2021 - Detroit named most dangerous US city... again

[Henry Whalley]

... We need to get rid of that damn stigma.

Possibly, a combined news blackout and public relations campaign might erase the stigma, but they wouldn't eliminate the crime.

[JBMcB]

Detroit has a population [[now) of around 665,000. That's small numbers compared to Chicago.

Then you can compare violent crime rates between similarly sized midwestern cities.

Columbus, Ohio has a population of around 850,000, and it's violent crime rate is about 30.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin has a population of about 600,000, and has a violent crime rate of 45.

Indianapolis, Indiana has a population of 850,000, and a violent crime rate of 63.

Detroit has a population of about 680,000, and a violent crime rate of 93.

So, yeah, it's really bad, any way you slice it.

[Richard]

Perspective and perception...

Chicago is America's third largest city in terms of population [[not sure about landmass size).

Detroit has a population [[now) of around 665,000. That's small numbers compared to Chicago.

[[Detroit was at 750,000 ten years ago, so the city is still shrinking.)

Chicago's violent crime is centered on only three suburbs if I'm not wrong - mostly Cabrini Green, unless things have changed. Detroit crime could happen anywhere. Or everywhere. It's more spread out throughout the 'burbs.

Violent crime is only one type of crime. It grabs headlines. Drug dealing is a massive form of crime and even that wouldn't be classified as 'violent' unless a transaction turns messy.

Is there a 'thread' [[similarities) running through these cities that routinely get black-listed for their "violent crime" reputation?

Cabrini Green was demolished long ago and redeveloped under the new social experiment back in 2004 ish.

The thought was to remove the project aspect where you have the wholesale stock piling of people in a given location.

So the thinking was,if you integrate the thugs into good neighborhoods they would see the light and change their ways,at that time they also changed the housing allowance up to $1500 per month for those to be able to move to nicer areas that had higher rents.

The good side is it helped people stuck in a bad situation move up to a better life.

The bad side is it spread the thugs city wide and it was at that time the spread of safe neighborhoods turning into not so nice or safe anymore on a city wide scale.

The concept was to eliminate the projects that gained popularity in the 60s which was another social experiment gone bad.

So the question becomes,how does a city keep the thugs confined to a specific location while allowing the good people an alternative?

We have government housing that is really nice,it is extremely regulated down to you must have no felony convictions,get caught with drugs or if your kids get caught with drugs or do any thuggery that distrurbs the neighborhood then you are out of there and on your own.

So what happens to the thugs ? They get their girlfriends to rent private houses in neighborhoods and they live there spreading the thuggery to those neighborhoods.

Like was mentioned,itÂ’s a small percentage making life difficult for the majority.

You cannot corral the thugs anymore to any given location,the police cannot deal with them in their level without going to jail themselves,we supported the wholesale integration of thugs into the general population and changed the sliding scale of what is acceptable level of violence.

Not local but NYC arrested over 800 with clear video evidence of looting and burning of businesses,even with solid evidence they dropped the charges and sent the message of those are tolerated crimes and the community agreed with that.

Detroit did not take that stance,DetroitÂ’s thugs are no different or badder thugs then any other city on the planet,but when the community as a whole supports them and has their back when it becomes time to suffer the consequences of their actions,the community as a whole suffers.

As an outsider and after doing a little due diligence I would not have a problem visiting Detroit like I would places like NYC where thugs now have free rein over the city.

They had a point back then with keeping people confined within a certain section of town where the rest of the city was not effected,if one could figure out how to do that without trapping the good people within it would be ideal.

Orlando as a tourist city has a dedicated police unit that covers the tourist district and the message is sent pretty clear,you *uck with the tourist and holy hell is going to rein down on your head and there is no rock that you can hide under.

It works because the stance is it will not be tolerated.

In the city I live in there are shootings,robberies and murders every week,but it is confined to certain locations and groups and 90% do not even make the evening news,out of site out of mind.

