I mean, your car can get broken into dozens and dozens of times before the cost of the damage equals the cost of building a garage. 

^Not sure what statistics you are using, natininja.  72 homicides in 2010, down to 66 in 2011, and the rate is dropping again this year (I think I saw we are currently down 24% vs. a year ago in the homicide rate).  I think things are moving in the right direction. 

 

I'm definitely not looking at year-over-year statistics, because those don't mean anything. The average homicide count for the past decade was somewhere between 70 and 80, and the average for the decade prior was somewhere around 40. You can find the data and crunch the numbers if you want, but I'm pretty sure those rough estimates are accurate.

 

There has been a downward trend in the past couple years (again, year-over-year data is useless), but nothing nearly as dramatic as the upward spike after the riots. If the 2010-2020 average turns out to be 20+ lower than the 2000-2010 average, I will then agree that the trend is quite solid.

"dangerous is such an overused, meaningless term.

 

Is Cincinnati dangerous if you're an average non-drug using person? No! Not at all!  Wow-MAYBE your car window will get broken (but not stolen), maybe someone you know might get mugged at 2am. But those are big maybes. There is almost a 0 murder rate in Cincinnati for non-criminals or non-drug users or non-gang members. That sounds pretty good to me!

 

I can think of several cases where someone I know was the victim of a violent crime. Most in Northside (people getting jumped), a couple in Corryville (a mugging and a no-clear-motive slash with a razorblade to the face/lip by a passerby).

 

If we are only looking at murder, I agree.

For real. This is a completely counter-intuitive list that I have no faith in.

 

What are you talking about?

 

It's from a 54 page discussion paper that details it's findings, not some random list compiled on a reporters desk.

 

I'm sure the numbers are fine, but they do not say what they are being presented as saying.

What neighborhood do you live in?

 

Clifton Heights near Vine Street. I am downtown almost daily and walk most places I go.

For real. This is a completely counter-intuitive list that I have no faith in.

 

What are you talking about?

 

It's from a 54 page discussion paper that details it's findings, not some random list compiled on a reporters desk.

 

Just because it's long and wordy doesn't mean it's not complete BS.  Richard Florida is famous for that type of stuff.  I've read enough of his works to know that.  One can decide what results they want to have and write 50+ pages about it pretty easily. 

What do your eyes tell you about Cincinnati?  Mine tell me that it's is one of the more dangerous cities in the country with very few short-term solutions for its systemic cycle of poverty.  The beauty of Cincinnati in 2012 is that it has several long-term solutions for its economy and lack of localized integration on the cusp.

No not near one of the most dangerous. Well unless YOU do drugs. Since this is the information age with the internet. People are able to voice their concerns on the internet via comment boards anonymously. They refuse to even listen to stats that shows crime is getting better.

What neighborhood do you live in?

 

Clifton Heights near Vine Street. I am downtown almost daily and walk most places I go.

 

I was asking CityBlights (he was who I quoted). He seems to think Cincinnati is out to get him.

I was asking CityBlights (he was who I quoted). He seems to think Cincinnati is out to get him.

queen's gonna gitcha

I live in OTR, and it doesn't feel dangerous to me. 

I think City Blights lives in Western Europe. Compared to there, Cincinnati is incredibly dangerous.

Cincinnati is a big city (whether some people like to admit that or not), and big cities have crime.  Crime and poverty are an integral part of the American urban experience, for better or worse.  In this regard, Cincinnati is no different, in that it has pockets of crime and poverty, and pockets of safety and wealth.  Overall, I wouldn't say the city is dangerous due to the point that many others have made here- if you're minding your own business, chances are you won't be fucked with.  However, I do think that Cincinnati can sometimes feel more dangerous than it is.  Much of the building stock is run down, lighting is poor in a lot of places, and there are a lot of neighborhoods that are pretty abandonned, meaning no 'eyes on the street'.  This is why a walk through say, Northside or OTR can feel dangerous, even though your chances of getting attacked/robbed are slim. 

 

The reverse is true for my currrent home of Los Angeles.  There are so many people out and about driving, walking, waiting for the bus at all hours of the day and night, and there are very few sections of abandonment.  So even when you're driving (or walking I guess...) through the ghetto, it doesn't generally feel very unsafe, simply because you're surrounded by other people and activity and the buildings are newer and well lit.

What neighborhood do you live in?

 

Clifton Heights near Vine Street. I am downtown almost daily and walk most places I go.

 

I was asking CityBlights (he was who I quoted). He seems to think Cincinnati is out to get him.

 

Look OC, there is more than enough evidence to show how much crime there is in Cincinnati and that you don't have to be a criminal to be victimized, it's an incredibly ignorant statement.  No murder = Mayberry is also clueless and shows how complacent you are with the ramifications of institutional poverty and societal ostracism.  When evaluating public safety, appearances also have to be considered seriously, and Cincinnati appears to be more unsafe than most cities one could visit in the United States.  OTR scared off the region's middle class for decades, but it was blight in Avondale and crime in Clifton that did just as much to widen the divide between the urban dwellers and the suburban crowd.  To address your condescending comments that lack pulp, I'm not bothered by your opinion, don't be bothered by mine.

 

I was born and raised in Cincinnati and know more about the bad areas than you could dream up.  I live in Europe and am fortunate to have been many places.  That gives me perspective, and Cincinnati still feels less safe than most places around the world not at war.  Work to change the city, don't deny what's been obvious to others for a long time.  Cincinnati's decline isn't just tied to wartime and post-War city-making.  The stagnation of the past 20 years has done a bunch to keep the City from competing on any level.

 

I was in Cincinnati in 2011 and it still felt unsafe.  Why do you think the success of the Streetcar and the Gateway Quarter is so critical?  Because they look to reshape the worst slum the US had to offer.  If you don't feel that way about the realities of Cincinnati's socioeconomic climate, I won't be surprised at all.

Of course there is poverty. But your declaration that poverty = crime & danger is offensive.  The vast vast majority of people in poverty are non-violent, not dangerous individuals. You need to learn that fast. There are estimated by CPD and CIRV to be 800 active violent criminals in Cincinnati who cause nearly all of the violent crime in the City. A city of 300,000. 800 people keep you fearing for your life when you step foot in a city where reality shows its almost a certainty that no one will hurt you.

 

Just because you see poverty & assume danger does not mean Cincinnati is "one of the most dangerous cities" in America.

 

We have a major poverty issue to deal with. But that does not mean all those people are dangerous.

I was in Cincinnati in 2011 and it still felt unsafe. 

 

Maybe it was just you that felt unsafe and not Cincinnati. It's a pretty subjective statement. But as you said, you have your opinion and I have mine.

 

^ word.

and as someone who currently lives in Cincinnati in what has been declared one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Cincinnati, my opinions are based on my present experiences, not those that were cultivated in me as a child. Places change. Cincinnati is not anywhere close to being as dangerous as those perceptions cultivated by the media and scared suburbanites who listen to 700wlw like to say it is.

 

It seems the majority of people who aren't afraid of the City (OTR particularly) are those who didn't grow up here. Among my friends, those who grew up in Cincinnati are the hardest to convince that my hood is safer than they think. And these are people who lived in Clifton Heights/Avondale while in college - places where the likelihood of getting mugged was much higher.

What neighborhood do you live in?

 

Clifton Heights near Vine Street. I am downtown almost daily and walk most places I go.

 

I was asking CityBlights (he was who I quoted). He seems to think Cincinnati is out to get him.

 

...I was born and raised in Cincinnati and know more about the bad areas than you could dream up.  I live in Europe and am fortunate to have been many places.  That gives me perspective, and Cincinnati still feels less safe than most places around the world not at war.  Work to change the city, don't deny what's been obvious to others for a long time.  Cincinnati's decline isn't just tied to wartime and post-War city-making.  The stagnation of the past 20 years has done a bunch to keep the City from competing on any level.

 

I was in Cincinnati in 2011 and it still felt unsafe.  Why do you think the success of the Streetcar and the Gateway Quarter is so critical?  Because they look to reshape the worst slum the US had to offer.  If you don't feel that way about the realities of Cincinnati's socioeconomic climate, I won't be surprised at all.

As previously mentioned, this may not be the place to challenge your personal feelings of fear of Cincinnati.  Nevertheless, one can wonder just what vantage point in Europe you're perceiving all this local violence from. I'll bet that it isn't from any urban setting like the backstreets of Naples, the Noailles of Marseille, or the Muslim-dominated districts of Berlin, Paris, Malmo, or Nottingham--i.e., dangerous urban enclaves where former European protections of cultural and ethnic homogeneity no longer apply.  (Am I right?)

Of course there is poverty. But your declaration that poverty = crime & danger is offensive.  The vast vast majority of people in poverty are non-violent, not dangerous individuals. You need to learn that fast. There are estimated by CPD and CIRV to be 800 active violent criminals in Cincinnati who cause nearly all of the violent crime in the City. A city of 300,000. 800 people keep you fearing for your life when you step foot in a city where reality shows its almost a certainty that no one will hurt you.

