Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

newsnationnow.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 143 posts

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#71

Post by hackernewds »

ipnon wrote: post #36

Five Points was once the worst neighborhood in the United States. It was razed and replaced with Columbus Park. Now its a safe center of the community in Manhattan's Chinatown. Gangs in Chicago were concentrated into a few high-rises owned by the public housing administration until the 1990s. The buildings were razed in an effort to curtail the rampant crime within them. The unintended consequence was that the once u…

Which side of the argument are you espousing? the New York example seems to contradict the Chicagoan.

it's funny the Chicago example seems to present the same case of why you shouldn't disturb a cockroach infestation that is centralized

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#72

Post by quantified »

sandworm101 wrote: post #62
SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #31

> For example, in Kansas City a bus stop at a particular intersection was attracting drug sales and loitering. So the police called the local transportation authority and had the bus stop moved. > “I think within a week, maybe not even that, that immediately cut down on the loitering and foot traffic,” Capt. Jonas Baughman told the local press. As an outsider, I have no words for how absurd this is to me. The fact th…

>> loitering and foot traffic I laugh at how in this article that foot traffic is seen as a bad thing. HN has seen hundreds of threads opining on how we should get rid of car lanes and open up space for pedestrian traffic. But this article talks of pedestrians as a scourge to be eliminated. Cops in cop cars are out there keeping the sidewalks clear of people. How many pedestrians or mass transit riders, fearing polic…

More foot traffic likely lowers crime, too many non-criminals around and about.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#73

Post by bilbo0s »

hackernewds wrote: post #71
ipnon wrote: post #36

Five Points was once the worst neighborhood in the United States. It was razed and replaced with Columbus Park. Now its a safe center of the community in Manhattan's Chinatown. Gangs in Chicago were concentrated into a few high-rises owned by the public housing administration until the 1990s. The buildings were razed in an effort to curtail the rampant crime within them. The unintended consequence was that the once u…

Which side of the argument are you espousing? the New York example seems to contradict the Chicagoan. it's funny the Chicago example seems to present the same case of why you shouldn't disturb a cockroach infestation that is centralized

To be fair, the same thing could also have happened in NYC.

The poster only said that the razed areas were "better". They never said anything about, say, The Bronx being "better".

I think the point they were making is largely irrelevant given the numerous differences between the two examples. Time. Commercial pressures. Etc. But they certainly seem similar in the manner that s/he describes.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#74

Post by rayiner »

SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #31

> For example, in Kansas City a bus stop at a particular intersection was attracting drug sales and loitering. So the police called the local transportation authority and had the bus stop moved. > “I think within a week, maybe not even that, that immediately cut down on the loitering and foot traffic,” Capt. Jonas Baughman told the local press. As an outsider, I have no words for how absurd this is to me. The fact th…

I’m not squeamish about urban areas—I lived in downtown Baltimore, Wilmington Delaware, and Atlanta. But you’re missing some perspective. The captain is talking about gangs. The presence of gang members means that law abiding citizens are driven out of these public places. So the folks who are “loitering” typically aren’t up to anything good.

I just met an Uber driver from Germany the other day. He lives in Georgia (the state) now and was talking about how he moved to this town to get away from the dangerous city nearby. He was happy that his kid could ride around on his bike like back home in his village in Germany. I remember thinking it odd because I had never heard a European talk like that. But I suspect they don’t “get it” until they actually live it.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#75

Post by bilbo0s »

bombcar wrote: post #67
jeffbee wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you are not arguing that crime increased in frequency in Chicago (or any other American city) after 1990, because the statistics all indicate the opposite. Violent crime had fallen by half from 1990 rates by 2000, and now stands at less than 1/3rd the 1990 rate. Some fairly famous research indicates that homicide in Chicago is still highly concentrated, in real geographic distance and in social graph distance.…

If there are ten thousand homeless people in a city confined to one area, and it is reduced to 5k but spread all over the city, the people will see it as an increase.

None of that makes jeffbee wrong.

