Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

XxCloudSephiroth69xX t1_jeexy6v wrote

Displacement is not the same as a reduction. Homicides and shootings overall have not decreased in any sort of meaningful way in the city... just in the zones they're focusing on. This is the same reason I am not sold on the GVRS program that the city is touting as a success. Yeah, when you flood an area with resources that area is going to see a crime reduction. Meanwhile, other areas that aren't seeing those resources are seeing increases in crime.

Both programs have their merits, but neither are the cure all that the powers that be want them to be.

5

Slime__queen t1_jef1oxj wrote

Maybe then .. we bring similar resources to more areas

9

XxCloudSephiroth69xX t1_jef7glv wrote

Yes that'd be nice, but those resources don't exist. Expanding programs like Safe Streets and GVRS takes manpower and money that the city does no have.

1

Slime__queen t1_jef8pia wrote

I don’t know a ton about the budgeting situation of the city so I’m not gonna argue or agree with that, but I just mean that this seems to show that these kind of programs are a good goal to support and work towards. Just because we can’t make that happen right now, we can still identify this as something people want to make happen. And treat not having the resources for it as a problem to solve rather than a reason to dismiss the idea. Not that you necessarily were, but I see people often discount something because there’s not enough resources, but that isn’t a permanent thing.

0

NoMoKraTo t1_jef6642 wrote

There is no problem that more money can't solve. The problem is having enough money.

−2

Slime__queen t1_jef74cv wrote

Sure, I guess what I meant was that if something only works in the area it’s accessible that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea or isn’t working. It just needs to be brought to more areas. And that deciding something is worth spending money on is the first step to addressing the “not enough money” problem.

0

bmore t1_jegq5ob wrote

What is the overall homicide and nonfatal shooting count this year vs this time last year?

1

XxCloudSephiroth69xX t1_jegrldw wrote

I don't have the exact numbers accessible right now, but there is a decrease in both so far this year. Why are you asking?

1

bmore t1_jeguoq4 wrote

I thought homicides were down ~22% and nonfatal shootings were down ~25% over this time last year. I was curious if I'm wrong because that doesn't seem to track with "have not decreased in any sort of meaningful way."

1

XxCloudSephiroth69xX t1_jegw13c wrote

Are you attributing a year to date reduction for 3 months solely to Safe Streets? Why didn't that reduction happen in other years of Safe Streets operation? What is the comparison to murders and shootings in Safe Streets zones year over year? If there's an increase in zones but a reduction in non-zones, is that Safe Streets fault too? I don't have all the answers to these questions and I don't think you do either.

So yeah, I'd say ignoring the other years of overall murder and shooting rates staying the same on increasing city wide just to cherry pick 3 months this year is not meaningful.

1

bmore t1_jeh5992 wrote

I didn't say a thing about Safe Streets. I asked if the overall numbers I had are wrong because they seem to be completely different than what you implied.

2