Longterm dc area residents, have you noticed decline ?

[Anonymous]

The real city dwellers know each other and don't have the same issues as transplants

This is the content I come here for.

Bravo, "real city dweller", bravo!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have noticed no decline, if you worry this much about city living crime and schools, you should move to the burbs or back to your hometown. Leave the real city living to the rest of us.

Take a ride with a taxi cab driver who has been working a decade. He will tell you all you need to know about the state of decline the city is in.

The deniers on this thread are either new to the city or have very, very low standards of city life. Perhaps the PP is from Seattle or San Francisco and thinks DC is a step up from those dumpsters.

I came here in 1985. It has gone down significantly.

That couldn't be more of an inaccurate statement. Sure, maybe if you've lived in Georgetown since 1985 and never left, you may be "scared" to see a homeless guy playing music..

Nope. A homeless guy playing music is not the concern.

There is no logical arguement to say DC was safer in 80s vs. today. They're obviously pockets of violence, but as a whole, the city is night and day safer/better.

It is safer than the 80s, but not the 00s. And a main problem is that there are not pockets of violence. Violence now takes place throughout the city and in areas that once were safer.

People keep saying this but it is utter nonsense.

Violence took place throughout the city in the 80s and 90s, and quite a bit more of it. The only difference (besides the fact that there's significantly less of it) is that in the 80s and 90s people like you wouldn't dare set foot in Columbia Heights or the Navy Yard and now you will.

And show me any evidence that there's significantly more violence in "areas that were once safer." Because the only part of the city violence wasn't common in the 80s and 90s was Ward 3, and guess what, Ward 3 is still incredibly safe and free from violence.

There were 2 (yes 2!) homicides in all of Ward 3 last year. There were 25 assaults with a dangerous weapon. In a Ward with roughly 80,000 residents. Even if there was 1 homicide and 12 assaults per year in the 80s and you fearmongers could say "OMG crime up 100% since then!" it would still be completely irrelevant because 1 homicide and 13 assaults is a rounding error when you're talking about 80,000 people. Your actual statistical chances went up by a rounding error.

And I'm guessing there were far more than 1 homicide and 12 assaults per year in Ward 3 in the 80s and 90s.

The idea people did not set foot in Columbia Heights or the Navy Yard is wrong. There were a ton of clubs in the Navy Yard, now gone, where DJs and local bands played and they were packed. That was in the 80s and 90s. The only thing to go to in Columbia Heights was Black Cat in the 90s. It was pretty much the only place there and it was packed also. And both of those areas were underdeveloped and not considered the "safest" places, but people still went there regularly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have noticed no decline, if you worry this much about city living crime and schools, you should move to the burbs or back to your hometown. Leave the real city living to the rest of us.

Take a ride with a taxi cab driver who has been working a decade. He will tell you all you need to know about the state of decline the city is in.

The deniers on this thread are either new to the city or have very, very low standards of city life. Perhaps the PP is from Seattle or San Francisco and thinks DC is a step up from those dumpsters.

I came here in 1985. It has gone down significantly.

That couldn't be more of an inaccurate statement. Sure, maybe if you've lived in Georgetown since 1985 and never left, you may be "scared" to see a homeless guy playing music..

Nope. A homeless guy playing music is not the concern.

There is no logical arguement to say DC was safer in 80s vs. today. They're obviously pockets of violence, but as a whole, the city is night and day safer/better.

It is safer than the 80s, but not the 00s. And a main problem is that there are not pockets of violence. Violence now takes place throughout the city and in areas that once were safer.

People keep saying this but it is utter nonsense.

Violence took place throughout the city in the 80s and 90s, and quite a bit more of it. The only difference (besides the fact that there's significantly less of it) is that in the 80s and 90s people like you wouldn't dare set foot in Columbia Heights or the Navy Yard and now you will.

And show me any evidence that there's significantly more violence in "areas that were once safer." Because the only part of the city violence wasn't common in the 80s and 90s was Ward 3, and guess what, Ward 3 is still incredibly safe and free from violence.

There were 2 (yes 2!) homicides in all of Ward 3 last year. There were 25 assaults with a dangerous weapon. In a Ward with roughly 80,000 residents. Even if there was 1 homicide and 12 assaults per year in the 80s and you fearmongers could say "OMG crime up 100% since then!" it would still be completely irrelevant because 1 homicide and 13 assaults is a rounding error when you're talking about 80,000 people. Your actual statistical chances went up by a rounding error.

And I'm guessing there were far more than 1 homicide and 12 assaults per year in Ward 3 in the 80s and 90s.

The idea people did not set foot in Columbia Heights or the Navy Yard is wrong. There were a ton of clubs in the Navy Yard, now gone, where DJs and local bands played and they were packed. That was in the 80s and 90s. The only thing to go to in Columbia Heights was Black Cat in the 90s. It was pretty much the only place there and it was packed also. And both of those areas were underdeveloped and not considered the "safest" places, but people still went there regularly.

Black Cat was always further south on 14th Street than Columbia Heights is.

It's obviously true that a lot of people spent a lot of time in these neighborhoods long before they gentrified. I think the point PP was making is that many of the people who now live there or visit a lot would never have found a reason to go there before. Different demographics (in terms of age, income, and race), different expectations of safety, etc. It's a broad claim but doesn't seem wildly inaccurate...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


The idea people did not set foot in Columbia Heights or the Navy Yard is wrong. There were a ton of clubs in the Navy Yard, now gone, where DJs and local bands played and they were packed. That was in the 80s and 90s. The only thing to go to in Columbia Heights was Black Cat in the 90s. It was pretty much the only place there and it was packed also. And both of those areas were underdeveloped and not considered the "safest" places, but people still went there regularly.


Black Cat was always further south on 14th Street than Columbia Heights is.

It's obviously true that a lot of people spent a lot of time in these neighborhoods long before they gentrified. I think the point PP was making is that many of the people who now live there or visit a lot would never have found a reason to go there before. Different demographics (in terms of age, income, and race), different expectations of safety, etc. It's a broad claim but doesn't seem wildly inaccurate...

White yuppies in the 80s and 90s did not have any expectation of walking safely from Capitol Hill to the clubs on M Street. When I moved to Capitol Hill in the mid 90s, 8th street SE was not somewhere I would have walked alone at night and H Street NE (as well as most of 14th Street from Logan all the way up to Columbia Heights) was full of boarded up buildings from the 1968 riots. On the Hill on 8th Street SE, we went to Las Placitas restaurant, and there was the lesbian bar the Phase, but walking alone was not something you did---though the strip of Pennsylvania containing the Tune Inn, Capitol Lounge, Il Radicchio and Burrito Bros. (roughly 2nd through 4th) was okay. 12th Street and Lincoln Park was the eastern boundary. Downtown east of 14th Street was full of porn shops. The area around the Verizon Center was a pedestrian mall filled with drug dealers and vagrants, but people took cabs at night to go to the old 9:30 Club, PollyEsther's (sp?), and some of the other clubs around F and G and 9th.

Nor did anyone regularly stroll from Dupont Circle over to the Black Cat. You took a cab. There are vast swaths of the city now filled with condos and Class A apartments where upper middle class white people (and a lot of upper middle class AA) simply wouldn't wander around in 25 years ago because of safety concerns. There were clubs and the odd fancy restaurant (Ruppert's on 7th) but you had a cab drop you off and pick you up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


The idea people did not set foot in Columbia Heights or the Navy Yard is wrong. There were a ton of clubs in the Navy Yard, now gone, where DJs and local bands played and they were packed. That was in the 80s and 90s. The only thing to go to in Columbia Heights was Black Cat in the 90s. It was pretty much the only place there and it was packed also. And both of those areas were underdeveloped and not considered the "safest" places, but people still went there regularly.


Black Cat was always further south on 14th Street than Columbia Heights is.

It's obviously true that a lot of people spent a lot of time in these neighborhoods long before they gentrified. I think the point PP was making is that many of the people who now live there or visit a lot would never have found a reason to go there before. Different demographics (in terms of age, income, and race), different expectations of safety, etc. It's a broad claim but doesn't seem wildly inaccurate...

White yuppies in the 80s and 90s did not have any expectation of walking safely from Capitol Hill to the clubs on M Street. When I moved to Capitol Hill in the mid 90s, 8th street SE was not somewhere I would have walked alone at night and H Street NE (as well as most of 14th Street from Logan all the way up to Columbia Heights) was full of boarded up buildings from the 1968 riots. On the Hill on 8th Street SE, we went to Las Placitas restaurant, and there was the lesbian bar the Phase, but walking alone was not something you did---though the strip of Pennsylvania containing the Tune Inn, Capitol Lounge, Il Radicchio and Burrito Bros. (roughly 2nd through 4th) was okay. 12th Street and Lincoln Park was the eastern boundary. Downtown east of 14th Street was full of porn shops. The area around the Verizon Center was a pedestrian mall filled with drug dealers and vagrants, but people took cabs at night to go to the old 9:30 Club, PollyEsther's (sp?), and some of the other clubs around F and G and 9th.