If I perceive something incorrectly. That's my problem.

Not really jeffbee's. Who's only crime is stating facts.

We have to temper emotional reactions to the statements of people who are fact driven.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#76

Post by pessimizer »

ipnon wrote: post #36

Five Points was once the worst neighborhood in the United States. It was razed and replaced with Columbus Park. Now its a safe center of the community in Manhattan's Chinatown. Gangs in Chicago were concentrated into a few high-rises owned by the public housing administration until the 1990s. The buildings were razed in an effort to curtail the rampant crime within them. The unintended consequence was that the once u…

> the once unified gangs were displaced throughout the broader Chicagoland area, and were able to grow immensely without the constraint of their former static, well-monitored domiciles.

This is not what happened. Firstly, just to get this out of the way, this period in Chicago was a time of gang fragmentation, not growth or consolidation.

There was a rise in violence associated with it, but that was because people who had been warehoused in the west side high rises moved to the south side, where there were already established gangs and relationships between them. This led to conflict in the same way that the New Orleans floods led to conflict in Houston, because New Orleans people were tough and Houston people were tough, so when New Orleans people were moved to Houston, things happened.

Chicago is dangerous because it is an absurdly segregated city containing massive pockets of poverty with no public services, jobs or grocery stores, complete disinvestment from public schools, and a outsized fine and fee schedule. Upper-middle class whites in Chicago are paranoid about it for good reason, the same reason any wealthy person trying to have some bohemian city experience at the edges of a favela would be afraid.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#77

Post by pessimizer »

bilbo0s wrote: post #75
bombcar wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are ten thousand homeless people in a city confined to one area, and it is reduced to 5k but spread all over the city, the people will see it as an increase.

None of that makes jeffbee wrong. If I perceive something incorrectly. That's my problem. Not really jeffbee's. Who's only crime is stating facts. We have to temper emotional reactions to the statements of people who are fact driven.

I've been firmly assured by people who spread information that is not true that perception is the real reality, and that people's concerns are more important than mere statistics. Turns out Glenn Beck-ism's final form is postmodernism.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#78

Post by feet »

newsclues wrote: post #59
Gigachad wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine since in the US, no one walks and there is nothing of interest outside, anyone who is out standing around is probably engaging in some criminal activity. What a sad society where this is the case.

It’s often in areas that had factories or businesses that are closed and there is nothing but vacant buildings lefts for the underworld and marginalized to live until the next development.

Might as well use the abandoned property instead of letting it go to waste

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#79

Post by wizofaus »

tomxor wrote: post #47
wizofaus wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but that's assuming criminals are no more likely to opt instead for going clean if circumstances change in such a way that committing crimes becomes less rewarding than it is for homeless people to "opt" for purchasing/renting a home if circumstances change that make sleeping rough less attractive.

Many criminals can't get a job just like many homeless can't afford rent (the sad thing is that the latter sometimes do have a job). How does it make sense to dissuade those people from doing something they don't have a choice in. As the parent said, it will only displace, it's as uninformed as shouting "get a job you lazy bum" at people.

Some criminals, yes. But plenty just get mixed up with the wrong crowd or go through some rough patch that leads them into a period of criminal activity that has persisted even when better choices become available. And I'd always advocate for solutions that involved giving people better options in tandem with making life harder for criminals.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#80

Post by ipnon »

hackernewds wrote: post #71
ipnon wrote: post #36

Five Points was once the worst neighborhood in the United States. It was razed and replaced with Columbus Park. Now its a safe center of the community in Manhattan's Chinatown. Gangs in Chicago were concentrated into a few high-rises owned by the public housing administration until the 1990s. The buildings were razed in an effort to curtail the rampant crime within them. The unintended consequence was that the once u…

Which side of the argument are you espousing? the New York example seems to contradict the Chicagoan. it's funny the Chicago example seems to present the same case of why you shouldn't disturb a cockroach infestation that is centralized

I'm trying to imply (apparently without affect) that "broken windows" policing only works sometimes.
Post reply on HN