Will DC eve go back to being somewhat tough on crime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 years ago seemed much more safe.

Let me guess: you're in your 20's?

Or to put it in terms his generation understands: tell me you're in your 20's without telling me you're in your 20's.

I'm a different poster. I'm 45, and moved to DC in 2002. yes, it feels decidedly LESS safe today than it did in 2012 when my youngest was born. Why is it hard to comprehend that? Some of us live in areas that have always had a crime problem, but we've seen it get worse with our very eyes -- carjackings outside our front door, mom and child shot by ATV rider, the little girl who was killed outside Nats Park during a game, etc. nyc also feels less safe than when I graduated from college there in the late 90s.

DC wasn't "tough on crime" in 2012 or in 2002.

It was tougher. It was also tougher after the Clinton’s bill in the 90’s. I’m so tired of all the obstinate fks around here who seem to relish accommodating crime. It doesn’t make you virtuous or an ally.

The problem with "tough on crime" policies is that they don't really reduce crime. If they worked it would be hard to argue against them.

[Anonymous]

They should reimpose the jump-out squads, but with tougher penalties for civil rights violation and automatic unpaid suspensions if body cameras are not activated.

The jump-out squads worked in that it kept drug dealers/users/troublemakers on their toes, but they swept up too many people just minding their own business. Plus, some of the jump-out cops were purely sadistic @ssholes.

I'd be fine with bringing back the jump-out squads, but with much more independent oversight and real penalties for violations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 years ago seemed much more safe.

Let me guess: you're in your 20's?

Or to put it in terms his generation understands: tell me you're in your 20's without telling me you're in your 20's.

I'm a different poster. I'm 45, and moved to DC in 2002. yes, it feels decidedly LESS safe today than it did in 2012 when my youngest was born. Why is it hard to comprehend that? Some of us live in areas that have always had a crime problem, but we've seen it get worse with our very eyes -- carjackings outside our front door, mom and child shot by ATV rider, the little girl who was killed outside Nats Park during a game, etc. nyc also feels less safe than when I graduated from college there in the late 90s.

DC wasn't "tough on crime" in 2012 or in 2002.

It was tougher. It was also tougher after the Clinton’s bill in the 90’s. I’m so tired of all the obstinate fks around here who seem to relish accommodating crime. It doesn’t make you virtuous or an ally.

The problem with "tough on crime" policies is that they don't really reduce crime. If they worked it would be hard to argue against them.

They do reduce crime. Your post is false. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/covid-court-closings-violent-crime-wave/670559/

When you remove the deterrent you increase crime. It’s as simple as that.

The issue is that, as the country diversifies, it’s become politically unpalatable to arrest and incarcerate. Poverty correlates with crime. Progressives think they can solve all this with trying to fix poverty, which is a fool’s errand based on the entirety of history of the human race and there having always been poor people.

Anyway, in 5 years when it’s spiraled out of control more we’ll revert back to tough on crime policy, then in 15 years we’ll go back to the current soft on crime approach when the same complaints bubble up of too many x people going to jail. Anyway, I wish we had some republicans in charge of taxes and crime in this city. Not policy for abortion, drugs or the environment because they suck at that, but really just crime and taxes. We are so fking progressive. Even as people get jumped, this city council doubles down on useless violence interruptors and bs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 years ago seemed much more safe.

Let me guess: you're in your 20's?

Or to put it in terms his generation understands: tell me you're in your 20's without telling me you're in your 20's.

I'm a different poster. I'm 45, and moved to DC in 2002. yes, it feels decidedly LESS safe today than it did in 2012 when my youngest was born. Why is it hard to comprehend that? Some of us live in areas that have always had a crime problem, but we've seen it get worse with our very eyes -- carjackings outside our front door, mom and child shot by ATV rider, the little girl who was killed outside Nats Park during a game, etc. nyc also feels less safe than when I graduated from college there in the late 90s.

DC wasn't "tough on crime" in 2012 or in 2002.

It was tougher. It was also tougher after the Clinton’s bill in the 90’s. I’m so tired of all the obstinate fks around here who seem to relish accommodating crime. It doesn’t make you virtuous or an ally.

The problem with "tough on crime" policies is that they don't really reduce crime. If they worked it would be hard to argue against them.

They do reduce crime. Your post is false. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/covid-court-closings-violent-crime-wave/670559/

When you remove the deterrent you increase crime. It’s as simple as that.

The issue is that, as the country diversifies, it’s become politically unpalatable to arrest and incarcerate. Poverty correlates with crime. Progressives think they can solve all this with trying to fix poverty, which is a fool’s errand based on the entirety of history of the human race and there having always been poor people.

Anyway, in 5 years when it’s spiraled out of control more we’ll revert back to tough on crime policy, then in 15 years we’ll go back to the current soft on crime approach when the same complaints bubble up of too many x people going to jail. Anyway, I wish we had some republicans in charge of taxes and crime in this city. Not policy for abortion, drugs or the environment because they suck at that, but really just crime and taxes. We are so fking progressive. Even as people get jumped, this city council doubles down on useless violence interruptors and bs.

Wrong study: https://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/what-reduced-crime-new-york-city

[Anonymous]

The DC Council will be voting to gut the criminal code after the election this fall. Even the soft on crime USAO is protesting many of the planned changes. The chair of the Safety Committee, Charles Allen, is running for re-election unopposed.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-attorneys-office-testifies-hearing-revised-criminal-code-act-2021

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tax base? Nice racist dog whistle.

Is Starbucks racist? Are the multiple other businesses that have shuttered in DC racist? The small businesses who can’t and won’t operate because folks avoid DC as it looks like a dump and feels unsafe?.

Businesses are a huge tax base. Take your racist comment and look deep into the mirror.

Lots of businesses are also opening. People aren't going downtown as much. I hope they turn those office buildings into apts or condos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tax base? Nice racist dog whistle.

Is Starbucks racist? Are the multiple other businesses that have shuttered in DC racist? The small businesses who can’t and won’t operate because folks avoid DC as it looks like a dump and feels unsafe?.

Businesses are a huge tax base. Take your racist comment and look deep into the mirror.

Lots of businesses are also opening. People aren't going downtown as much. I hope they turn those office buildings into apts or condos.

The problem with doing this is that offices pay more than 2x the property tax rate of condos. It's going to blow a big hole in the DC budget if lots of offices start flipping to condos. Residential RE is 85 cents per $100 assessed value, whereas a Class A office bldg is paying $1.89 per $100 of assessed value.

I think the Mayor and Council have not been too keen on changing the zoning for current offices. The tax issues are probably why. Once a bldg goes condo, there is no going back to office space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tax base? Nice racist dog whistle.

Is Starbucks racist? Are the multiple other businesses that have shuttered in DC racist? The small businesses who can’t and won’t operate because folks avoid DC as it looks like a dump and feels unsafe?.

Businesses are a huge tax base. Take your racist comment and look deep into the mirror.

Lots of businesses are also opening. People aren't going downtown as much. I hope they turn those office buildings into apts or condos.

The problem with doing this is that offices pay more than 2x the property tax rate of condos. It's going to blow a big hole in the DC budget if lots of offices start flipping to condos. Residential RE is 85 cents per $100 assessed value, whereas a Class A office bldg is paying $1.89 per $100 of assessed value.

I think the Mayor and Council have not been too keen on changing the zoning for current offices. The tax issues are probably why. Once a bldg goes condo, there is no going back to office space.

Aside from the tax base issue, it is far more expensive to turn most of those buildings into apartments. It'd be cheaper to tear down and rebuild. Conversion is being touted by people who just don't understand construction/architecture/engineering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tax base? Nice racist dog whistle.

Is Starbucks racist? Are the multiple other businesses that have shuttered in DC racist? The small businesses who can’t and won’t operate because folks avoid DC as it looks like a dump and feels unsafe?.