Nor did anyone regularly stroll from Dupont Circle over to the Black Cat. You took a cab. There are vast swaths of the city now filled with condos and Class A apartments where upper middle class white people (and a lot of upper middle class AA) simply wouldn't wander around in 25 years ago because of safety concerns. There were clubs and the odd fancy restaurant (Ruppert's on 7th) but you had a cab drop you off and pick you up.

So many memories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have noticed no decline, if you worry this much about city living crime and schools, you should move to the burbs or back to your hometown. Leave the real city living to the rest of us.

Take a ride with a taxi cab driver who has been working a decade. He will tell you all you need to know about the state of decline the city is in.

The deniers on this thread are either new to the city or have very, very low standards of city life. Perhaps the PP is from Seattle or San Francisco and thinks DC is a step up from those dumpsters.

I came here in 1985. It has gone down significantly.

That couldn't be more of an inaccurate statement. Sure, maybe if you've lived in Georgetown since 1985 and never left, you may be "scared" to see a homeless guy playing music..

Nope. A homeless guy playing music is not the concern.

There is no logical arguement to say DC was safer in 80s vs. today. They're obviously pockets of violence, but as a whole, the city is night and day safer/better.

It is safer than the 80s, but not the 00s. And a main problem is that there are not pockets of violence. Violence now takes place throughout the city and in areas that once were safer.

People keep saying this but it is utter nonsense.

Violence took place throughout the city in the 80s and 90s, and quite a bit more of it. The only difference (besides the fact that there's significantly less of it) is that in the 80s and 90s people like you wouldn't dare set foot in Columbia Heights or the Navy Yard and now you will.

And show me any evidence that there's significantly more violence in "areas that were once safer." Because the only part of the city violence wasn't common in the 80s and 90s was Ward 3, and guess what, Ward 3 is still incredibly safe and free from violence.

There were 2 (yes 2!) homicides in all of Ward 3 last year. There were 25 assaults with a dangerous weapon. In a Ward with roughly 80,000 residents. Even if there was 1 homicide and 12 assaults per year in the 80s and you fearmongers could say "OMG crime up 100% since then!" it would still be completely irrelevant because 1 homicide and 13 assaults is a rounding error when you're talking about 80,000 people. Your actual statistical chances went up by a rounding error.

And I'm guessing there were far more than 1 homicide and 12 assaults per year in Ward 3 in the 80s and 90s.

Now I understand what is going on. Because the privileged are safe in Ward 3, they have no idea what is going on throughout the rest of the city, where murders have skyrocketed and carjackings have more than doubled.

No wonder you all love saying "everything seems better to me."

This is partially true, and definitely this board's heavy Ward 3 population skews both perceptions of and experience with crime.

Although, even with murders skyrocketing, it's not true that the city is more violent now than in the 1980s or early 1990s. The total number of murders this year is half of what it was then, and the population is larger. Or by another metric everyone here seems to love — boarded-up storefronts downtown — today is certainly an improvement over 30 years ago. (Unless you really loved huge surface parking lots that were largely empty at night.)

One issue with discussions of any of this is that no one is comparing today's crime problem to the same past era's crime problem. Some people look at, say, 1991 and say, well, this is much better. Other people look at 2009 and say, well, this is much worse. They're both right.

So much worse than 2015! Who cares about 40 years ago?

Just cherry pick whatever data you want. Over a long term time frame (not 8yrs) crime has decreased substantially on a per capita basis.

The city is a relatively affluent, diverse, and world class tourism hub. It’s infinitely better than it was 30,40,50 years ago

And quite a bit worse than it was 5 years ago. 25 years ago, I was here and things were on the upswing. It is sad to now watch the decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have noticed no decline, if you worry this much about city living crime and schools, you should move to the burbs or back to your hometown. Leave the real city living to the rest of us.

Take a ride with a taxi cab driver who has been working a decade. He will tell you all you need to know about the state of decline the city is in.