Not for nothing but there are small cities that make Detroit look like a walk in the park,Given the choice of Detroit or say a place like Gary,Detroit is pretty safe.

[bust]

The kicker is the neighborhoods in most need of policing are the ones that hate cops the most.

Are you qualified to say that?

We need heavier better policing in these areas

Fixed it.

these people in these neighborhoods don’t deserve to have a say.

That's some crazy dictatorial shit.

I don’t like Rudy Giuliano but he did a hell of a job cleaning up New York crime.

You'd have a very hard time finding anyone who actually lived in NYC during Giuliani who agrees with that. I did, and during Dinkins, Bloomberg, and DeBlasio too.

Almost all major cities experienced a comparable decrease in crime during the 90's. NY wasn't unusual until after Giuliani. For two decades after 9/11 violent crime decreased at a rate faster than other cities -- under other administrations. Yes, 9/11 was a big factor.

Giuliani doesn't deserve credit for crime decreases before then. It was 1) inner city communities fighting crack and turning to peaceful weed in its place, as chronicled by hip-hop; 2) floods of young people and immigrants moving in from the suburbs and other countries. Cities were cheap and it was the collective energy and optimism of their residents, longtime and new, who made them better.

Detroit didn't benefit much from this because so many young suburbanites and immigrants chose more vibrant cities like NY, Chicago, LA, or San Francisco instead. Like I did. Besides, Detroit suburbs, also, were cheap, and they were finally beginning to integrate so Detroit {proper} continued to see a wealth and brain drain.

Giuliani gets credit because most of all US news media is created, edited, or otherwise managed from there, he's a braggart attention-whore, and he was mayor during 9/11 and a few months later, when the whole world focused on NY. Oh, and a big one: because 99% of the ones who give him credit weren't there and only heard it somewhere.

[bust]

All I can say is there must be two different Detroit's.

That's for damn sure.
Visiting high-crime neighborhoods during the day, minding your own business, and being recognized as an outsider is completely different than living there.
I don't live there either.
It's great to hear you've been working so long in Detroit without incident.

[bust]

Cabrini Green isn't a suburb.

Neither is Cabrini Green a particularly high-crime area anymore.

[13606Cedargrove]

I disagree with bust's assessment of the Giuliani's achievements. I was a frequent visitor to NYC from 1979 to just recently. In the the 1990's the effects of his administration on the quality of life were remarkable in their scope. Not only was the City safer, it was cleaner and more orderly as well. Bloomberg did a good job maintaining the gains. DeBlasio reversed the gains. What a shame. I know this is off-topic. Rant over.

[bust]

I don't disagree, at all, NY got much safer during the 90's. Just wondering why you give Giuliani credit for that, and none of the other reasons I cited? I lived there, before, during, and long after Giuliani, and it's with that part I respectfully, and entirely, disagree.

My apologies, also, this is off-topic. Except I'd hate to see Giuliani-style policing imposed on Detroit neighborhoods, as was seemingly advocated previously on this thread. NOT a solution.

I'm a law abiding citizen, within reason. Except for laws that make absolutely no sense.

I can't count how many times under Giuliani the bar or club I was at was raided because more than 2 people were "dancing" without a "cabaret license" mandated during prohibition, a law still on the books but never enforced since then.

Policies like that made people like me change my opinion of police to think of them as unreasonable adversaries, capriciously enforcing ridiculous laws used as a pretense to harass people with whom some superior had some inexplicable vendetta. I can only imagine how my perspective on cops would have changed were I of the demographic routinely victim to stop-and-frisk and humiliated in front of neighbors, friends, and family.

I humbly submit neighborhoods get better from the cumulative and combined effects of small interactions among actual community members, not from some adversarial posture imposed and enforced by people who are not only outsiders, but who mostly don't even live in the city.

There have long been problems with NYC police, the way they've been deployed, and whose interests they've served. In case you haven't heard of Tammany Hall, they date back to the 1700's.

Community must come from communities. When cops actually serve and protect communities as they claim, communities embrace them.

