San Francisco is on the list, too, as much as I love it.  Geologists say that SF is due for "the big one" any day now.  I don't think it's the responsibility of Ohioans or anyone else not living in that area to have the government force them to clean up the mess. Donations are a different matter...

 

I think of it like this, Cleveland gets pounded in the winter time because of our bad location.  Dozens of people die because of car wrecks or and cold-related illnesses.  We don't get any Federal funding to specifically combat these problems.

Cleveland just seems to be on the radar as a bashing victim these days...remember the late 90's when it was the comback city and a media darling?  It has now become the must have city to be on bad lists, right along with Detroit.  It wasn't that long ago that Pittsburgh was on the bad side of the press...near fiscal insolvancy, USAirways hub dismantled, population loss, pollution...etc. Seems they have wrestled the comeback city crown from Cleveland and are now on the good lists.  Hopefully Cleveland will get knocked off the radar of bad press soon...this is getting old and really tired.  Some of it is warranted, but a lot of it is downright unfair and mis-representitive of the city IMO.

We need to either lose another 100k people from the city or annex the entire county.  Either way we'd probably only be on 1/3 of the lists we see today.

San Francisco is on the list, too, as much as I love it.  Geologists say that SF is due for "the big one" any day now.  I don't think it's the responsibility of Ohioans or anyone else not living in that area to have the government force them to clean up the mess. Donations are a different matter...

 

I think of it like this, Cleveland gets pounded in the winter time because of our bad location.  Dozens of people die because of car wrecks or and cold-related illnesses.  We don't get any Federal funding to specifically combat these problems.

 

You don't get any federal funding for people dying in car wrecks or illness from winter weather because it's NORMAL. People in the upper mid-west deal with cold weather consistently. People die all the time from heat-related illnesses too; that's why it's illegal to deny someone a glass of water in Vegas. A natural disaster has a MUCH larger impact than normal weather patterns do. I can't believe you're even making this comparison.  What exactly is the point you're getting at? Some cities have it so easy because of government propping them up? Why is it that certain people always bring this up when other cities are praised? Can't you just be happy for people in New Orleans who are able to live with a little more stability?

As I've said before, most of those articles are written and the author hasn't been to nor has any experience with the city they are covering.

 

Do you guys respond to the author of articles that are inaccurate? Thats where to start.

San Francisco is on the list, too, as much as I love it. Geologists say that SF is due for "the big one" any day now. I don't think it's the responsibility of Ohioans or anyone else not living in that area to have the government force them to clean up the mess. Donations are a different matter...

 

I think of it like this, Cleveland gets pounded in the winter time because of our bad location. Dozens of people die because of car wrecks or and cold-related illnesses. We don't get any Federal funding to specifically combat these problems.

 

You don't get any federal funding for people dying in car wrecks or illness from winter weather because it's NORMAL. People in the upper mid-west deal with cold weather consistently. People die all the time from heat-related illnesses too; that's why it's illegal to deny someone a glass of water in Vegas. A natural disaster has a MUCH larger impact than normal weather patterns do. I can't believe you're even making this comparison. What exactly is the point you're getting at? Some cities have it so easy because of government propping them up? Why is it that certain people always bring this up when other cities are praised? Can't you just be happy for people in New Orleans who are able to live with a little more stability?

 

You are completely missing the point.  People choose to live where they do.  People that live in high risk areas expect the government to step in and help them when a natural disaster inevitably occurs.  You say that people in the midwest deal with cold weather consistently... that they do.  And the people of California deal with fires and earthquakes consistently, yet they are given federal dollars to combat those problems.  The people of the gulf states deal with hurricanes pretty consistently as well.  If you choose to live in a place that has a high risk of a devastating natural disaster then you should be fully prepared to lose everything you own.  And if you chose to not purchase insurance against that disaster then I don't think I should be forced to pay for your irresponsibility.  I will, however, probably choose to donate some money to help you in your time of need.  We should all help eachother during natural disasters regardless of the frequency with which they occur, but it shouldn't be forced or expected.

Cleveland just seems to be on the radar as a bashing victim these days...remember the late 90's when it was the comback city and a media darling?  It has now become the must have city to be on bad lists, right along with Detroit.  It wasn't that long ago that Pittsburgh was on the bad side of the press...near fiscal insolvancy, USAirways hub dismantled, population loss, pollution...etc. Seems they have wrestled the comeback city crown from Cleveland and are now on the good lists.  Hopefully Cleveland will get knocked off the radar of bad press soon...this is getting old and really tired.  Some of it is warranted, but a lot of it is downright unfair and mis-representitive of the city IMO.