The deniers on this thread are either new to the city or have very, very low standards of city life. Perhaps the PP is from Seattle or San Francisco and thinks DC is a step up from those dumpsters.

I came here in 1985. It has gone down significantly.

That couldn't be more of an inaccurate statement. Sure, maybe if you've lived in Georgetown since 1985 and never left, you may be "scared" to see a homeless guy playing music..

Nope. A homeless guy playing music is not the concern.

There is no logical arguement to say DC was safer in 80s vs. today. They're obviously pockets of violence, but as a whole, the city is night and day safer/better.

It is safer than the 80s, but not the 00s. And a main problem is that there are not pockets of violence. Violence now takes place throughout the city and in areas that once were safer.

People keep saying this but it is utter nonsense.

Violence took place throughout the city in the 80s and 90s, and quite a bit more of it. The only difference (besides the fact that there's significantly less of it) is that in the 80s and 90s people like you wouldn't dare set foot in Columbia Heights or the Navy Yard and now you will.

And show me any evidence that there's significantly more violence in "areas that were once safer." Because the only part of the city violence wasn't common in the 80s and 90s was Ward 3, and guess what, Ward 3 is still incredibly safe and free from violence.

There were 2 (yes 2!) homicides in all of Ward 3 last year. There were 25 assaults with a dangerous weapon. In a Ward with roughly 80,000 residents. Even if there was 1 homicide and 12 assaults per year in the 80s and you fearmongers could say "OMG crime up 100% since then!" it would still be completely irrelevant because 1 homicide and 13 assaults is a rounding error when you're talking about 80,000 people. Your actual statistical chances went up by a rounding error.

And I'm guessing there were far more than 1 homicide and 12 assaults per year in Ward 3 in the 80s and 90s.

Now I understand what is going on. Because the privileged are safe in Ward 3, they have no idea what is going on throughout the rest of the city, where murders have skyrocketed and carjackings have more than doubled.

No wonder you all love saying "everything seems better to me."

This is partially true, and definitely this board's heavy Ward 3 population skews both perceptions of and experience with crime.

Although, even with murders skyrocketing, it's not true that the city is more violent now than in the 1980s or early 1990s. The total number of murders this year is half of what it was then, and the population is larger. Or by another metric everyone here seems to love — boarded-up storefronts downtown — today is certainly an improvement over 30 years ago. (Unless you really loved huge surface parking lots that were largely empty at night.)

One issue with discussions of any of this is that no one is comparing today's crime problem to the same past era's crime problem. Some people look at, say, 1991 and say, well, this is much better. Other people look at 2009 and say, well, this is much worse. They're both right.

So much worse than 2015! Who cares about 40 years ago?

Just cherry pick whatever data you want. Over a long term time frame (not 8yrs) crime has decreased substantially on a per capita basis.

The city is a relatively affluent, diverse, and world class tourism hub. It’s infinitely better than it was 30,40,50 years ago

And quite a bit worse than it was 5 years ago. 25 years ago, I was here and things were on the upswing. It is sad to now watch the decline.

Right, but at some point, a fundamental question becomes: do you want to focus on the long-term improvement (which would remind you that even with the downswing now, things are generally better than they were because there's been so much upswing), or on the recent decline (which would lead you to worry that we'll head backwards on net if the trends continue)? Personally, I don't think there's any conflict between putting the recent backsliding into context that reminds me of how much overall improvement in safety and amenities there's been (on the one hand) and still being alarmed and in search of a solution to the more recent trends that have led crime to spike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have noticed no decline, if you worry this much about city living crime and schools, you should move to the burbs or back to your hometown. Leave the real city living to the rest of us.

Take a ride with a taxi cab driver who has been working a decade. He will tell you all you need to know about the state of decline the city is in.

The deniers on this thread are either new to the city or have very, very low standards of city life. Perhaps the PP is from Seattle or San Francisco and thinks DC is a step up from those dumpsters.

I came here in 1985. It has gone down significantly.

That couldn't be more of an inaccurate statement. Sure, maybe if you've lived in Georgetown since 1985 and never left, you may be "scared" to see a homeless guy playing music..

Nope. A homeless guy playing music is not the concern.

There is no logical arguement to say DC was safer in 80s vs. today. They're obviously pockets of violence, but as a whole, the city is night and day safer/better.

