CDZ Thought Exercise: Big Cities & Crime

[Mac1958]

I thought that starting this thread in the CDZ would slightly increase my chances of an interesting conversation. Here goes:

We can (probably) agree that most of our big cities have significant crime problems. The gross totals are high, the rates are high, and in many cases the crime is more severe. Let's try to stipulate to that here.

But rather than doing the usual collapse into simplistic partisan finger-pointing, I'm wondering what it is about cities that reach a certain size that creates this environment. Obviously these cities are or were dynamic and special enough to attract these people in the first place, and I think that's a key to this. It seems like the problem is what happened after it attracted a huge amount of people.

So rather than ramble, I'll stop there and expand in the thread. But I want to start with two questions:

1. Is it possible for a city to become "too large"?
2. If so, is there anything we can do to manage or mitigate that?


==============
OldLady, Dont Taz Me Bro, Toro, rightwinger, Johnlaw, MaryAnne11, citygator, Tom Paine 1949, Ben Thomson, bodecea, Lesh, Seawytch, EvilEyeFleegle, Winston, WinterBorn, JackOfNoTrades, Camp, Coyote

 

[Darkwind]

1. Yes.

2. Not with current policies and beliefs.

 

[gipper]

NYC had controlled crime very well for a long time. Then the PD changed tactics. They stopped targeting the criminals and crime increased. It’s not a difficult concept to comprehend.

 

[Anomalism]

They stopped targeting the criminals

Can you expand on this?

 

[Anomalism]

"Too large" is difficult to define and quantify.

 

[Mac1958]

"Too large" is difficult to define and quantify.

Sure, that's part of the problem. But no doubt, the dynamics of a city changes as it grows. And this could never be codified or mandated, but having some kind of conversation and template might be helpful to states, cities and counties.

Theoretically.

 

[Moonglow]

Where ever there is a human there is the possibility of crime being committed..The larger cities have large amounts of crime because they have a larger population. Small cities have crime but less because of fewer humans.. The idea that only Democratic Party led cities are violent is a lie, they all have crime no matter who is running the operations...

 

[citygator]

• Fact: People don’t have a good understanding of safe/dangerous because they react to raw numbers and not overall rates (Chicago for instance)
• There are safe large cities all over the world and it varies by country. It’s not city size.
• The US has very dangerous medium size cities and safe large ones.
• NYC today is relatively safe for a US city by comparison Detroit which is much smaller is not safe, nor is Springfield MO smaller even still.

At the end of the day factors tend to be in play are poverty and how organized drug criminals are which drives higher rates in some cities.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Yes, a big city can become to large and no you can not stop it growth unless you have a smaller city with better opportunities that allow the citizens to have a better chance at the American way of life.

Issue is income, education and family values...

Income is the major issue for low income families and individuals that have a lower education and they want easy fast money without having to pay for the schooling or doing the class work to achieve a better status in life.

Now with that written I know for a fact crime know no boundaries and have seen criminals in all class of life and in all races and believe White people do their share of crime from petty theft to murder and dope dealing to white collar crimes but the judicial system does not punish them the same way as if it were done by a Hispanic, Asian, or Black, so that is something we should reflect on and also correct.

Also media and other industries a lot of time promote bad behavior that many indulge in and that also should be addressed in how it affects our children when they watch movies, play video games and listen to music.

Finally, the lack of morals from the House to the Oval Office is appalling and we as a Country should ask when did we stray from the path our parents and grandparents put us on and ask how did we fail our children and how we can correct this and help teach our children and grandchildren a better way than a path of destruction.

So my point is that crime rises because of income, education and morals and when we address this and give everyone a fighting chance then maybe we can see a better society and also fix the justice system and get rid of some laws like those against pot usage, growing and selling...

 

[JLW]

You have to look at your question from two perspectives. Pre-and post- Covid. Pre-Covid, it was not uncommon to read that cities were the future. Cities were seen as being on the cutting edge of sustainability, technology and living standards. There was talk of smart cities that were wired to everything making city life easier and more enjoyable. Problems were identified with cities but there was optimism.

Post-Covid the optimism for cities has vanished...for now. City residents are abandoning cities. Well, at least those urbanites who can afford to leave. IMO this may be a temporary move. Once Civid recedes you will see a return of these residents.

However, there has been a failure of leadership in some of these larger cities. Crime is on the ascendency but still lower than it was in the 70s and 80s. These ridiculous notions of defunding the police will fade as the pendulum will turn. Cities work so long as people feel they are safe.