 

Sadly, I think these perceptions are mostly based on sports teams. '90s -- Indians don't suck anymore, Browns come back. '00s - Steelers win a lot, become media darlings (well, sorta). Cavs can't win championship with LeBron, Browns mediocre.  Teens so far - Cavs lose LeBron. There is a large portion of the population that doesn't travel; when or if they travel they are only in a city for mere hours. Yet, they hear about the cities' sports teams every day if they watch cable sports shows.

Yes, a judge handling the Katrina claims held the Army Corp of Engineers liable and determining gross negligence on their part.

 

 

If New Orleans is surviving or making a comeback, it's probably only because of all of the Federal assistance it receives to subsidize its terrible geographic location.

 

Is it really that bad though? The year-round weather is excellent (hot and humid as hell), not to mention it's a great port city. Things got so bad because of negligence in regards to the flood control system. People in Louisiana and New Orleans have known about hurricane dangers for decades. Floods happen in the Midwest too- anyone remember Findlay a few years back? And hell, if Dayton hadn't created the Miami Valley Conservancy, that city would have been destroyed a long time ago. The issue in New Orleans was simply the flood control system was not adequate for that level of hurricane. Who do we blame for that? The Army Corps of Engineers?

 

It's cheaper to prevent a disease than to fix it once it occurs. There are a lot of people to blame for the poor preventative medicine in New Orleans. That flood did not have to happen (or at least it didn't have to be that severe). We have more control over that than earthquakes or tornadoes.

 

Great post!  You nailed it by pointing out that Dayton, a city that has been devastated by flood in the past, created their own agency to deal with the problem.  New Orleans, on the other hand, expects the Federal government (i.e. you and I) to take care of their messes.  It's complete nonsense.

 

The point I'm getting at David is that Cleveland gets crapped on and we're fighting most of these battles by ourselves.  I don't expect the Feds to bail us out, but I also don't want to be bailing out other struggling cities, either.  New Orleans, as awesome of a city that it may be in many ways, SHOULD die if its own residents can't figure out a way to protect it from nature on their own.  And that's not even taking into consideration all of those tourist dollars that they get (that we don't).

 

Let's be real here.  When New Orleans gets hit by a hurricane or San Francisco by an earthquake, it's not a surprise.  These cities are built right on big bulls-eyes.  A little bit different than if New York City (or any other northeastern city) were to be nailed by either of the above natural disasters.

Lets get back on topic

 

(Ill get into why the Army Corps of Engineers really f*cked NOLA later.  It wasn't the flood walls, it was the shipping channels that were supposed to be designed not to bring in storm surge.  Lets just say, it worked not so well)

If New Orleans is surviving or making a comeback, it's probably only because of all of the Federal assistance it receives to subsidize its terrible geographic location.

 

Is it really that bad though? The year-round weather is excellent (hot and humid as hell), not to mention it's a great port city. Things got so bad because of negligence in regards to the flood control system. People in Louisiana and New Orleans have known about hurricane dangers for decades. Floods happen in the Midwest too- anyone remember Findlay a few years back? And hell, if Dayton hadn't created the Miami Valley Conservancy, that city would have been destroyed a long time ago. The issue in New Orleans was simply the flood control system was not adequate for that level of hurricane. Who do we blame for that? The Army Corps of Engineers?

 

It's cheaper to prevent a disease than to fix it once it occurs. There are a lot of people to blame for the poor preventative medicine in New Orleans. That flood did not have to happen (or at least it didn't have to be that severe). We have more control over that than earthquakes or tornadoes.

 

Great post! You nailed it by pointing out that Dayton, a city that has been devastated by flood in the past, created their own agency to deal with the problem. New Orleans, on the other hand, expects the Federal government (i.e. you and I) to take care of their messes. It's complete nonsense.

 

The point I'm getting at David is that Cleveland gets crapped on and we're fighting most of these battles by ourselves. I don't expect the Feds to bail us out, but I also don't want to be bailing out other struggling cities, either. New Orleans, as awesome of a city that it may be in many ways, SHOULD die if its own residents can't figure out a way to protect it from nature on their own. And that's not even taking into consideration all of those tourist dollars that they get (that we don't).