It is safer than the 80s, but not the 00s. And a main problem is that there are not pockets of violence. Violence now takes place throughout the city and in areas that once were safer.

People keep saying this but it is utter nonsense.

Violence took place throughout the city in the 80s and 90s, and quite a bit more of it. The only difference (besides the fact that there's significantly less of it) is that in the 80s and 90s people like you wouldn't dare set foot in Columbia Heights or the Navy Yard and now you will.

And show me any evidence that there's significantly more violence in "areas that were once safer." Because the only part of the city violence wasn't common in the 80s and 90s was Ward 3, and guess what, Ward 3 is still incredibly safe and free from violence.

There were 2 (yes 2!) homicides in all of Ward 3 last year. There were 25 assaults with a dangerous weapon. In a Ward with roughly 80,000 residents. Even if there was 1 homicide and 12 assaults per year in the 80s and you fearmongers could say "OMG crime up 100% since then!" it would still be completely irrelevant because 1 homicide and 13 assaults is a rounding error when you're talking about 80,000 people. Your actual statistical chances went up by a rounding error.

And I'm guessing there were far more than 1 homicide and 12 assaults per year in Ward 3 in the 80s and 90s.

Now I understand what is going on. Because the privileged are safe in Ward 3, they have no idea what is going on throughout the rest of the city, where murders have skyrocketed and carjackings have more than doubled.

No wonder you all love saying "everything seems better to me."

This is partially true, and definitely this board's heavy Ward 3 population skews both perceptions of and experience with crime.

Although, even with murders skyrocketing, it's not true that the city is more violent now than in the 1980s or early 1990s. The total number of murders this year is half of what it was then, and the population is larger. Or by another metric everyone here seems to love — boarded-up storefronts downtown — today is certainly an improvement over 30 years ago. (Unless you really loved huge surface parking lots that were largely empty at night.)

One issue with discussions of any of this is that no one is comparing today's crime problem to the same past era's crime problem. Some people look at, say, 1991 and say, well, this is much better. Other people look at 2009 and say, well, this is much worse. They're both right.

So much worse than 2015! Who cares about 40 years ago?

Just cherry pick whatever data you want. Over a long term time frame (not 8yrs) crime has decreased substantially on a per capita basis.

The city is a relatively affluent, diverse, and world class tourism hub. It’s infinitely better than it was 30,40,50 years ago

And quite a bit worse than it was 5 years ago. 25 years ago, I was here and things were on the upswing. It is sad to now watch the decline.

Agree; DC is definitely on the decline.

The mayor and city council are completely tone-deaf on the issue and their policies are clearly to blame for most of the decline.

Sorry to see you go, DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have noticed no decline, if you worry this much about city living crime and schools, you should move to the burbs or back to your hometown. Leave the real city living to the rest of us.

Take a ride with a taxi cab driver who has been working a decade. He will tell you all you need to know about the state of decline the city is in.

The deniers on this thread are either new to the city or have very, very low standards of city life. Perhaps the PP is from Seattle or San Francisco and thinks DC is a step up from those dumpsters.

I came here in 1985. It has gone down significantly.

That couldn't be more of an inaccurate statement. Sure, maybe if you've lived in Georgetown since 1985 and never left, you may be "scared" to see a homeless guy playing music..

Nope. A homeless guy playing music is not the concern.

There is no logical arguement to say DC was safer in 80s vs. today. They're obviously pockets of violence, but as a whole, the city is night and day safer/better.

It is safer than the 80s, but not the 00s. And a main problem is that there are not pockets of violence. Violence now takes place throughout the city and in areas that once were safer.

People keep saying this but it is utter nonsense.

Violence took place throughout the city in the 80s and 90s, and quite a bit more of it. The only difference (besides the fact that there's significantly less of it) is that in the 80s and 90s people like you wouldn't dare set foot in Columbia Heights or the Navy Yard and now you will.

And show me any evidence that there's significantly more violence in "areas that were once safer." Because the only part of the city violence wasn't common in the 80s and 90s was Ward 3, and guess what, Ward 3 is still incredibly safe and free from violence.

There were 2 (yes 2!) homicides in all of Ward 3 last year. There were 25 assaults with a dangerous weapon. In a Ward with roughly 80,000 residents. Even if there was 1 homicide and 12 assaults per year in the 80s and you fearmongers could say "OMG crime up 100% since then!" it would still be completely irrelevant because 1 homicide and 13 assaults is a rounding error when you're talking about 80,000 people. Your actual statistical chances went up by a rounding error.