[Dmberko11]

Possibly, a combined news blackout and public relations campaign might erase the stigma, but they wouldn't eliminate the crime.

Touché. Detroit's crime is still way too high per capita. I've always fealt reasonably safe in Detroit, visiting downtown, etc. I don't know. It's just a shame. I really want my hometown to shine again like it did throughout most of the early to mid 20th century.

[Seven&wyo]

I don't disagree, at all, NY got much safer during the 90's. Just wondering why you give Giuliani credit for that, and none of the other reasons I cited? I lived there, before, during, and long after Giuliani, and it's with that part I respectfully, and entirely, disagree.

My apologies, also, this is off-topic. Except I'd hate to see Giuliani-style policing imposed on Detroit neighborhoods, as was seemingly advocated previously on this thread. NOT a solution.

My post was both anecdotal and some numbers IÂ’d had seen a while ago somewhere that related to what I said[[I donÂ’t remember where). But I have several friend who grew up in NYC during the 80s and they all say the same thing in regards to Giuliani, that what he did may have been a little too tough, but that most people now donÂ’t understand how crime ridden New York was back then. That to see anyone past the time of 9pm was a rare occurrence. New York was completely out of control and remember this was just after they almost went bankrupt.

The post I made about not listening to the people here was honestly just a little emotional on my part IÂ’m just sick and tired of these pieces of shit treating the city, these beautiful homes and neighbors like their own person trash bin.

[bust]

That to see anyone past the time of 9pm was a rare occurrence. New York was completely out of control and remember this was just after they almost went bankrupt.

It was when NYC nearly declared bankruptcy that I moved there, and I remember the crime. NY has never been more dangerous, nor as cheap. It's hard for many to believe what neighborhoods I was able to afford, and what life was like during the early 90's. It's hard even for me, so much has the city changed.

Throughout that period I worked night shifts, and stayed out long after 9pm. I rode the subway and walked the rest of the way home. It wasn't safe by today's standards, but people like me were not at all rare. It was more and more people like me, living normally, who encouraged the children of those like the ones who fled NY to have courage. Giuliani took credit, but he only antagonized us.

[Satiricalivory]

So, yeah, it's really bad, any way you slice it.

I'm not sure why you're stopping at Midwest cities and also omitting Cleveland.

Indianapolis is not really that far off, certainly not enough for anybody to really notice the difference on the ground. Yet it gets nowhere near the crime media attention Detroit has had.

[Satiricalivory]

Touché. Detroit's crime is still way too high per capita. I've always fealt reasonably safe in Detroit, visiting downtown, etc.

I've never in my life felt remotely unsafe in Detroit and I've been around the city. I imagine actually living in most these neighborhoods would be the same experience, because almost all these violent crime stats happen behind closed doors between people that already know each other.

[ABetterDetroit]

I will leave this here if anyone is interested.

https://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_abt...pt?language=en

[Richard]

I will leave this here if anyone is interested.

https://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_abt...pt?language=en

lots of truth there


In New Orleans, for instance, a network of fewer than 700 individuals accounts for the majority of the city's lethal violence. Some call these individuals "hot people." Here in Boston, 70 percent of shootings are concentrated on blocks and corners covering just five percent of the city. These locations are often known as "hot spots." In city after city, a small number of hot people and hot spots account for the clear majority of lethal violence. In fact, this finding has been replicated so many times that researchers now call this phenomenon the law of crime concentration.


………………………..

But what happens when you saturate those areas with police to deal with that 5% ?

The cell phones come out and it is all over the evening news that the police are targeting a minority.

So things will stay as they are,cities will continue to collect billions in order to prop up their balance sheets without investing in the community that needs it the most,politicians will continue to be media whores claiming they are looking out for those communities

Those with means will quietly pack up and move,like they are doing now,on a large scale once again and the cycle continues.

I think people like to use Detroit as a crime whipping post because they are scared and can say,my city has crime but at least it is not as bad as Detroit,and it makes them feel good and they can stay blind to the fact that thrir cities are just as bad or worse.