 

Just because you see poverty & assume danger does not mean Cincinnati is "one of the most dangerous cities" in America.

 

We have a major poverty issue to deal with. But that does not mean all those people are dangerous.

 

We are in accordance with poverty not equating to violence, however, this makes my point about Cincinnati.  There are some poor cities in the world, and the majority of them don't have the violent crime Cincinnati has.  Most of the ones that do are in Third World nations or in the United States.  Even cities in developing countries are typically less violent than Cincinnati.

 

willabro,

 

You make a valid point, but there isn't a whole lot that scares me outside of the way Angela Merkel is handling the global debt crisis.  All the clowns, vagrants and other bored individuals that stand on Cincinnati's corners all day long just give me a laugh, not much else.

willabro,

 

All the clowns, vagrants and other bored individuals that stand on Cincinnati's corners all day long just give me a laugh, not much else.

 

There is some serious idleness in this city, gotta say.

Watch out for those guys standing around doing nothing. They might do nothing to you.

In college (no matter where you went to school), even before facebook, stories of muggings travel wide and fast.  This makes muggings appear much more prevalent than they are.  And they are only very rarely truly violent to the point where someone needs emergency and ongoing medical care.

 

It seems the majority of people who aren't afraid of the City (OTR particularly) are those who didn't grow up here. Among my friends, those who grew up in Cincinnati are the hardest to convince that my hood is safer than they think.

Native Cincinnatians seem to think different neighborhoods are for specific people/behavior. If you come from out of town, you don't have that prejudice.

Crime in Cincinnati is fairly average for an American city. A little more toward the bad side. But a little more toward the good side if you control for demographics.

 

Middle-of-the-road for an American city, though, is quite violent.

 

Suburbanites who think it is horribly dangerous are delusional, and most have no frame of reference beyond folk knowledge and an occasional news story. They think "Clifton" is a murder haven, when chances are Clifton (the real one, not CUF/Corryville) is safer than where they live.

 

Here is some perspective:

Surprising figures from Eurostat have emerged suggesting that Amsterdam has one of the highest per capita number of murders and other unnatural deaths amongst European capitals.

 

Amsterdam ranks in 4th place out of 28 capitals, with 3,65 murders per 100.000 inhabitants, behind Vilnius, Tallinn and another shock candidate, Luxembourg.

http://www.iamexpat.nl/read-and-discuss/expat-page/news/amsterdam-murder-criminality-rates

 

The 4th most dangerous European capital had 16 murders in 2011. Given Amsterdam has 2.5 times the population of Cincinnati, that would be like if Cincinnati had 6 or 7 murders in 2011. Yeah, I didn't forget a zero. And don't think there is no poverty or diversity in European capitals, there is plenty.

 

Americans are used to crime, and think it is the norm. I see a lot of that in this thread.

 

I believe OTR is getting safer, but relatively speaking it is not very safe. I know there was that study about safety which included worker population showing downtown/OTR was very safe compared to suburbs. Excluding worker population would be unfair, but including it is also unfair. Daytime worker population is irrelevant when walking home after stopping at the bar.

 

I would be a little nervous walking by myself from that hipster bar in Brighton or somewhere up near campus back to my condo in the Gateway Quarter at 2:30-3:00 a.m., and I am not one to be easily spooked, and I am fairly good at being "aware of my surroundings". This nervousness would not keep me from doing it, but it would keep me from doing it with any frequency and I would try to avoid the situation (it is a statistics game -- the chance of any one incident is low, but you keep doing it and the chances go up). That's a circumstance which doesn't exist in other places, places which I consider "safe".

Not wanting to get into the political ramifications, but part of the reason that murders are so much rarer in European cities is that there are far fewer guns.  I don't think it's disputable that guns are a far more effective method to kill someone than a knife.  I remember visiting some friends in London a few years ago--they were talking about how "knife crime" was the biggest thing to fear.  While knife attacks are terrible, they are also not nearly as effective for killing someone (or many people at the same time).  When you get rid of one of the main means, you should have far fewer murders. 

 

(Not advocating one way or the other on the gun ownership question.) 

Germany, Canada and Australia are well-armed nations and see little gun crime as compared to the U.S. Americans have a strong sense of self-entitlement due to decades of being fed "American Exceptionalism" while at the same time made to feel expendable (especially men). That oddball combination is damaging to the psyche and leads to strife.