Is it possible for cities to be too big? Maybe, though civilization seems to rise and fall depending on their cities. When cities thrive, society at large thrives. When cities die, so do societies. Whether it was Rome or the Aztecs when the cities were abandoned it did not bode well for the societies at large.

The best way to mitigate and manage cities is to elect competent managers. Police, infrastructure, cost of living issues and schools must be managed. Gun violence must be dealt with in some cities as well.

The ebb and flow to and from cities will continue. We are in ebb mode now.

 

[Mac1958]

You have to look at your question from two perspectives. Pre-and post- Covid. Pre-Covid, it was not uncommon to read that cities were the future. Cities were seen as being on the cutting edge of sustainability, technology and living standards. There was talk of smart cities that were wired to everything making city life easier and more enjoyable. Problems were identified with cities but there was optimism.

Post-Covid the optimism for votes has vanished...for now. City residents are abandoning cities. Well, at least those urbanites who can afford to leave. IMO this may be a temporary move. Once Civid receded you will see a return of these residents.

However, there has been a failure of leadership in some of these larger cities. Crime is on the ascendency but still lower than it was in the 70s and 80s. These ridiculous notions of defunding the police will fade as the pendulum will turn. Cities work so long as people fail they are safe.

Is it possible for cities to be too big? Maybe, though civilization seems to rise and fall depending on their cities. When cities thrive, society at large thrives. When cities die, so do societies. Whether it was Rome or the Aztecs when the cities were abandoned it did bode well for the societies at large.

The best way to mitigate and manage cities is to elect competent managers. Police, infrastructure, cost of living issues and schools must be managed. Gun violence must be dealt with in some cities,

The ebb and flow to and from cities will continue. We are in ebb mode now.

Interesting.

Another issue here, relating to COVID, is that large employers have found that remote working has not had a significant impact on either quality or productivity. I recently saw an article that discussed how this would manifest in where workforces choose to live.

Crime, congestion, costs of living, transportation -- if you don't have to work where the jobs are, you very well may not.

 

[Blues Man]

• Fact: People don’t have a good understanding of safe/dangerous because they react to raw numbers and not overall rates (Chicago for instance)
• There are safe large cities all over the world and it varies by country. It’s not city size.
• The US has very dangerous medium size cities and safe large ones.
• NYC today is relatively safe for a US city by comparison Detroit which is much smaller is not safe, nor is Springfield MO smaller even still.

At the end of the day factors tend to be in play are poverty and how organized drug criminals are which drives higher rates in some cities.

most crime in any city is confined to very small areas.

the fact is most places in most cities are not crime ridden or dangerous

 

[JLW]

You have to look at your question from two perspectives. Pre-and post- Covid. Pre-Covid, it was not uncommon to read that cities were the future. Cities were seen as being on the cutting edge of sustainability, technology and living standards. There was talk of smart cities that were wired to everything making city life easier and more enjoyable. Problems were identified with cities but there was optimism.

Post-Covid the optimism for votes has vanished...for now. City residents are abandoning cities. Well, at least those urbanites who can afford to leave. IMO this may be a temporary move. Once Civid receded you will see a return of these residents.

However, there has been a failure of leadership in some of these larger cities. Crime is on the ascendency but still lower than it was in the 70s and 80s. These ridiculous notions of defunding the police will fade as the pendulum will turn. Cities work so long as people fail they are safe.

Is it possible for cities to be too big? Maybe, though civilization seems to rise and fall depending on their cities. When cities thrive, society at large thrives. When cities die, so do societies. Whether it was Rome or the Aztecs when the cities were abandoned it did bode well for the societies at large.

The best way to mitigate and manage cities is to elect competent managers. Police, infrastructure, cost of living issues and schools must be managed. Gun violence must be dealt with in some cities,

The ebb and flow to and from cities will continue. We are in ebb mode now.

Interesting.

Another issue here, relating to COVID, is that large employers have found that remote working has not had a significant impact on either quality or productivity. I recently saw an article that discussed how this would manifest in where workforces choose to live.

Crime, congestion, costs of living, transportation -- if you don't have to work where the jobs are, you very well may not.

Good point. Whether this new work from home paradigm will be the death knell of cities is to be seen. I don’t think so. Cities will need to adapt. Adapt or continue to decline.

 

[gipper]

You have to look at your question from two perspectives. Pre-and post- Covid. Pre-Covid, it was not uncommon to read that cities were the future. Cities were seen as being on the cutting edge of sustainability, technology and living standards. There was talk of smart cities that were wired to everything making city life easier and more enjoyable. Problems were identified with cities but there was optimism.