 

Let's be real here. When New Orleans gets hit by a hurricane or San Francisco by an earthquake, it's not a surprise. These cities are built right on big bulls-eyes. A little bit different than if New York City (or any other northeastern city) were to be nailed by either of the above natural disasters.

 

You do have a point here.  I mean in the early '70's New Orleans floated some muni bonds to build the superdome and surrounding development.  It was a whopping sum for those days.  You would think that they would do something similar to protect themselves from floods. 

 

Getting back on topic, I do wonder how much the success (or lack thereof) of the local sports teams affects some of these polls.  Anyone think that this plays a more than insignificant role in how outsiders view the city? I know that some of the metrics supposedly try to account for this lack of success, but I wonder if it subconsciously seeps into the minds of others who aren't explicitly using it as part of the rating process?

Getting back on topic, I do wonder how much the success (or lack thereof) of the local sports teams affects some of these polls.  Anyone think that this plays a more than insignificant role in how outsiders view the city? I know that some of the metrics supposedly try to account for this lack of success, but I wonder if it subconsciously seeps into the minds of others who aren't explicitly using it as part of the rating process?

 

Yeah, I think it does. Just from seeing how idiots people invest emotionally so much into sports. I doubt these articles put out by magazines make much of a difference in where people chose to live or start a business though. The people who write them are not urban planners or economists. That one article mentioned that Cleveland was doomed to be a ghost town and I was looking for some kind of reasoning but basically all they said was that the population declined from (what was it, a little over 900k at its peak to 400k)? That's the story of every American city. It's mostly due to people having less and less kids.

^^Considering that it is often explicitly listed as a factor, I would say it plays a rather large role.

 

I really don't mind the bashing of the status quo.  Cleveland was certainly in a bit of a rough stretch, but is coming out of it quite nicely IMHO.  As was stated above, if you put the same lists out 10 years ago which purport to predict some kind of permanent death of a City, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee would have certainly been listed.... Baltimore and Cincy probably too.  But those cities simply hit rock bottom before we did and have done an admirable job of.... ummmm.... not 'dying'

I don't know if it's as easy as saying that other cities just hit "rock bottom" first, and that Cleveland is just late to the game, so to speak.  I think it might be more of a case of other cities finding a way to stop their losses, and bounce back in a way that Cleveland hasn't been able to sustain.  Cleveland was the media's darling comeback city in the 90's, mostly due to large projects, and big name things happening in the city, causing people to assume that the city had everything figured out.  The Rock Hall opened, the Indians were good, the Warehouse district really got going, I think the Flats were still a pretty famous entertainment district, etc.  During this time, it seemed like Cincinnati was kind of stagnating and only recieving bad press, even though it too was slowly adding big projects to it's repitoire (stadiums, freedom center, new CAC).

 

I think the difference is that Cincinnati was also doing a lot of less sexy things to help stabilize the city to residents, and not as much concerned with showing a good face to visitors.  Every Cincinnati Public School has or will shortly be rebuilt or rehabbed, and corporations have started partnering with struggling schools. This has lifted CPS from the worst ranking a school system can have (Academic Emergency) to the second best (Effective). In addition to the schools, Cincinnati re-created the structure of it's riverfront, by consolidating Fort Washington Way, and opening up the riverfront to development that we are now seeing the fruits of in the Banks and Central Riverfront Park.  The grassroots campaign to bring a streetcar to Cincy is also now about to become a reality, and hopefully will be a resounding success.

 

This is not meant to be a slam on Cleveland, or boasting of Cincinnati.  Cincy still has many, many issues it needs to work on.  I just think that sometimes it's better to just ignore the media and focus on making your city the best it can be for the people that already live and work there.  Everyone loves the mega project, but time and time again they have proven to have minimal effect on the health of the city.  Things like schools, transportation, and crime are the important factors in deciding whether a city is livable, and the rest will come later.

I was speaking more towards Pittsburgh, than Cincy with the rock bottom comment (I realize that was not clear).  Cleveland and Cincy are so different, it is hard to compare the two on any level.  They were developed under different circumstances, at different times and are dependent on different factors.  My point is that there is no permanent placement on these lists as the 'dumb-ass list' would infer.  Cincy knows that.

Getting back on topic, I do wonder how much the success (or lack thereof) of the local sports teams affects some of these polls.  Anyone think that this plays a more than insignificant role in how outsiders view the city? I know that some of the metrics supposedly try to account for this lack of success, but I wonder if it subconsciously seeps into the minds of others who aren't explicitly using it as part of the rating process?

 

Yeah, I think it does. Just from seeing how idiots people invest emotionally so much into sports. I doubt these articles put out by magazines make much of a difference in where people chose to live or start a business though. The people who write them are not urban planners or economists. That one article mentioned that Cleveland was doomed to be a ghost town and I was looking for some kind of reasoning but basically all they said was that the population declined from (what was it, a little over 900k at its peak to 400k)? That's the story of every American city. It's mostly due to people having less and less kids.

 

More like people moving to suburbs

^ You're partially right, but there's more to the picture.  When average household size falls by half, even if every home in the city is still occupied, its population will still have fallen by half, too.  The way to increase population is to build (and fill) higher-density housing or expand the city's borders so there's land to build more lower-density housing. 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14942047/

Getting back on topic, I do wonder how much the success (or lack thereof) of the local sports teams affects some of these polls.  Anyone think that this plays a more than insignificant role in how outsiders view the city? I know that some of the metrics supposedly try to account for this lack of success, but I wonder if it subconsciously seeps into the minds of others who aren't explicitly using it as part of the rating process?

 

Yeah, I think it does. Just from seeing how idiots people invest emotionally so much into sports. I doubt these articles put out by magazines make much of a difference in where people chose to live or start a business though. The people who write them are not urban planners or economists. That one article mentioned that Cleveland was doomed to be a ghost town and I was looking for some kind of reasoning but basically all they said was that the population declined from (what was it, a little over 900k at its peak to 400k)? That's the story of every American city. It's mostly due to people having less and less kids.

 

Not to mention people simply moving out of the city limits to the suburbs, which these ratings fools can't seem to wrap their heads around.

^ You're partially right, but there's more to the picture. When average household size falls by half, even if every home in the city is still occupied, its population will still have fallen by half, too. The way to increase population is to build (and fill) higher-density housing or expand the city's borders so there's land to build more lower-density housing.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14942047/

 

There has been a significant cultural change from that extended-family model, too.  I've often noted that it makes economic sense for multiple generations of a family to live under a single roof, especially if the number of bedrooms in a house can support it.  The article notes that this used to be more common: "When the U.S. population reached 100 million in 1915, the average number of people sharing a home was 4.5. Larger, patchwork families were just more common back then, say historians .... 'In 1915, you might have had Granny and Gramps living [at home] as well as more little'uns scampering about,' Troy told LiveScience in a recent email interview."

 

And yet, despite the fact that I'm fairly frugal--I live with a roommate, for example, even though I could make the numbers work without that--there is no way I would consider living under my parents' roof again.  I think that many of the people in the post-college age group that I know live at home feel likewise, and intend to get their own places as soon as economically practical.

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/best-cities-for-starter-homes.html

 

Best Cities for Starter Homes

 

"4. Akron, Ohio

 

Zillow median home value: $117,400

Month-over-month change: +0.15%

Avg monthly mortgage payment: $570.32

Mortgage payment as % of income: 14%

Unemployment rate: 10.1%

Cost of living: 75.2

 

There have now been four consecutive months of monthly appreciation in Akron, a city where residents enjoy a cost of living nearly 25% lower than the national average. "

 

 

"7. Cleveland, Ohio

 

Zillow median home value: $120,400

Month-over-month change: +0.55%

Avg monthly mortgage payment: $584.89

Mortgage payment as % of income: 14%

Unemployment rate: 9.3%

Cost of living: 80.7

 

In Cleveland, there have now been six consecutive months of flat or monthly appreciation, with a positive increase of 0.55% in the most recent month-over-month change. Although unemployment is relatively high compared to other cities on this list, Cleveland's cost of living is 19.3% lower than the national average. "

Spartanburg looks like a really cool city from the picture! :)

 

Why do they say Cleveland's unemployment is "relatively high compared to other cities on the list" when it is only higher than 2 of the 6 cities ahead of it on the list?

I wonder what the criteria were.  I see that they said they took the unemployment rate into account somehow, and yet cities with fairly high unemployment still made the list.  (Detroit, however, did not.)  Interesting.

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/best-cities-for-starter-homes.html

 

Best Cities for Starter Homes

 

 

Also from that list:

 

2. Dayton, Ohio

Zillow median home value: $102,300

Month-over-month change: -0.03%

Avg monthly mortgage payment: $496.96

Mortgage payment as % of income: 12%

Unemployment rate: 11.2%

Cost of living: 76.70

 

In Dayton, the monthly rate of decline has shrunk significantly over the past 7 months and has dropped to less than -0.10% for the past three months. Although home prices are still decreasing slightly, overall home values are among the lowest on this list, while buyers can expect mortgage payments to only take up 12% of their annual income.

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/best-cities-for-starter-homes.html

 

Best Cities for Starter Homes

 

"4. Akron, Ohio

 

Zillow median home value: $117,400

Month-over-month change: +0.15%

Avg monthly mortgage payment: $570.32

Mortgage payment as % of income: 14%

Unemployment rate: 10.1%

Cost of living: 75.2

 

There have now been four consecutive months of monthly appreciation in Akron, a city where residents enjoy a cost of living nearly 25% lower than the national average. "

 

 

"7. Cleveland, Ohio

 

Zillow median home value: $120,400

Month-over-month change: +0.55%

Avg monthly mortgage payment: $584.89

Mortgage payment as % of income: 14%

Unemployment rate: 9.3%

Cost of living: 80.7

 

In Cleveland, there have now been six consecutive months of flat or monthly appreciation, with a positive increase of 0.55% in the most recent month-over-month change. Although unemployment is relatively high compared to other cities on this list, Cleveland's cost of living is 19.3% lower than the national average. "

 

Isn't it amazing at how we fare on these lists when the entire metropolitan area is taken into account, and not just the troubled part of the region that is actually within the city limits?

^ A lot more of this region is troubled than just the city.

^ A lot more of this region is troubled than just the city.

 

Yes, but I feel confident in saying that the the largest chunk of troubled area, by far, is within the city limits.  Which is why when taking the entire region into account, we look MUCH better, and why, when Cleveland proper only is used for these lists, we look terrible.

The Cleveland MSA made a new list..."dumbest metro areas." It's #10.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/01/pf/college/Americas_brainiest_cities/index.htm

Right... as if the percentage of residents holding "college degrees" determines how "brainy" the area is.  I could maybe see if the ranking relied on post-graduate degrees, but just about anyone can get a 4-year degree nowadays.  Just need the $$. 

The Cleveland MSA made a new list..."dumbest metro areas." It's #10.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/01/pf/college/Americas_brainiest_cities/index.htm

 

Finally- after 13 pages a list that directly relates to the title of the thread.

Another new list.  The 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in the US.  Cleveland has two on the list at #2 and #20.  A Cincinnati neighborhood also made the list at #24.  Chicago took the top spot.

 

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/10/04/25-most-dangerous-neighborhoods-2010/

I don't understand what criteria makes a "neighborhood" in their estimation.  Some of these neighborhoods are several blocks large, some only a few.  At least one of these neighborhoods appear to be a stretch of highway.  Many appear to be largely non-residential, which would explain the skewed per-capita crime rates.

I've worked full-time in those two neighborhoods for 5+ years.  I've walked East 39th & Community College and East 64th & Scovill, and have not had a single problem.

 

Please keep in mind that these are predicted rates of crime. 

These studies aren't going to be entirely accurate, but I have to believe their predicted rates are based on historical values and are going to be more accurate than anecdotal evidence.

Yeah, I'm not sure how they are defininig "neighborhood".... I suppose "Scoville" is within "Central"?  Anyway, I don't disagree that this is a problem area (not so familiar with the other area on the list).  I would bet that a lot of the crime data they are relying upon occur on weekend nights when large crowds treat the gas stations on the corner of 55th and Woodland as some kind of freak-nik.  No worries though, Maingate Marketplace will rescue the neighborhood ;)... either that or it will be demolished by Opportunity Corridor and any spin-offs.

Another new list. The 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in the US. Cleveland has two on the list at #2 and #20. A Cincinnati neighborhood also made the list at #24. Chicago took the top spot.

 

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/10/04/25-most-dangerous-neighborhoods-2010/

 

I don't trust this site's data at all.  Here is what happened last year- http://www.urbancincy.com/2009/06/intellectually-dishonest-report-claims-otr-is-nations-most-dangerous-neighborhood/

There are many other neighborhoods in Cleveland and in other cities in which I would feel substantially more unsafe.  I'm not saying that it'd be like a stroll through the park walking through Carver Park or King Kennedy at 11pm on a Saturday night, but Central has really quieted down compared to how it used to be. 