Germany, Canada and Australia are well-armed nations and see little gun crime as compared to the U.S. Americans have a strong sense of self-entitlement due to decades of being fed "American Exceptionalism" while at the same time made to feel expendable (especially men). That oddball combination is damaging to the psyche and leads to strife.

 

Well, Germany is the only European country mentioned there.  In the post-WWI era, Germany did not allow private ownership of guns until 1956.  And they have about 4 million licensed gun owners (with far more restrictions on those owners) as compared to the approximately 75 million gun owners in the U.S.  I don't think it's close to as "heavily armed" as the U.S. 

People commit crimes, not guns.

The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

...

On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.

 

Finland has more than half as many guns per capita, but way less than half the rate of violent crime. Gun ownership + income disparity + things GCrites80 mentioned + etc., lead to higher violent crime rates.

 

Regardless, the reason is irrelevant to the fact that U.S. cities and Cincinnati in particular are dangerous places.

How is it irrelevant?  If you're concerned about the fact of dangerous crime, doesn't it make sense to understand the reasons for it?

It is relevant when you're trying to determine what to do about it, but just knowing the reason doesn't lower the crime rate. I don't know what you meant to say when you first mentioned the differences between gun laws in Europe and the U.S., but it sort of came across as "we shouldn't measure them on the same scale of dangerousness because our gun laws are different". But dangerousness is dangerousness.

 

If there were a city with completely equal violent crime rates, but with no gun violence whatsoever, that city would be just as dangerous as a city with guns.

Ah.  My original point was going to the point as to why there is more violent crime, particularly murder.  The point I was trying to make is that availability of implements that make it easier to murder people will, well, make it easier to murder people.  There's obviously plenty of contributing factors to the murder rate in Cincinnati or elsewhere.  Does the availability of firearms directly result in more murder?  No.  Does it help?  I'd say not, because whatever the other factors are--poverty, drugs, who knows what--leads to people getting guns in their hands and committing the murders.

People commit crimes, not guns.

 

True.  But people often commit crimes with guns that they would not be able to do otherwise. 

 

Look, I'm not saying people shouldn't have guns.  But to completely excise the ready availability of guns--or any of the many other factors that lead to crime--from the discussion of why crime rates are what they are doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  It would be like saying "people commit crimes, not drugs."  A nice tautology and certainly true, but not a basis to exclude the discussion of the illegal drug trade from why crime rates are what they are.  People may commit crimes because they are on drugs, or they want drugs, or they are in the drug business, but the drugs thesmelves don't commit the crime. 

Our gun problem boils down to an illegal gun-access issue. Finland has mandatory military service for every male. In Switzerland, almost every man undergoes military training and then keeps his gov't issued weapon.  A major problem in the United States is that we have a powerful lobby, the NRA, that represents the interests of gun manufacturers. Those companies want to be able to make and sell as many guns as they can, and do so with minimal restrictions. With so many guns coming off of the assembly line, the tracking and oversight cannot possibly prevent every gun from ending up on the black market. As I see it, the only way to really shrink the black market is to legislate some sort of nexus between stricter rules on who can get a license and a tightening up on the distribution network. Think about how many hoops you have to jump through to own/operate a car.

Case in point. Take a criminal locked up in the penn. What do a majority of them do? More crime. They spend spare time making shanks to stab each other with. No matter the laws we have concerning guns (and we have plenty) criminals will simply not obey them.

 

Too often stricter gun laws come home to roost on law abiding citizens who are responsible gun owners. That's why to me, it makes more sense to address the issues that drive people to a life of crime to begin with.

More evidence Downtown is a dangerous hotbed of criminal activity:

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120502/NEWS/305020048/Sexual-imposition-reported-near-Fountain-Square

More evidence Downtown is a dangerous hotbed of criminal activity:

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120502/NEWS/305020048/Sexual-imposition-reported-near-Fountain-Square

 

I will be sure to never set foot downtown again, might even move to the burbs....whew!

There was a shooting on 13th between Vine and Walnut tonight around 8. I was having a drink at Lackman with some friends when we heard the gunshots and then a massive flurry of police into the area. Nothing up on any of the usual news outlets yet but there are still police on scene and 13th is taped off. Not good news.

 

Just a subtle reminder I guess that while this area has come so far, but there's still plenty of work to be done....

13th & walnut is one of the worst apartment buildings in all of OTR. Also, due to the nature of the type of crime these. People partake in, anyone who was not a criminal was probably never in any danger. These are targeted shootings within a specific group of people who all know each other.

13th & walnut is one of the worst apartment buildings in all of OTR. Also, due to the nature of the type of crime these. People partake in, anyone who was not a criminal was probably never in any danger. These are targeted shootings within a specific group of people who all know each other.