Post-Covid the optimism for votes has vanished...for now. City residents are abandoning cities. Well, at least those urbanites who can afford to leave. IMO this may be a temporary move. Once Civid receded you will see a return of these residents.

However, there has been a failure of leadership in some of these larger cities. Crime is on the ascendency but still lower than it was in the 70s and 80s. These ridiculous notions of defunding the police will fade as the pendulum will turn. Cities work so long as people fail they are safe.

Is it possible for cities to be too big? Maybe, though civilization seems to rise and fall depending on their cities. When cities thrive, society at large thrives. When cities die, so do societies. Whether it was Rome or the Aztecs when the cities were abandoned it did bode well for the societies at large.

The best way to mitigate and manage cities is to elect competent managers. Police, infrastructure, cost of living issues and schools must be managed. Gun violence must be dealt with in some cities,

The ebb and flow to and from cities will continue. We are in ebb mode now.

Interesting.

Another issue here, relating to COVID, is that large employers have found that remote working has not had a significant impact on either quality or productivity. I recently saw an article that discussed how this would manifest in where workforces choose to live.

Crime, congestion, costs of living, transportation -- if you don't have to work where the jobs are, you very well may not.

I think the premise of your thread is ridiculous. NYC is and has been our largest city. They had crime under control for decades. What makes you think crime can’t be controlled again in NYC?

 

[Mac1958]

I think the premise of your thread is ridiculous.

The premise of the thread is an idea and a question, not a claim or a theory.

 

[Disir]

But rather than doing the usual collapse into simplistic partisan finger-pointing, I'm wondering what it is about cities that reach a certain size that creates this environment. Obviously these cities are or were dynamic and special enough to attract these people in the first place, and I think that's a key to this. It seems like the problem is what happened after it attracted a huge amount of people.

This is very odd. Your starting point is so flawed that it is completely unrelated to the questions that you are asking.

What makes you think that they weren't born there?

1. Is it possible for a city to become "too large"?
2. If so, is there anything we can do to manage or mitigate that?

No and no.

 

[Mac1958]

Seemed like a pretty benign subject.

 

[Papageorgio]

The crime and its issues have a direct correlation to how a city handles crime and other social and economic issues. You will find cities where they will arrest and prosecute crime, where they tackle housing costs. Cities that focus on zoning codes, environmental impact statements, worry about “fairness” and “rights”, ask police to allow misdemeanor crimes, seem to have more issues than those that take on issues head on and try to control mitigating factors. Because of treatments, availability of doctors and health care professionals, cities also attract those with needs, whether it be housing, health care, probation officers, social services, this also attracts an element that may not be desirable.

Lots of factors and lots of problems. I believe Covid May have changed a dynamic by forcing employers to allow people to work at home. If the work force goes remote, we will start seeing people working from home and not living in the big cities, but in rural areas and suburbs. I prefer a small town about and an hour or so from a city. I think the shift will be slow but it will happen. So I am not seeing large cities surviving as they have before Covid-19, I’m seeing a fundamental change and it is bearing out in strong home sale market in medium and smaller cities that is currently going on.

 

[evenflow1969]

I thought that starting this thread in the CDZ would slightly increase my chances of an interesting conversation. Here goes:

We can (probably) agree that most of our big cities have significant crime problems. The gross totals are high, the rates are high, and in many cases the crime is more severe. Let's try to stipulate to that here.

But rather than doing the usual collapse into simplistic partisan finger-pointing, I'm wondering what it is about cities that reach a certain size that creates this environment. Obviously these cities are or were dynamic and special enough to attract these people in the first place, and I think that's a key to this. It seems like the problem is what happened after it attracted a huge amount of people.

So rather than ramble, I'll stop there and expand in the thread. But I want to start with two questions:

1. Is it possible for a city to become "too large"?
2. If so, is there anything we can do to manage or mitigate that?


==============
OldLady, Dont Taz Me Bro, Toro, rightwinger, Johnlaw, MaryAnne11, citygator, Tom Paine 1949, Ben Thomson, bodecea, Lesh, Seawytch, EvilEyeFleegle, Winston, WinterBorn, JackOfNoTrades, Camp, Coyote

The cause is a feed back loop. The crime is CONCENTRATED in specific areas. The people stuck in those areas learn it from their neighbors and it spreads until it meats a geographic barrier.

 

[gipper]

I think the premise of your thread is ridiculous.

The premise of the thread is an idea and a question, not a claim or a theory.

Okay...then the claim or theory is clearly all wet.