And I'm guessing there were far more than 1 homicide and 12 assaults per year in Ward 3 in the 80s and 90s.

Now I understand what is going on. Because the privileged are safe in Ward 3, they have no idea what is going on throughout the rest of the city, where murders have skyrocketed and carjackings have more than doubled.

No wonder you all love saying "everything seems better to me."

This is partially true, and definitely this board's heavy Ward 3 population skews both perceptions of and experience with crime.

Although, even with murders skyrocketing, it's not true that the city is more violent now than in the 1980s or early 1990s. The total number of murders this year is half of what it was then, and the population is larger. Or by another metric everyone here seems to love — boarded-up storefronts downtown — today is certainly an improvement over 30 years ago. (Unless you really loved huge surface parking lots that were largely empty at night.)

One issue with discussions of any of this is that no one is comparing today's crime problem to the same past era's crime problem. Some people look at, say, 1991 and say, well, this is much better. Other people look at 2009 and say, well, this is much worse. They're both right.

So much worse than 2015! Who cares about 40 years ago?

Just cherry pick whatever data you want. Over a long term time frame (not 8yrs) crime has decreased substantially on a per capita basis.

The city is a relatively affluent, diverse, and world class tourism hub. It’s infinitely better than it was 30,40,50 years ago

And quite a bit worse than it was 5 years ago. 25 years ago, I was here and things were on the upswing. It is sad to now watch the decline.

Right, but at some point, a fundamental question becomes: do you want to focus on the long-term improvement (which would remind you that even with the downswing now, things are generally better than they were because there's been so much upswing), or on the recent decline (which would lead you to worry that we'll head backwards on net if the trends continue)? Personally, I don't think there's any conflict between putting the recent backsliding into context that reminds me of how much overall improvement in safety and amenities there's been (on the one hand) and still being alarmed and in search of a solution to the more recent trends that have led crime to spike.

That's what worries me. That and feeling badly for all those who have been victims of crime the past 3-4 years.

[Anonymous]

Comparing today's crime to the crime that existed 30-40 years ago is a straw man. Those statistics are irrelevant. They simply don't matter any longer. It's much more relevant to look at crime trends over the last 10 years or so. Why? The city has changed. Society has changed. Everyday life has changed way too much.

So looking at crime trends over the last 10 years or so, no doubt things have declined. It's alarming, frankly. But nothing will be done because we can't even agree on whether it's worse than it was "before" so we keep electing politician who do absolutely nothing about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Comparing today's crime to the crime that existed 30-40 years ago is a straw man. Those statistics are irrelevant. They simply don't matter any longer. It's much more relevant to look at crime trends over the last 10 years or so. Why? The city has changed. Society has changed. Everyday life has changed way too much.

So looking at crime trends over the last 10 years or so, no doubt things have declined. It's alarming, frankly. But nothing will be done because we can't even agree on whether it's worse than it was "before" so we keep electing politician who do absolutely nothing about it.

I don't see why 10 years is any less arbitrary than 30 or 40 years, though. Yes, society has changed. One change between 30 years ago and 20 years ago was that crime fell, significantly, in D.C., which also gained both population and wealth and income. What's the point in ignoring that?

I agree that comparisons to 30 or 40 years ago shouldn't be used to dismiss crime today, but pretending crime has always been as low as it was a decade ago and that the only relevant metric is how it's gone up since then seems sort of misguided in its own way.

Why can't we look at the whole arc and say, crime used to be even higher, it fell significantly, it is now rising rapidly again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing today's crime to the crime that existed 30-40 years ago is a straw man. Those statistics are irrelevant. They simply don't matter any longer. It's much more relevant to look at crime trends over the last 10 years or so. Why? The city has changed. Society has changed. Everyday life has changed way too much.

So looking at crime trends over the last 10 years or so, no doubt things have declined. It's alarming, frankly. But nothing will be done because we can't even agree on whether it's worse than it was "before" so we keep electing politician who do absolutely nothing about it.

I don't see why 10 years is any less arbitrary than 30 or 40 years, though. Yes, society has changed. One change between 30 years ago and 20 years ago was that crime fell, significantly, in D.C., which also gained both population and wealth and income. What's the point in ignoring that?

