October 30, 2006
We're No. 1!
FoS reader Bob Trumpbour notes that a new report ranks St. Louis and Detroit as the two most dangerous U.S. cities. Those are, of course, the same two cities that finished one-two in something else recently, in each case after building new baseball (and football) stadiums that were supposedly going to "revitalize" their urban cores.
The best line from the AP story on the report, though, has nothing to do with stadiums or baseball:
The bad news for St. Louis was good for Camden, N.J., which in 2005 was named the most dangerous city for the second year in a row.Camden Mayor Gwendolyn Faison said Sunday she was thrilled to learn that her city no longer topped the most-dangerous list."You made my day!" said Faison, who has served since 2000. "There's a new hope and a new spirit."
Camden's new ranking: fifth-most dangerous city in the nation. They don't make hope like they used to.
St. Louis' urban core has gone through a huge change in the past 10 years. Almost all buildings in downtown that were empty are now lofts with stores on the bottom level.The crime that is happening is only in a few areas of city, it is not citywide! The few areas where crime rate is really high is where most of the gangs are and the crime is not random acts of violence. I go into St. Louis city many times a month and never do I not feel safe. St. Louis is a great city, and its urban core will be even better than it is today in 10 years.
Also, it is not fair how that company that makes this stupid list compares cities. I mean, how do you compare crime in Indianapolis to St. Louis. Indianapolis' city limits are huge like 900 square miles and includes most of the suburban area in Indianapolis. St. Louis on the other hand its' city limits are only 62 square miles and only includes the urban core, not the suburban areas. If you were to expand St. Louis' city limits so that it included the suburban areas like other cities such as Indy, Louisville, Columbus, OH and Kansas City then St. Louis' crime rank would not be even in the top 10! And if you were to shrink the city limits of the above cities to similar size of St. Louis so that it only included the urban core you would see there rank rise, some into the top 10 I am sure!
See, Dave, such little details don't really matter to the Field0fScreamers, only those that can be used to support the anti-stadium...a-hem...anti-publically-funded stadia agenda. They're even worse than Ned Lamont supporters. At least Ned pledged to support whoever won the Democratic primary.
Heck, they make John Kerry look reasonable, by comparison.
Posted by mad bomber on November 1, 2006 08:09 PM
Just about every city in the U.S. has some sort of urban "revitalization" going on (okay, maybe not Detroit so much), and crime rates are down most everywhere over the last 10-15 years. (Cf. Freakonomics, et al.) Being #1 on this list doesn't meant that St. Louis is getting more dangerous, only that it's not doing as well compared to other cities.