 

That's exactly what I told my friends...my understanding is that it's all, for the most part, premeditated drug/gang/etc. The reality is that regardless of its nature, it still is a burden on the neighborhood.

^Could be worse, your neighbors in Columbia Tusculum might be hiring thugs to beat your ass.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120507/NEWS010702/305090005/Men-hired-beat-man-over-view?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|News

Everytime something like this happens in OTR it makes the point that economically mixed neighborhoods don't work, at least not in the U.S. Some on council, 3cdc, the police, and the property owners of market rate housing in OTR will respond by pushing even harder to move shelters, SROs, and section 8 out. For better or worse those for moving them out have so much 'skin in the game' now that they will win, however it plays out.

The rents in the neighborhood are going to eventually rise to the point that there won't be any low income apartments without government subsidization.  I don't have a way of knowing for certain, but from what I've seen I'd wager that 90% of the violent crime in OTR is drug related.  A simple drug test in order to receive housing assistance in an otherwise drug infested neighborhood would solve the issue.

A drug test doesn't tell you if someone is selling drugs, which would be the predictor of violence.

 

Do you realize most drugs are water soluble and out of one's system in a couple hours? Drug testing primarily just catches fat-soluble pot. If you have data showing pot smokers are more likely to be violent than nonsmokers, I'd like to see it.

The adage "unless you participate, you're unaffected" is asinine, I'm sorry.  It's patently false whether considering street crime, economic policy or anything else.  Cincinnatians are so used to violence that they could care less about why people engage in it.  It's truly sad that so many people feel that way about their neighbors.

The rents in the neighborhood are going to eventually rise to the point that there won't be any low income apartments without government subsidization.  I don't have a way of knowing for certain, but from what I've seen I'd wager that 90% of the violent crime in OTR is drug related.  A simple drug test in order to receive housing assistance in an otherwise drug infested neighborhood would solve the issue.

 

This outrageously discriminatory philosophy Florida introduced is just that, in addition to being ineffective at identifying potentially violent individuals or the circumstances that stimulate violent acts.  Let's try to treat the poor as if they're citizens and not experimental slaves, which is how the poor live in America's inner cities.

This outrageously discriminatory philosophy Florida introduced is just that, in addition to being ineffective at identifying potentially violent individuals or the circumstances that stimulate violent acts.  Let's try to treat the poor as if they're citizens and not experimental slaves, which is how the poor live in America's inner cities.

 

The policy is not discriminatory; anyone who gets housing assistance would have to simply meet one more requirement.  People demand to see results when they spend money on something.  Tax dollars aren't exempt from that concept, so I see no problem with the general public requesting to see some results from their collective investments in low income housing. 

 

Low income housing is going to continue to be an experiment by definition because nothing has worked to date in the US.  It seems like some people are content building and tearing down English Woods' in perpetuity.

How about we stick on the crime topic. Either explain how that proposal will prevent crime or take it to another thread.

 

Taking the essentials from people who already have nothing to lose will only lead to more desperation and criminal behavior. You want to force them to be desperate enough to find a well-paid job. Gainful employment is not where desperation leads an impoverished addict.

This outrageously discriminatory philosophy Florida introduced is just that, in addition to being ineffective at identifying potentially violent individuals or the circumstances that stimulate violent acts.  Let's try to treat the poor as if they're citizens and not experimental slaves, which is how the poor live in America's inner cities.

 

The policy is not discriminatory; anyone who gets housing assistance would have to simply meet one more requirement.  People demand to see results when they spend money on something.  Tax dollars aren't exempt from that concept, so I see no problem with the general public requesting to see some results from their collective investments in low income housing. 

 

Low income housing is going to continue to be an experiment by definition because nothing has worked to date in the US.  It seems like some people are content building and tearing down English Woods' in perpetuity.

 

So why only low income housing?  We have to apply these rules to all who benefit from government investment.  All elected officials should have to take a drug test.  We really could take this rule to new heights. 

 

It's discriminatory because it only targets a certain group of people for no real reason other than an assumption that people who get housing assistance are disproportionately doing illegal drugs.  I am honestly unaware of a study that has found this to be true, so if you could point me in that direction I'd appreciate it.  And until the same people who advocate these drug tests come out and demand an across the board drug test for any individual who benefits from government help, like college students who are getting government subsidized loans - talk about a group of people disproportionately doing drugs, then in my opinion, it is discriminatory. 

I personally believe that the legalization of drugs is the best way to decrease crime in our neighborhoods.