Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> LA and Seattle

That's a strange way of spelling Cleveland, Memphis, Baton Rouge, Tulsa, Baltimore, Albuquerque, Detroit, Mobile, Cincinnati, Toledo, Des Moines, Seattle, Indianapolis, Spokane, St. Louis, San Bernadino, Bakersfield, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Minneapolis, Durham, Orlando, Wichita... And I can't be bothered to list the next 30, all of whom also have more burglaries per capita than SF, and most of which also have more assaults, murders, and rapes.

LA is #73 on the burglary index, by the way.

You're making a lot of claims, and providing zero data for them.

> These crime rates are what's reported by the police and they refuse to take reports of anything that hasn't escalated

Please provide a shred of evidence that this doesn't happen in any of the other other cities listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

Why even bother arguing this question, if all you have is anecdotes, speculation and just-so stories?




> Why even bother arguing this question

I live in two of the drug cities and visit others, and pay taxes that support many of these policies specifically. Do you live in one of the west-coast cities in question, or is this an abstract political battle for you? If you live here, do you feel you're a representative resident?

> if all you have is anecdotes, speculation and just-so stories?

Well, there's the crux of it, these are anecdotes that have happened to me personally. Over decades of experience and watching things change. And there's tons of data collected by victims but as has been pointed out, the news often chooses to report on acknowledged crime where a police officer has been sent out and taken a report. FB groups where people log violent street interactions or businesses' windows being broken show a definite uptick that government statistics don't. I know it's true because I walk past enough of those broken windows and stabbing sites to provide a reality check for what I'm seeing published.

We know that there are vastly more actual rapes than reported rapes and punished rapes. Why it is so unreasonable that there are vastly more actual attacks and robberies than reported?

> [other cities] all of whom also have more burglaries per capita than SF, and most of which also have more assaults, murders, and rapes.

Perception of livability despite violent crime has a lot to do with the localization of that crime. If only certain areas, at certain times, are dangerous - and if those areas are ones that can be avoided - then you can generally just go elsewhere with your family and be fine. That's the liberal way SF and such used to work. Sure, there were sleezy places but the street people would even helpfully and quietly warn tourists - "Hey bud, there's a lot of drugs down here, you should really take your kids a few blocks that way."

But once it spills over into random attacks outside that area, such that you can be killed at the busiest coffee shop in the city, the entire veneer of safety goes away.

We're saying two main things: that it got bad really quickly and predictably, and it's being officially downplayed.

> Please provide a shred of evidence that this doesn't happen in any of the other other cities listed in

It's somewhat annoying that what should be an issue of local policy ends up being purity-checked by people trying to decide if we're too partisan in national politics. We're talking about our policies, not trying to claim that other cities can't fail just as hard as we are but with a different set of errors.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: