^Actually, the South has he highest murder rate per capita, followed by the Midwest, then the West, and then the Northeast. 

 

What you don't have in Appalachia is concentrated poverty.  There really is no such thing as a rural ghetto, although I would venture to guess if you looked at per capita crime stats they are not as far off as you might assume.  There are also a lot of places in Appalachia and the Ozarks that are also largely self-policed, where crimes are not reported or at least not taken through the criminal justice system.

 

Concentrated poverty has led to this type of mob violence in the black ghettos and the Latino ghettos of the Americas, as it did in the Irish and Italian ghettos of NYC and other large cities back when there were large pockets of concentrated white poverty..... as it does in the ghettos of India (gang rapes and other horrific mob violence rarely seen here in America) and other places today.  American gangs and "turf" hardly originated with the modern version.  Russian hooligans engage in this type of mob violence and much worse.  Just look at what they did at the Euro Cup or do a search on youtube for some of the largest and most brutal riots imaginable in which every single participant in white. 

 

By saying this, I'm not trying to offend or insult the more sensitive members on here.  But I do find it disappointing that I get personally attacked if I say anything contra to the group think mentality this topic sadly spawns on UO.   

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but the levels of personal attacks seem much lower here than in other places.  This is part of why I post here.  I suspect it's due to the fact that we don't accept what I call "ad hominem punctuation", closing an "argument" with "you idiot" or something of its ilk.

 

The places you mention don't value human life very much.  I suspect this cause(d) both the poverty and the crime, rather than one causing the other.

 

 

Unfortunately for Cleveland and the Rust Belt, a lot of our crime problems are not really inherent to "urban areas." They aren't inherent to concentrated poverty either, at least not to the degree we see them in our community.  Cleveland really is unusually dysfunctional, even for an urban area.

 

When I think of concentrated poverty, the east side of Cleveland and many areas of the inner ring suburbs which touch Cleveland are examples of that, even if the density of the population is not what you see in more urban areas like NYC, Chicago, etc.  What we have here is block after block after block, entire neighborhoods, of poor people.  Outside of a few select neighborhoods, Cleveland proper is hovering right around the poverty line.  That's why we rank so high on, if not top, most lists of "poorest big cities" in America.  The kids are raised by poor parents, who were mostly raised by poor parents themselves.... they go to schools where nearly the entire student body is in poverty.  Nearly half of the CH-UH student population qualifies for lunch assistance. 

Maybe I'm missing something, but the levels of personal attacks seem much lower here than in other places.  This is part of why I post here.  I suspect it's due to the fact that we don't accept what I call "ad hominem punctuation", closing an "argument" with "you idiot" or something of its ilk.

 

That's why I frequent this forum as well.  This topic, however, seems to be one where you can only allowed to have one opinion and, if you don't, you're "making excuses" 

A big part of the problem is behavior.  Not all poor people behave the way some do.  It's not even close.  But they all pay for it.[/color]

 

Bingo. You have large swaths of Appalachia that is rather poor, and in many instances, worse off than many of the inner cities. These types of mob-rule crimes are unheard of.

 

Unheard of?  I have family down there and I can assure you it's quite violent.  Difference is nobody cares, because it's contained in an area they'll never see.  The urban version is much harder to ignore, plus it has that awkward racial angle.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the levels of personal attacks seem much lower here than in other places.  This is part of why I post here.  I suspect it's due to the fact that we don't accept what I call "ad hominem punctuation", closing an "argument" with "you idiot" or something of its ilk.

 

That's why I frequent this forum as well.  This topic, however, seems to be one where you can only allowed to have one opinion and, if you don't, you're "making excuses" 

 

Okay, it's one of the few topics here where I'm probably in the majority (though I would say I wasn't when I first started posting in '07 or so) but it seems to me there's more than a few people taking your approach.

 

It could be that it's so damned frustrating.  Politicians that probably know better won't even touch an clear cut case of cultural rot like the Damon Wells incident, and even Zack Reed, who definitely knows better, wants to blame downtown spending instead of gang battles for the increasing murder count.