 

Maybe ten years ago I'd believe that East 40th and Community College would be one of the most dangerous (especially considering that Longwood Plaza was an open-air market for drug-dealing activity and if people wanted to shop, they needed a bulletproof vest).  The data I've discovered shows that there's been a vast improvement in that area over the years.

 

I don't really understand the methodology of these people.  But I guess that bad news sells and these guys are in the business to make money.

An article about dumb-ass lists/rankings of cities:

 

CONSUMER FINANCE: Top 10 Places To (Fill In The Blank)

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101005-705363.html

 

(If you can't read the whole thing, Google the title and click through.)

Cleveland can't seem to catch a break when it comes to these list.

^Do they teach the art of the subtle jab in Cincy's public schools?  You all seem to have a inexplicable talent for it.

I thought only Cleveland people took jabs at other cities????????

That's true.  We just are more 'in your face' with it.  Subtlety is not our strong suit.

The one that bugs me is all the positive attention Pittsburgh gets. I always wonder the extent to which Richard Florida is responsible for the P-burgh hype-train.

 

I really like Pittsburgh and all, but I think some of the praise is undeserving.

 

For example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/05/prettiest-cities-in-the-world_n_751390.html#s151032

^As has been pointed out many times, these things go in cycles.  Cleveland was everyone's darling child in the early and mid 1990's.  The hype wore off and the recession hit (much earlier here than most other places).

 

The one thing I have always heard about Pittsburgh in response to these rankings is that the City has overextended itself and is playing smoke and mirror with finances.

Pittsburgh definitely has some nice, attractive areas and architecture to boot but I agree that it probably is a little over-hyped in urban circles right now. It's a good model for Rust Belt cities to take notes from but I doubt cities outside of the Midwest and Appalachia consider it a "premier" city.

 

Pittsburgh is like Cincinnati except it has more blue collar white people and the city literally stinks. I still get hit with that sulfur smell whenever I hear the word Pittsburgh. Installing utilities that emit febreeze throughout the city could do wonders!

Another new list. The 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in the US. Cleveland has two on the list at #2 and #20. A Cincinnati neighborhood also made the list at #24. Chicago took the top spot.

 

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/10/04/25-most-dangerous-neighborhoods-2010/

 

Urban Cincy examined the data here- http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/10/over-the-rhine-is-not-one-of-the-nations-most-dangerous-neighborhoods/

Another new list. The 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in the US. Cleveland has two on the list at #2 and #20. A Cincinnati neighborhood also made the list at #24. Chicago took the top spot.

 

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/10/04/25-most-dangerous-neighborhoods-2010/

 

Urban Cincy examined the data here- http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/10/over-the-rhine-is-not-one-of-the-nations-most-dangerous-neighborhoods/

 

Funny how the newspaper article wasn't spun to note that the #1 neighborhood last year had fallen completely off the list.

 

That's some great police work. ;)

^Do they teach the art of the subtle jab in Cincy's public schools? You all seem to have a inexplicable talent for it.

 

That wasn't a subtle jab, but the truth. I never said the list are valid and don't think they are. I'm sure you agree with me, no?

^Do they teach the art of the subtle jab in Cincy's public schools? You all seem to have a inexplicable talent for it.

 

That wasn't a subtle jab, but the truth. I never said the list are valid and don't think they are. I'm sure you agree with me, no?

 

I would definately say that was not a subtle jab.  It seems that pretty much every negative ranking list that comes out has Cleveland on it.  I am not proud of that, nor do I believe all of it.  As far as dangerous neighborhoods go, I can not comment.  I know the ones listed on here are dangerous neighborhoods, but I do not traverse the country spending time in dangerous hoods to make a comparison.   

Another new list. The 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in the US. Cleveland has two on the list at #2 and #20. A Cincinnati neighborhood also made the list at #24. Chicago took the top spot.

 

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/10/04/25-most-dangerous-neighborhoods-2010/

 

Urban Cincy examined the data here- http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/10/over-the-rhine-is-not-one-of-the-nations-most-dangerous-neighborhoods/

 

The rankings weren't misleading. They give a pretty good idea of where to stay away from. Most people in Cincy know there's a big difference right now between the upper and lower part of OTR. It's a big neighborhood; it wouldn't even make sense to me for them to include entire neighborhoods when some, like OTR are relatively big in size compared to others.