-Data:

According to our research of public records there were 116 registered sex offenders living in 60617 zip code in early 2007. (this is a Chicago Neighborhood with roughly 100,000 people in it). According to our research of public records there were 81 registered sex offenders living in 60649 zip code in early 2007. (this is a Chicago neighborhood close to 60617 with approximately 50,000 people in it).
According to our research there were 19 registered sex offenders living in Naperville, Illinois in early 2007* (this is a western suburb of Chicago with 142,000 people in it).*

Of course this is anecdotal, but in a suburb of roughly 150,000 people there are 19 registered sex offenders and in a city neighborhood of roughly 150,000 people there are 197 RSO’s.

If you’re a person who is making a choice where to raise your child, where would you move?

The idea that you can restrict a data-set to one specific criminal behavior and use that behavior to determine that the suburbs are no safer than the city is clearly skewed by your own predjudice.

[buttonjockey308]

@billfish678

I’d be surprised if you could seperate out that effect for urban vs suburban settings. But, like you, I’d like to hear em.

When people talk about crime, I almost always think “was it criminals on criminals or just some poor schmoo in the wrong place at the wrong time”

Cause, to be honest, I don’t give a rats ass about the first. One of the main reasons I wouldnt have anything to do with anyone remotely into crime. Thats gotta help the odds a lot IMO.

Depending on the area and in my direct, statisticaly narrow experience the split is 50/50.

In the crappier areas, the mutt-on-mutt crime tends to be three things; more frequent, more violent and often unreported. “Hello, 9-1-1? Ray and his bitch-ass cousin punched me and stole my weed”

Sadly though, also in those same areas, the decent hardworking people tend to be victims of property crime more often than violent personal crime and they tend to under-report because they know the cops are stretched too thin to do anything about it.

Conversely, if some little hooligan in lily-white-pleasant-valley made off with Mrs. Kravitz’s garden gnome, gazing ball and lawn jockey, the local constabulary would be contacted immediately and actually chase down the little beatoffs who pilfered the aforementioned statuary.

The worse an area gets, the less the cops are able to do about it, especially in the suburbs.

[mack]

@Maeglin

Are you serious?

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.

Yes, and yesterday’s suburban drug dealers are today’s business leaders*. Enterprising and clever lads they are, after all. Funny how that turned out.
*purely anecdotal, and don’t want to cite for obvious reasons.

[billfish678]

@buttonjockey308

Conversely, if some little hooligan in lily-white-pleasant-valley made off with Mrs. Kravitz’s garden gnome, gazing ball and lawn jockey, the local constabulary would be contacted immediately and actually chase down the little beatoffs who pilfered the aforementioned statuary.

.

Totally off topic.

A cute and uplifting movie involving such crimes.

Moonbeam (shine?) in a Box…or sumptin like that. I highly recommend it.

[Richard_Parker]

@brazil84

That’s a subject for another thread. If you start it, I will try to answer the question.

I’d rather not start a new thread all about you.

Since you used this as a reason why suburbs are good, it certainly seems relevant to this one. And I would have thought you’d be interested in the opportunity to clarify, since the natural reading is that you think race is a causal factor of crime.

[billfish678]

@ITR_champion

I would very gladly pay considerable money for a one percent decrease in the probability of me being a victim of violent crime. .

Its not even a one/.1/whatever percent decrease as crazy M is trying to say.

Its a 50 to a 100 percent reduction!

If your odds of being a victim of a serious crime over your lifetime are 1 in a billion…BFD if you reduce it 50 percent.

If your chances are 1 in a hundred and you reduce it 50 percent, thats a whole nother ball of wax IMO (and most others opinion IMO)

4 outa a thousand is much closer to 1 in a 100 than 1 in a billion.

Are crazy M’s stats per capita PER year? because 4 outa a thousand per year gets pretty significant if you actually live more than a few years. Of course if someone caps your ass in a year or two its all good…

And all this is besides the point anyway.

Folks act like the transaction goes like this

Real estate agent: Great news, this place cost MORE, offers LESS, and you have to drive farther!

Future Suburbanite: I dunno…

Real estate agent: And all the houses look just alike! With no trees even!

Future Suburbanite: Sounds better!

Real estate Agent: The schools are better too…

Future Suburbanite: Gee, I dunno, what about all the underpriveledged kids we will be leaving behind?

Real estate agent: You know, crime might be a smidgen less too…

Future Suburbanite: Now your talking!

Real estate agent : No black people live in the neighborhood either!

Future Suburbanite: SOLD!

good grief

[brazil84]

@Richard_Parker

I’d rather not start a new thread all about you.

Since you used this as a reason why suburbs are good, it certainly seems relevant to this one.

It seems off-topic to me. For purposes of this discussion, there’s no need to decide why certain ethnicities are more prone to problem behavior. The fact is that they are and that’s part of the reason many people have fled to the suburbs.

And I would have thought you’d be interested in the opportunity to clarify, since the natural reading is that you think race is a causal factor of crime.

I don’t want to hijack the thread. I’m pretty sure you can find my views on the subject if you do a few searches.

[Justin_Bailey]

@Maeglin

In suburbs and small towns, everyone knows everyone.

They do? I thought the biggest downside of suburban living was that no one knew their neighbors. Was I mistaken?

[Maeglin]

I don’t really know what to say to people who believe that the difference between 1.2 in 1000 and 1.0 in 1000 (the difference in the incidence of rape) or 20 in 1000 and 30 in 1000 (the difference in aggregate violent crimes) is a lot.

