The Little-Studied Link Between So-Called 'Murder Capitals' and Population Decline

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

The segregation thing might be the key factor. More mixed income neighbourhoods would be more attractive for more people to move into and for gentrifiers.

I tend to agree with you. The problem seems to be that "market prices" of housing is a reinforcing effect, lumping people of similar socio-economic levels and usually races together.

[hudkina]

In Detroit murders are down 20% in the first 6 months compared to last year. There were 127 murders in Detroit through the end of June.

Detroit had 386 murders in 2012, compared to 333 in 2013. At the current rate Detroit could see 260-275 murders in 2014. That would be a 2014 murder rate of roughly 39 per 100,000, compared to about 55 per 100,000 in 2012 and 48 per 100,000 in 2013. While things can easily change in the second half of the year, the city has come a long way since the height of the recession when it comes to crime-fighting.

As the population decline somewhat stabilizes after the massive drop during the recession, the crime rate seems to be going down. Robberies are down nearly 30% compared to last year.

The good thing is that as Detroit comes out of bankruptcy, the city will be increasing the number of police officers on patrol in the coming years, even as the population continues to decline. Hopefully the trend in the last few years will continue. It'd be nice to see a murder rate under 30 per 100,000 in the next few years.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

By "major cities" they probably mean those of >1 million inhabitants, in which case, yes, Chicago was the only city of that size to decline in population between 2000 and 2010.

Maybe that is what they meant but they should have specified because they just mentioned a slew of smaller cities such as Flint, St. Louis, Detroit, etc, a casual reader could be lead to the impression that Chicago is doing worse off than those cities.

[M II A II R II K]

It also states that Chicago has clearly definable segregated lines which concentrates poverty in the poorest areas.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Maybe that is what they meant but they should have specified because they just mentioned a slew of smaller cities such as Flint, St. Louis, Detroit, etc, a casual reader could be lead to the impression that Chicago is doing worse off than those cities.

I understand your frustration that people parallel your obviously global city to smaller, rust belt cities but in all honesty, what makes Chicago so different despite scale?

I would say Chicago feels way more like a big St. Louis than a big Portland, or even a big Minneapolis (and I mean that aesthetically, demographically, and culturally), you should know that Chicago is way more than the Northshore and Downtown Loop.

[10023]

Originally Posted by goat314

I understand your frustration that people parallel your obviously global city to smaller, rust belt cities but in all honesty, what makes Chicago so different despite scale?

I would say Chicago feels way more like a big St. Louis than a big Portland, or even a big Minneapolis (and I mean that aesthetically, demographically, and culturally), you should know that Chicago is way more than the Northshore and Downtown Loop.

The whole North Side and near Northwest side of Chicago has no parallel in the Midwest. And that's all that's needed to make it "so different". One can live in Chicago and not leave these areas (I rarely did). It's not like one ever needs to go out to the vast swaths of South and West side.

It's not like all of NY or Philly or Boston is like the center of these cities, either. But Chicago has a core than St Louis, Detroit or Cleveland don't have (at least, not anymore).

[10023]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I tend to agree with you. The problem seems to be that "market prices" of housing is a reinforcing effect, lumping people of similar socio-economic levels and usually races together.

Why put "market prices" in square quotes?

Without government influence (eg, public/council housing, rent controls, etc) people of similar socioeconomic status have always tended to live together.

[eschaton]

Quite honestly, I believe it's more to do with the association of high murder rates with black neighborhoods - and that for whatever reason (with DC the main exception on a city-wide basis) gentrifiers seem to both avoid cities and neighborhoods with a relatively high black population.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Quite honestly, I believe it's more to do with the association of high murder rates with black neighborhoods - and that for whatever reason (with DC the main exception on a city-wide basis) gentrifiers seem to both avoid cities and neighborhoods with a relatively high black population.

People want to minimize risk, regardless of the semantics. Risk is a mix of statistical reality and emotional fears.

[M II A II R II K]

The poor are more likely to rent and not have to buy up any property no matter how expensive it is. And with government accommodation the buildings could be nicer with a games room and pool and everything where you don't get kicked out if you get richer so the buildings and neighbourhoods remain mixed income which makes it less likely to lead to ghettoization. Vienna does this.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

The poor are more likely to rent and not have to buy up any property no matter how expensive it is. And with government accommodation the buildings could be nicer with a games room and pool and everything where you don't get kicked out if you get richer so the buildings and neighbourhoods remain mixed income which makes it less likely to lead to ghettoization. Vienna does this.

I think the long term reality is that economic segregation will cause a patchwork of rich, middle class, and, poor neighborhoods, such as seen in Mexico City, or Sao Paulo.* I think that if use of the auto is reduced due to economic realities, that the size of individual segregated areas will decrease, but, borders between upper middle class enclaves and the neighboring poor areas will tighten down to the pedestrian level.

Manhattan, in NYC, used to be that way, and parts of the other boroughs still are.

*the difference in housing stock will not be so conspicuous, but it will be real.

[llamaorama]

Did the trauma of urban decay change the culture and mindset of people in certain cities long after the crime problem was abated and the population and economy stabilized? Something about being afraid of crime and being made hard by it may be bad for society in the long run.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the historically less segregated cities in the west have better government and a more progressive mindset. Perhaps because people rich and poor alike are sharing the same community and care about it and trust each other not to ruin it.