Drugs, poverty and boredom. The kids who are of working age should be WORKING. When I was this age, most people I knew had a PT job at the mall or in a restaurant or something. Working was normal as a teen and everyone had a job. Our parents didn't want us getting into trouble or hanging around the house, and in some cases (mine), the money had to actually go towards paying utilities or those would get shut off, so not working was simply not an option.

 

edited to add: look at Fast Times at Ridgemont High as an example. EVERYONE worked at the mall. If you had a day off, you came to the mall to say hi to your coworkers and go to the movies. But pretty much all the kids worked. I don't see it like this now.

 

Those jobs are now taken up by 30 and 40 something housewives and FT working moms whose single income from a FT working spouse is no longer enough to keep the family afloat. And retirees work at places like walmart and target because they aren't making enough either. They are smarter, have more experience, will work at the crappy low hourly wage and are very responsible - can be trusted to open/close alone, take the bank book in, manage cash registers, etc, so they're getting these jobs now instead of teenagers.

 

I bet if me and a 16 year old CH-UH student applied for a job over at the UH target, I would get the job and they wouldn't, and I haven't worked in retail for several years. But if your choice is an older, "perceived" more reliable and intelligent worker or a younger one, who tends to call off on a whim and plays on their phone while they're there, managers are likely going to hire the older worker.

 

I don't purport to know the answer. There were lots of kids at the mall when I grew up, and there were also fights, including a couple of small mob scene like deals which were school rivalry based, but it does seem to have increased a great deal. I think it's because there is NOTHING TO DO and idle hands, etc.

^^I'm not one who blames downtown spending instead of gang battles on the murder count.  Quite the opposite.  I think increased downtown spending will grow the tax base in the City proper, which will lead to increased funding for other causes outside of downtown, as well as hopefully spur an organic outgrowth of redevelopment well beyond downtown.  It's not a quick fix, but rather a long range vision which would require more patience than society seems to have.  If you don't understand that, you don't understand my "approach"

 

What I don't engage in is racial finger pointing.  I don't like it when white people or black people or any other racial subset is blamed for any perceived "rot" in society.  You can try to say it is "cultural, not racial" but that isn't helpful either when the cultural issues you are talking about are assigned to one race through stereotypes which are so easily "reinforced" through conscious or subconscious racism.  Same goes for minorities who think all of their problems would be solved if racism did not exist.  All of this creates a circular argument which is counterproductive to finding this "solution". 

^Not sure I follow. The data indicate that crime is much, much lower today in urban areas than it was in the 1960s, 70s, or 80s.

 

I'm referring to the 1930's, 40's, and 50's as low crime, which are lately thought of idealistically. 60's and later was when the reporting and recording became more accurate.

^Oops, sorry, I follow. I read your initial post quickly and reacted to your last sentence out of context. What's amazing about NYC is that today's murder rate really isn't even higher than in the 1940s and 1950s. It's actually lower than some years in the 1930s. Some of that is likely due to improved medical care, though. Rates of reported violent crime likely are higher, but to your point, we don't know how much that reflects a real increase vs improved data quality.

Another consideration about past crime data is that what would be crimes today were not crimes, or were not charged and prosecuted as crimes, 50 or more years ago.  You used to be able to rape and beat your wife with no criminal charges.  You could also beat or even kill a minority without criminal charges.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the levels of personal attacks seem much lower here than in other places.  This is part of why I post here.  I suspect it's due to the fact that we don't accept what I call "ad hominem punctuation", closing an "argument" with "you idiot" or something of its ilk.

 

That's why I frequent this forum as well.  This topic, however, seems to be one where you can only allowed to have one opinion and, if you don't, you're "making excuses" 

 

Okay, it's one of the few topics here where I'm probably in the majority (though I would say I wasn't when I first started posting in '07 or so) but it seems to me there's more than a few people taking your approach.

 

It could be that it's so damned frustrating.  Politicians that probably know better won't even touch an clear cut case of cultural rot like the Damon Wells incident, and even Zack Reed, who definitely knows better, wants to blame downtown spending instead of gang battles for the increasing murder count.