It does’t really matter if the difference is 5%, 50%, 150%. The likelihood of the actual event itself is really, really small. I am sure there is also considerable variance within urban and suburban categories. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that my neighborhood of NYC is much safer than, say, a shitty suburb of Little Rock. On the other hand, a crappy, gang-ridden suburb a few miles from where I grew up is still probably safer than Detroit.

But seriously, how many other things do you live in fear of?

I do not own a car. I rarely run the risk of dying in an automobile accident. Suburb dwellers drive almost every day, often multiple times. When you consider the probability of death in the city versus the suburbs, do you calculate the joint probability of a homicide in your zip code with the incidence of an auto accident?

I didn’t think so.

There are lots of neat ways to die in both the city and in the suburbs. Both are full of social ills and rot. I am perfectly willing to admit all of the things wrong with my city and others. I do not understand why the apologists of suburbia cannot do the same thing. You rationalize your aesthetic taste for trimmed houses and people of the same socio-economic class (or race for some of you) with innumerate appeals to rates of criminality. It’s “safer”. I get it. It might be by enough to make you feel better, but in the grand scheme of things, on average, it’s not safer by a lot.

So let’s take a look at the suburbs for a moment. I grew up in a fairly affluent suburb of NYC. If I had grown up in the 70s, it would have been the Ice Storm. A lot goes on inside peoples’ neatly trimmed houses.

Your children turn tricks, steal your prescription meds, and do heroin.

You leave your homeless kids on the street.

There are terrible things happening in the cities. There is sick shit happening in the suburbs. I personally like to have my sick shit out in the open. I don’t go to places in my city where I might be shot. But by the same token, there is plenty here to do. I am not going to have to worry that my future child is turning tricks to support a heroin habit.

[Richard_Parker]

@brazil84

The fact is that they are and that’s part of the reason many people have fled to the suburbs.

The reason for the correlation is entirely relevant to this thread.

If perceived or self-identified race correlates to crime because of the ongoing effects of historical racism, then the racial homogeneity of suburbs is only desirable insofar as we maintain the societal conditions that allow those effects to continue. If those conditions cease, then the correlation would eventually disappear. Which leaves you with a fairly flaccid defense of the value of the racially homogeneous aspect of suburbs: we need them to escape from the problems our racist society created and which we refuse to or cannot solve.

If instead you’re arguing that race is genetic, and further that this genetic difference causes inherent differences in criminal propensity, then your conclusion about the value of racial homogeneity would be stronger, but your underlying premises would be weaker. And here I’m using “weaker” as a euphemism for “laughable.”

[billfish678]

@Maeglin

I don’t really know what to say to people who believe that the difference between 1.2 in 1000 and 1.0 in 1000 (the difference in the incidence of rape) or 20 in 1000 and 30 in 1000 (the difference in aggregate violent crimes) is a lot.

It does’t really matter if the difference is 5%, 50%, 150%. The likelihood of the actual event itself is really, really small. .

Your definition of REALLY REALLY SMALL is pretty diffirent from most people I know.

2 or 3 out of a HUNDRED aint THAT small IMO. It aint massively big, but it aint lottery odds either.

Lets do this.

I’ll put you a room. One room has a 2 percent chance I’ll beat the crap out of you. The other has a 3 percent. Take your pick.

[billfish678]

@Justin_Bailey

They do? I thought the biggest downside of suburban living was that no one knew their neighbors. Was I mistaken?

Yes, its just an urban legend.

[billfish678]

@Richard_Parker

If perceived or self-identified race correlates to crime because of the ongoing effects of historical racism, then the racial homogeneity of suburbs is only desirable insofar as we maintain the societal conditions that allow those effects to continue. If those conditions cease, then the correlation would eventually disappear. Which leaves you with a fairly flaccid defense of the value of the racially homogeneous aspect of suburbs: we need them to escape from the problems our racist society created and which we refuse to or cannot solve.

So basically the white man needs to stick around in the hood till the minorities get their shit together?

[billfish678]

@billfish678

I’ll put you a room. One room has a 2 percent chance I’ll beat the crap out of you. The other has a 3 percent. Take your pick.

Note, this is JUST a theorectical. I am not actually desiring to beat the crap outa anyone or or wishing to beat the crap outa anyone or wishing that anyone get the crap beaten outa them regardless of the actual odds.

sorry for the confusion.

[RickJay]

@Justin_Bailey

They do? I thought the biggest downside of suburban living was that no one knew their neighbors. Was I mistaken?

Are you joking?

I’ve lived in several suburbs. We ALWAYS knew our neighbours. By comparison, I never knew the people in the adjacent apartments when I lived in urban areas.

That said, brazil84 is not doing suburbanites any favours with his usual race baiting. I like my multicultural suburb.

[brazil84]

@Richard_Parker

the societal conditions that allow those effects to continue.

I think you need to re-read the point I made which you responded to:

@brazil84

I prefer living with a heavy white majority. Happy now?

Actually that’s not 100% true, since my neighborhood has a large Asian (Oriental) minority and I’m pretty happy here. However, painful experience shows that when an area has a large percentage of blacks, it tends to be rather unpleasant. This is true to a lesser extent with hispanics.

Are you happy that I’m not using “code words”? Or will you tear me apart for being “racist”? If so, you can hardly blame people for using “code words.”

I was talking about my own preferences. Not what’s best for society. Personally, I’m not terribly interested in endangering myself and my family over some liberal pipe dream that some day we’ll all hold hands and sing kum ba ya.