In the end, this means the places which are "nice" didn't have that kind of history, and people want to move to nice places. This is where the growth happens.

[Centropolis]

llama, to play devils advocate, los angeles sure ran with trauma in an epic way for being at the end of the western line. for some perspective we never had riots in saint louis city.

[10023]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the historically less segregated cities in the west have better government and a more progressive mindset. Perhaps because people rich and poor alike are sharing the same community and care about it and trust each other not to ruin it.

edit: and to add to what Centropolis said, LA is only less segregated (if that's even the case) because poor whites and poor Latinos share neighborhoods. It is as socioeconomicaly segregated as anywhere. You've got the LA that lies north of the I-10 freeway and up to Mulholland Drive, from downtown in the east to the ocean in the west, and then you've got most of the rest of the LA Basin. These are almost different cities.

Again, every place anywhere is segregate by incomes, except for public or subsidized housing in nicer areas. The rich and poor don't really normally live alongside one another, except perhaps in neighborhoods that are experiencing a rapid transition.

[the urban politician]

The problem is, poorer individuals in gangs don't have a way to deal with eachother's differences effectively in the US like higher class people do.

It's not like they can sue eachother, especially if the business they are in is illegal anyhow. It's not like they have contracts. Basically if the other guy doesn't pay, you kill him.

That's why decriminalizing many drugs could go a long way towards reducing the number of murders, in my opinion. Open up the court system as a way to resolve differences between what are now warring gangs.

[chris08876]

^^^

Yup. Drug related crime is the primary reason for murders. Its honestly drugs. The U.S. has been experiencing the lowest rate in crime in its history, and stopping this inane drug war would only make the nation safer. Its bullcrap to think that people that are high cause trouble. Its the draconian laws against drug use that cause crime. I can understand why a drug dealer might shoot somebody. Think about it. With a certain amount of product, if he gets caught, hes going to jail for life. Well, since he's fucked regardless, why not shoot somebody? What difference does it make?

A lot of these people have nothing to lose, and its this attitude that further fuels crime. Plus, from a medical standpoint, a lot of these drugs are no where near as bad as the real killers; prescription drugs. All legal btw, as long as you have an excuse to get them. They give speed to little kids, yet people go to jail for a little weed?! Its backwards.

[hudkina]

Marijuana is not the reason many of these murders occur. It's heroine, meth, crack... And yes these are not drugs that should be legalized. And no, the murders aren't just turf wars. Many people commit crimes because they become addicted to these drugs and can't afford to pay for them. Marijuana is hardly on the radar. It's so prevalent and relatively cheap.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Marijuana is not the reason many of these murders occur. It's heroine, meth, crack... And yes these are not drugs that should be legalized. And no, the murders aren't just turf wars. Many people commit crimes because they become addicted to these drugs and can't afford to pay for them. Marijuana is hardly on the radar. It's so prevalent and relatively cheap.

They should be legalized. Meth, and Heroin were legal at one point along with many of the hallucinogens. It is their illegality that causes issues. In their pure form, they are relatively safe. It is the black market that causes the terrible purity of such substances that makes them dangerous with corrosive chemicals and fillers. We should not ban drugs because a very small minority uses them irresponsibly. If thats the case, alcohol, which if we are to compare to other drugs in their pure form, is highly dangerous.

I'm for drug clinics as well to supply the clean compounds to help addicts not suffer withdrawal. Drug addicts have a problem, and while they might not have made the best decisions, the withdrawals are no joke and should be treated as a medical issue. If we can tread alcoholism as a serious issue, withdrawal from opioids should also be a big priority. But even then, its not the drug users who cause most of the violence, its the dealers and people responsible for the logistics and functioning of the black market.

The problem with all of these bans is what usually happens is that out of all the people who use it, a very small minority uses it irresponsibly; some stupid kid dies because he didn't do his research or was ignorant when taking a compound, some mother complains, a senator gets involved, and then its banned. Its silly and this always occurs every time something new comes out. Even when it comes to herbs, the same thing applies. Kratom for example, an excellent pain killer and stress reliever, now is under the spotlight because a couple of tards mix it with alcohol even though they shouldn't. Ephedra, an excellent stimulant, banned because again, tards take way to much of it. Likewise, the same thing I fear will happen to energy drinks. The public needs to stop worrying if 5 or 6 kids die. Let them, they're idiots. Lets not ruin something perfectly good, especially when it comes to herbs that have been used for hundreds of years, because some kid in Michigan takes 10x the recommended dose.

This whole "its for the children" is nonsense. Why should something perfectly safe if used responsibly, be illegal because a couple of kids died when they took way to much, and did it in an irresponsible manner. Society shouldn't have to pay for somebody's mistake.

[llamaorama]

Actually I was thinking more like Denver or Portland or SLC here.

And by lacking segregation, I mean they lacked a significant amount of minorities to be used as scapegoats. Not that that PDX wasn't a borderline sundown town, Denver's urban boundaries are partly a result of busing issues , and SLC does have ghettos.

But my point stands that these cities weren't trashed by white flight and that is why they seem nicer today. I'm not blaming any group, it's a collective failure of society as a whole. Also America in 2014 is different from the America in 1964 and diversity is an asset.

Right or wrong, who knows

[hudkina]

chris08876, I think you're a little myopic when it comes to inner-city drug culture...