 

There's a strong argument linking downtown spending (and its attendant opportunity cost) to worsening conditions in the neighborhoods that are now exporting gang violence.  Of course this argument only works if one accepts the premise that poverty and segregation are factors in gang activity.   

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-cuyahoga/bedford-police-investigate-shooting-as-homicide

Hard to believe, hardly a generation ago, places like Bedford Hts. and Maple Hts. were stable middle class suburbs. 

 

This one in Maple Heights. 

http://www.cleveland.com/maple-heights/index.ssf/2017/01/medical_examiner_identifies_ma.html#incart_river_home

 

 

 

 

 

^This is a negative consequence of sprawl.  Maple and Bedford were once more rural, but then got flooded with post-war housing that went out of style 20 years after it was built.  The housing stock is not desirable.  Expect the same to happen to Parma in the not too distant future.

There is more to it than ugly housing stock. If that was the case, then Cleveland's decline is attributable to its horrific two-family housing that's not historic nor worth saving in many cases.

There is more to it than ugly housing stock. If that was the case, then Cleveland's decline is attributable to its horrific two-family housing that's not historic nor worth saving in many cases.

 

That would be correct Sherman, as we have also experienced with East Cleveland's very undesirable housing stock....  :roll: 

 

This is merely the east side of Cleveland continuing its extension out to the next area of affordable housing.  Part of it was because of the type of housing, but it has just as much to do with proximity to the ever declining east side of Cleveland.  We had talked about it at great length here over the years and even predicted it. 

 

Parma might have similar housing stock but has a longer road to getting there simply due to the different makeup of its west side counterpart/border neighborhoods.     

I wouldn't call it ugly.  It's undesirable and there's an overabundance of it, especially in this market.  How many 3bdrm, 1 bath houses can the market for the eastern suburbs handle?  It created a buyer's market, driving down prices, leading to rental conversions, leading to Section 8 designations, leading to neglect, etc.

 

And Cleveland proper's decline can be at least partially attributed to crappy housing stock and poor urban planning which is going to take all of our lifetimes to correct (best case scenario). 

 

While East Cleveland does have some great stock in certain areas, especially the very well maintained Forest Hills neighborhood, the majority of it is still up-down duck-billed duplex styles.  The shame is the way the apartment stock became undesirable several decades ago.  Those were the real gems.

There's obviously a lot more to it than housing stock, but that's a pretty important piece. There are two things going on here: changes to the overall regional population and geographic redistribution of the overall regional population. The relative quality and characteristics of each neighborhood's housing stock plays a roll in the redistribution part. Given the regional stagnation (zero population growth, slow income growth), places like Euclid and Maple Hts were inevitably going to suffer as inner city housing disintegrated under low rents, because these post war working class suburbs don't have enough of the large lots, primarily single family lots, prime location, or pre-war architecture that keeps other suburbs relatively appealing to middle class households.

^This is a negative consequence of sprawl.  Maple and Bedford were once more rural, but then got flooded with post-war housing that went out of style 20 years after it was built.  The housing stock is not desirable.  Expect the same to happen to Parma in the not too distant future.

 

The guy in Bedford got kicked out of a bar at closing time.  I don't know exactly what happened, but my guess is he sat there nursing a drink as 2:30 approached (a place can get fined huge if there is still alcohol out at that time, but some people think it makes them cool to go past time) and said FU (or equivalent) when called on it, so he got physically ejected.  So he sprays the windows of the place.

 

I don't see how sprawl caused that, but I do see how it could help maintain and accelerate same.

^I think that's just semantics. Obviously the proximate cause was this particular loser. Hts was addressing willyboy's implied question about why this loser was at this particular bar in 2016 and why his temporal analog might not have been there 30 years ago.

Keep in mind I posted a link regarding a shooting death in Maple Hts. that happened within a day of the bar shooting in Bedford.   

I don't think anyone missed that.  It was E Rocc who singled out the Bedford (not Bedford Hts) incident in which a Cleveland Hts man was killed because more details are known about it.