Keep the eye on Detroit and it does not look at you.

What is even worse now is the age group of those committing the drive bys and violent crimes ,15 to 18 year olds and most cities have adopted the give them a second chance to blow your head off by releasing them as soon as they get arrested,they are just children after all and a product of their environment so it is not their fault.

Not for nothing but your politicians have not exactly run a Come visit Detroit and see all of the wonderful things we have to offer campaign in the last couple of years to entice people to actually visit and see for themselves.

It always boils down to money in the end and the quest to get ones hands on it.

[Dmberko11]

I've never in my life felt remotely unsafe in Detroit and I've been around the city. I imagine actually living in most these neighborhoods would be the same experience, because almost all these violent crime stats happen behind closed doors between people that already know each other.

Yep. I think it's mostly gang-related, east side shenanigans. Remember growing up watching Fox 2, channel 7, all the local area coverage and that's what it usually was. Moved away from Oakland county in '07 and didn't return to the area until fall of '14 where I lived with relatives in Dearborn heights off of ford and telegraph. Detroit is reasonably safe. Like any city though it's got some hoods and drug issues and some hoodlums that have to make the news going pew pew.

[Henry Whalley]

I grew up in Detroit before it became so violent, and it was a place of great happiness for a working-class child. What purpose does it serve to pretend it’s not dangerous?

[JBMcB]

I'm not sure why you're stopping at Midwest cities and also omitting Cleveland.

Because the argument was that you need to take population into account when looking at violent crime statistics, as there may be a scaling factor. So I looked at Midwest cities with similar population counts. Cleveland has about half as many people as Detroit, so I wouldn't compare them if population size is a factor.

[ABetterDetroit]

I grew up in Detroit before it became so violent, and it was a place of great happiness for a working-class child. What purpose does it serve to pretend it’s not dangerous?

None. How can a problem be fixed if one pretends it doesn’t exist?"

[Honky Tonk]

None. How can a problem be fixed if one pretends it doesn’t exist?"

And seven years later we're finally on the same page.

[KnnNike]

I grew up in Detroit before it became so violent, and it was a place of great happiness for a working-class child. What purpose does it serve to pretend it’s not dangerous?

Because it's a red herring. Does Detroit have dangerous areas? Yes. And are some of those areas extremely dangerous? Yes.

But does Detroit have safe areas? Yes. And are some of those areas extremely safe? Again, yes. Most of the neighborhoods around downtown are extremely safe. I work in midtown and live downtown, and every day for several years would ride a DDOT bus from work to home around 9pm. Many times it was completely dark out. Not once have I ever been put in harm's way, nor have any of the dozens of people I known who live and work in these areas every been put in harm's way.

We're not "pretending" it's not dangerous in some parts of the city. We're pushing back against the misinformation about Detroit being universally and equally of high danger. What's the point? If people think that every square inch of the city is dangerous, they won't move here, they won't visit here, and the city fall into a downward spiral like it did in the 80s and 90s.

[Zacha341]

Well at least we don't have the run on shoplifting going on, yet... Rag DM had fun reporting out what is going on in SFran/ CA:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ods.html?login

[night-timer]

I believe Giuliani in New York largely targeted organized crime syndicates, like the Italian Mafia, not street-hood activities. But maybe both earned his wrath.

I'm not sure Detroit would have the money to implement that N.Y. style of crime crackdown that Rudy did, anyway.

[Honky Tonk]

I believe Giuliani in New York largely targeted organized crime syndicates, like the Italian Mafia, not street-hood activities. But maybe both earned his wrath.

I'm not sure Detroit would have the money to implement that N.Y. style of crime crackdown that Rudy did, anyway.

I'm not sure Detroit needs it.

[Henry Whalley]

I believe Giuliani in New York largely targeted organized crime syndicates, like the Italian Mafia...

Busting the Italian mob created a vacuum that was filled by the Russian mob with whom Giuliani became business partners.