Businesses are a huge tax base. Take your racist comment and look deep into the mirror.

Lots of businesses are also opening. People aren't going downtown as much. I hope they turn those office buildings into apts or condos.

The problem with doing this is that offices pay more than 2x the property tax rate of condos. It's going to blow a big hole in the DC budget if lots of offices start flipping to condos. Residential RE is 85 cents per $100 assessed value, whereas a Class A office bldg is paying $1.89 per $100 of assessed value.

I think the Mayor and Council have not been too keen on changing the zoning for current offices. The tax issues are probably why. Once a bldg goes condo, there is no going back to office space.

Aside from the tax base issue, it is far more expensive to turn most of those buildings into apartments. It'd be cheaper to tear down and rebuild. Conversion is being touted by people who just don't understand construction/architecture/engineering.

True. Converting offices to condos would result in long, skinny apartments so that the residents can have access to natural light. A big square with no light shaft or interior courtyard is not suitable for housing.

[Anonymous]

Stop trying to be politically correct and be correct. Be tough. Unless there are serious consequences, criminals wouldn't learn their lesson of not to mess with DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 years ago seemed much more safe.

Let me guess: you're in your 20's?

Or to put it in terms his generation understands: tell me you're in your 20's without telling me you're in your 20's.

I'm a different poster. I'm 45, and moved to DC in 2002. yes, it feels decidedly LESS safe today than it did in 2012 when my youngest was born. Why is it hard to comprehend that? Some of us live in areas that have always had a crime problem, but we've seen it get worse with our very eyes -- carjackings outside our front door, mom and child shot by ATV rider, the little girl who was killed outside Nats Park during a game, etc. nyc also feels less safe than when I graduated from college there in the late 90s.

DC wasn't "tough on crime" in 2012 or in 2002.

It was tougher. It was also tougher after the Clinton’s bill in the 90’s. I’m so tired of all the obstinate fks around here who seem to relish accommodating crime. It doesn’t make you virtuous or an ally.

The problem with "tough on crime" policies is that they don't really reduce crime. If they worked it would be hard to argue against them.

Ignoring crimes and protecting criminals doesn't work either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should reimpose the jump-out squads, but with tougher penalties for civil rights violation and automatic unpaid suspensions if body cameras are not activated.

You're getting at the real problem with tough-on-crime policies. Doing law enforcement right -- i.e., actually doing what the Constitution requires -- is incredibly expensive, from the cost of properly staffing and training police departments, prosecutor's offices and public defenders, to the courts and the prisons. And it turns out that our society just isn't willing to pay that price. So there's two approaches instead. One is to half-ass it, where you cut corners on training and protection of rights. What ends up happening is a lot of innocent people get caught up too. The other is to focus only on the most serious crimes and let everything else slide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When was this era that you would like to go "back" to?

We need to erase every idea about criminal law "reform" and enforcement that came about since at least 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 years ago seemed much more safe.

Let me guess: you're in your 20's?

Or to put it in terms his generation understands: tell me you're in your 20's without telling me you're in your 20's.

I'm a different poster. I'm 45, and moved to DC in 2002. yes, it feels decidedly LESS safe today than it did in 2012 when my youngest was born. Why is it hard to comprehend that? Some of us live in areas that have always had a crime problem, but we've seen it get worse with our very eyes -- carjackings outside our front door, mom and child shot by ATV rider, the little girl who was killed outside Nats Park during a game, etc. nyc also feels less safe than when I graduated from college there in the late 90s.

DC wasn't "tough on crime" in 2012 or in 2002.

It was tougher. It was also tougher after the Clinton’s bill in the 90’s. I’m so tired of all the obstinate fks around here who seem to relish accommodating crime. It doesn’t make you virtuous or an ally.

The problem with "tough on crime" policies is that they don't really reduce crime. If they worked it would be hard to argue against them.

This is just not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When was this era that you would like to go "back" to?

We need to erase every idea about criminal law "reform" and enforcement that came about since at least 2020.

Nobody in 2020 thought DC was tough on crime.