I don't think anyone missed that.  It was E Rocc who singled out the Bedford (not Bedford Hts) incident in which a Cleveland Hts man was killed because more details are known about it.

 

I definitely didn't miss that one.  But ever since a mailman got killed on his rounds on what used to be the "nicer" side of Maple, nothing much shocks me there.

Parma has its share of issues but is not in the same boat as Maple or Bedford.  Parma is one of Ohio's largest cities, with a full range of housing types as well as significant industrial and commercial activity. 

 

The others are bedroom communities, smaller, with less tax base and less housing variety.  As with most Cleveland suburbs, their biggest problem is their own balkanized nature.  They are simply not viable and should not exist as separate entities.  Moreover, the cost and complication of their separate existence is dragging down the whole region.  That in turn leads to less jobs, which leads to more poverty and despair, which leads to more crime. 

 

I don't think we'll see much progress on those fronts until our local political and economic structure is more conducive to growth.  That means no more East Cleveland and no more Maple Heights.  It means we come together in ways we haven't before.  At some point we will have no choice, and I suspect that point may have arrived years ago.

Parma has its share of issues but is not in the same boat as Maple or Bedford.  Parma is one of Ohio's largest cities, with a full range of housing types as well as significant industrial and commercial activity. 

 

Maple Heights had one the biggest shopping centers in the world, Cook United, and several 200+ employee manufacturers.  Antipathy towards business helped create their problems, not effectively enforcing school district boundaries exacerbated them, and the housing bubble sealed it.  But the roots were poor decisions over decades, but particularly 1984 to about 1999.

 

That said, the suburbs, particularly the ones that are doing well at any given time, will never accept merger with Cleveland or any other larger city, and the state will side with them if push comes to shove, because the politicians need their votes.  It's not only a waste of time to discuss it except if it's initiated by a suburb.  It's also counterproductive because it can poison discussions of more feasible regionalism.

 

I would say that poverty and despair cause less crime than considering them an excuse does.

I suspect there will come a time (not any time soon) when these suburbs, especially the southern ones around the industrial valley, are going to come begging Cleveland to take them in.  I doubt Cleveland's reaction, no matter how well it might be doing at that time and how far these suburbs may have fallen, will be to thumb its nose at the prospect.

 

^I certainly don't think poverty and despair are an "excuse" for crime.  They do not excuse the criminal, either legally or morally.  I don't know anyone who would argue otherwise.  Do you?  Simply pointing out the time-tested, extremely strong correlation is by no means "excusing bad behavior" or however else those who will accept only one conclusion want to term it.  It's the same issue we run into discussing terrorism.  Someone asks about how we solve a problem but then angrily dismisses any discussion of root causes as "excuses".  There is absolutely no "excuse" for murdering innocent civilians.  No need to debate whether water is wet.       

The kinetic source of population/wealth shift isn't the problems of east-side Cleveland pushing out the middle class from Garfield, Maple Heights, Bedford etc. It's the urban fringe being moved farther and farther out in a no-growth metro area and pulling wider the doughnut hole of poverty and blight. Until we stop moving the urban fringe farther and father out, AND the metro area isn't growing in population, more communities farther and farther out from Public Square will succumb to the effects of poverty/blight. Not all will, of course. Sometimes the water go around the rocks, even though it still slowly erodes it away.

If 10 starving people have the choice of killing me or killing themselves, I'd venture 8 or 9 would rather kill me.  Not a value judgment, just an observation on the law of the jungle.  If we don't like the law of the jungle, our civilization must take care of its own.  There is no alternative.  We don't get to have our cake and eat it too.

I missed the part in either of those stories where the shootings were linked to survival, even tangentially.

I missed the part in either of those stories where the shootings were linked to survival, even tangentially.

 

Reporters report.  I'm suggesting a global theory, as a counter to the theory about "bad cultures" run amok.  I do realize that no global theory is entirely applicable to these incidents. 