I agree that comparisons to 30 or 40 years ago shouldn't be used to dismiss crime today, but pretending crime has always been as low as it was a decade ago and that the only relevant metric is how it's gone up since then seems sort of misguided in its own way.

Why can't we look at the whole arc and say, crime used to be even higher, it fell significantly, it is now rising rapidly again?

There are many among us who refuse to admit how drastically crime has skyrocketed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing today's crime to the crime that existed 30-40 years ago is a straw man. Those statistics are irrelevant. They simply don't matter any longer. It's much more relevant to look at crime trends over the last 10 years or so. Why? The city has changed. Society has changed. Everyday life has changed way too much.

So looking at crime trends over the last 10 years or so, no doubt things have declined. It's alarming, frankly. But nothing will be done because we can't even agree on whether it's worse than it was "before" so we keep electing politician who do absolutely nothing about it.

I don't see why 10 years is any less arbitrary than 30 or 40 years, though. Yes, society has changed. One change between 30 years ago and 20 years ago was that crime fell, significantly, in D.C., which also gained both population and wealth and income. What's the point in ignoring that?

I agree that comparisons to 30 or 40 years ago shouldn't be used to dismiss crime today, but pretending crime has always been as low as it was a decade ago and that the only relevant metric is how it's gone up since then seems sort of misguided in its own way.

Why can't we look at the whole arc and say, crime used to be even higher, it fell significantly, it is now rising rapidly again?

+1

-Long term dc area resident

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


The idea people did not set foot in Columbia Heights or the Navy Yard is wrong. There were a ton of clubs in the Navy Yard, now gone, where DJs and local bands played and they were packed. That was in the 80s and 90s. The only thing to go to in Columbia Heights was Black Cat in the 90s. It was pretty much the only place there and it was packed also. And both of those areas were underdeveloped and not considered the "safest" places, but people still went there regularly.


Black Cat was always further south on 14th Street than Columbia Heights is.

It's obviously true that a lot of people spent a lot of time in these neighborhoods long before they gentrified. I think the point PP was making is that many of the people who now live there or visit a lot would never have found a reason to go there before. Different demographics (in terms of age, income, and race), different expectations of safety, etc. It's a broad claim but doesn't seem wildly inaccurate...

White yuppies in the 80s and 90s did not have any expectation of walking safely from Capitol Hill to the clubs on M Street. When I moved to Capitol Hill in the mid 90s, 8th street SE was not somewhere I would have walked alone at night and H Street NE (as well as most of 14th Street from Logan all the way up to Columbia Heights) was full of boarded up buildings from the 1968 riots. On the Hill on 8th Street SE, we went to Las Placitas restaurant, and there was the lesbian bar the Phase, but walking alone was not something you did---though the strip of Pennsylvania containing the Tune Inn, Capitol Lounge, Il Radicchio and Burrito Bros. (roughly 2nd through 4th) was okay. 12th Street and Lincoln Park was the eastern boundary. Downtown east of 14th Street was full of porn shops. The area around the Verizon Center was a pedestrian mall filled with drug dealers and vagrants, but people took cabs at night to go to the old 9:30 Club, PollyEsther's (sp?), and some of the other clubs around F and G and 9th.

Nor did anyone regularly stroll from Dupont Circle over to the Black Cat. You took a cab. There are vast swaths of the city now filled with condos and Class A apartments where upper middle class white people (and a lot of upper middle class AA) simply wouldn't wander around in 25 years ago because of safety concerns. There were clubs and the odd fancy restaurant (Ruppert's on 7th) but you had a cab drop you off and pick you up.

This is all true. I lived around 3rd street SE. I did not go to 8th street alone after dark. The Navy Yard was Tracks, a gay nightclub. I didn't walk there at night And, yes, I got mugged outside of Tune Inn. So I left.

[Anonymous]

What is so incredibly frustrating, and a key difference between now and 10, 20 and 30 years ago, is the hostility by the Council and the AG's office to removing violent juveniles from the city streets. It is immoral and illogical to claim to care about young AA lives when you are embracing crime policies that are resulting in AA teenagers being slaughtered each day (by other AA teenagers). Would that the Council would put a fraction of its sanctimonious progressivism towards funding a juvenile detention center that offered meaningful rehabilitation. There are countries in this world (e.g. Finland) with low recidivism rates because they have learned how to rehabilitate criminals efficiently. Why can we not do that here?