If your theory is not applicable to these events then it probably undermines your theory to bring it up now.  A guy firing wildly into a bar because he was kicked out certainly doesn't support a "survival theory", but it's great evidence for a "'bad cultures' run amok" theory. 

If your theory is not applicable to these events then it probably undermines your theory to bring it up now.  A guy firing wildly into a bar because he was kicked out certainly doesn't support a "survival theory", but it's great evidence for a "'bad cultures' run amok" theory. 

 

That does sound a bit like existential hopelessness to me, so I'm not ready to rule it out.  And since hopelessness can lead to bad cultures, I'm not sure these theories necessarily conflict.  Two sides of the same coin maybe.  I just hate to see the latter mentioned without the former.  People who have anything to lose, anything at all, rarely behave like that.

Why is he out spending money at the bar?  And who's this woman with him who has a car?  She must be pretty dedicated to him to be his getaway driver.  Doesn't sound like they're in grinding poverty to me.  Sounds like they have at least some amount of resources and each other.  That's something to lose.

Whackos come in all shapes, sizes, and colors.

 

 

Why is he out spending money at the bar?  And who's this woman with him who has a car?  She must be pretty dedicated to him to be his getaway driver.  Doesn't sound like they're in grinding poverty to me.  Sounds like they have at least some amount of resources and each other.  That's something to lose.

 

Good point, and I overstated mine, but these things are often done in groups.  By drunks who have better uses for their limited cash.  I know this because I often defend them in court afterward.  Neither a car, nor a weapon, nor a partner, nor a substance problem will disqualify them from access to a public defender.  Having a stable and livable income does disqualify them, but it also makes it less likely they will behave as if society is ending tomorrow.

And there it is....

 

http://fox8.com/2017/01/03/shop-with-a-parent-beachwood-place-announces-chaperone-rules-for-teens/

I am shocked Beechwood Place didn't have one. Most GDP sites have at least a policy.

And there it is....

 

http://fox8.com/2017/01/03/shop-with-a-parent-beachwood-place-announces-chaperone-rules-for-teens/

 

I’m not sure how well this is going to work.  The civil rights lawyers are going to flock like crows to a stumbling deer in a median strip watching to see if it’s enforced shall-we-say “selectively”.  So it’s likely to cost them money, and “younger” focused stores may bail for Legacy or Pinecrest.

 

One dodge around this might be issuing prepaid cards good at any BP store, check it at a kiosk and you can shop unaccompanied. 

 

No need to shall-we-say "beat around the bush."  By selectively, you mean will it be enforced against black youths but not white youths.  I doubt it, but if it is, then the Mall deserves to get sued and good for the lawyers who are fighting to uphold those fundamental rights (even though there is not a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for those types of cases given the relative lack of economic damages).  While this scenario riles up shall-we-say "certain types of internet forums", it is just not reflective of the real world.  Remember all those civil rights lawyers who flocked like crows to a stumbling deer when the same restrictions on Coventry and Lee Rd were enforced?  Yeah... neither do I.  That's not to say that some random lawyer is not going to file a potentially meritless suit.  Just don't expect a flock of civil rights lawyers to pile on.

 

As for your pre-paid card idea, would the kids then be given an armband to wear around the mall to let it be known they have money to spend?  Would each individual kid have to have a gift card or would one out of a group of 3 suffice?  Would there be a minimum buy in?.... if the gift card was for $5, would that buy the kids a whole day of roaming around the mall?  Would they be required to actually use the gift card or could they buy one and use it to enter the mall year round?  What if there is a leftover balance on the card from the last visit?

And there it is....

 

http://fox8.com/2017/01/03/shop-with-a-parent-beachwood-place-announces-chaperone-rules-for-teens/

 

I’m not sure how well this is going to work.  The civil rights lawyers are going to flock like crows to a stumbling deer in a median strip watching to see if it’s enforced shall-we-say “selectively”.  So it’s likely to cost them money, and “younger” focused stores may bail for Legacy or Pinecrest.

 

One dodge around this might be issuing prepaid cards good at any BP store, check it at a kiosk and you can shop unaccompanied. 

 

 

Yeah if it is selectively enforced they will (and my lovely neighbors the Chandra's) would be all over it, otherwise this blanket approach is likely the only thing that can be done in an effort to prevent such events and help the reputation of the mall.

 

I highly doubt the youth attracting stores are going to be welcome at Pinecrest or at least some of the other places for that matter as that would defeat the purpose of their/Pinecrest's purpose and location. 

 

I would think If something like this isn't done I would expect a slow exodus of the non youth drawing stores as some of their target demographic are already staying away from the mall due to the kids and parking lot incidents.         

Beachwood is absolutely loaded, so maybe they could provide additional police protection?  That seems more appropriate and more effective.

That should have been happening regardless, along with more cameras in the parking lots.  I actually think this is the best move in this case.   

Yeah if it is selectively enforced they will (and my lovely neighbors the Chandra's) would be all over it         

 

The man has triplets to feed!  Are you suggesting he would be wrong for being "all over" selective enforcement of this policy?  Do you think a place of public accommodation should legally be allowed to selectively enforce such a policy?

Yeah if it is selectively enforced they will (and my lovely neighbors the Chandra's) would be all over it         

 

The man has triplets to feed!  Are you suggesting he would be wrong for being "all over" selective enforcement of this policy?  Do you think a place of public accommodation should legally be allowed to selectively enforce such a policy?

 

No, I'm saying if they did selectively enforce they would never get away with it. 

^And that's a good thing, right?

No need to shall-we-say "beat around the bush."  By selectively, you mean will it be enforced against black youths but not white youths.  I doubt it, but if it is, then the Mall deserves to get sued and good for the lawyers who are fighting to uphold those fundamental rights (even though there is not a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for those types of cases given the relative lack of economic damages).  While this scenario riles up shall-we-say "certain types of internet forums", it is just not reflective of the real world.  Remember all those civil rights lawyers who flocked like crows to a stumbling deer when the same restrictions on Coventry and Lee Rd were enforced?  Yeah... neither do I.  That's not to say that some random lawyer is not going to file a potentially meritless suit.  Just don't expect a flock of civil rights lawyers to pile on.

 

As for your pre-paid card idea, would the kids then be given an armband to wear around the mall to let it be known they have money to spend?  Would each individual kid have to have a gift card or would one out of a group of 3 suffice?  Would there be a minimum buy in?.... if the gift card was for $5, would that buy the kids a whole day of roaming around the mall?  Would they be required to actually use the gift card or could they buy one and use it to enter the mall year round?  What if there is a leftover balance on the card from the last visit?

 

Gender as well.  You can't just ignore the Indian girls and harrass the black boys.  Which of course would, in the eyes of many, mitigate the problem without costing money.  But it is very illegal.

 

IIRC Pinecrest is outside.  The loitering issue largely goes away without an enclosed common area.  That's why Southgate has partially survived and Randall Mall has not.

 

At Beachwood probably a $25 minimum lol

IIRC Pinecrest is outside.  The loitering issue largely goes away without an enclosed common area.  That's why Southgate has partially survived and Randall Mall has not.

 

I was going to mention this earlier. I wonder if these outdoor "malls" are less-susceptible to this type of behavior because of the nature of the design? Seems particularly likely in the winter.

Perhaps. But that is not the reason for the recent success of outdoor malls. It's the anchors which make or break shopping centers. Big box stores that attach to outdoor malls are doing much better than department stores which attach to indoor malls. This is the trend virtually everywhere.

At Beachwood Place. No curfew in effect at 2pm but mall crowd is as pleasant as I've seen it for years - though I am guessing some shoppers scared by recent events also staying away a bit for now, too, as crowd is on the lighter busy side.

 

Only 3 hours until the non-profiling begins...

Perhaps. But that is not the reason for the recent success of outdoor malls. It's the anchors which make or break shopping centers. Big box stores that attach to outdoor malls are doing much better than department stores which attach to indoor malls. This is the trend virtually everywhere.

 

It could be that it is easier to check out other stores and comparison shop in the indoor mall.