Errands after dark - am I the only one reconsidering

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We thought about DTSS because it was so much cheaper but due to the longer commute to downtown Washington on the red line, we bit the bullet and paid 20 percent more to live somewhere else. I’m so glad we did. Our neighborhood has not been free of crime — nowhere is — but it hasn’t suffered from nearly as much violent crime as DTSS. Even if we switched jobs and DTSS was closer to our new jobs I don’t think I’d want to move there now. I know a lot of people like DTSS and aren’t bothered by the crime, and I’m glad they found a place they like. For me it’s just too much.

The people that are not bothered by the crime also seem to be the same people who support the enclavement of DTSS which results in making the neighborhood less convenient, as you deduced, and serves to increase crime. It’s unfortunate. While on an objective data basis it may not prove that your current neighborhood or DTSS are safer, the fact that you feel safer is very important and as you have also deduced, living under the constant uncertainty of how bad crime can get in that neighborhood has significant effects on your quality of life.

What is the "enclavement of DTSS"?

Leading urbanist Ed Glasser says that the “15 minute city” concept is equal to enclavement and ghettoization that reduces opportunity. This concept is being actively promoted by many in Silver Spring as the organizing principle for planning and development of Silver Spring. These same individuals have publicly balked at efforts to reduce sources of crime in the community.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/05/28/the-15-minute-city-is-a-dead-end-cities-must-be-places-of-opportunity-for-everyone/

"Leading urbanist" Ed Glaeser? Ha. Not to mention that he should be embarrassed about that blog post, which consists of arguments against things nobody is arguing for.

Is your contention, anon DCUM rando, that Harvard professor Glaeser is not one of the foremost urban economist in the U.S. and lacks expertise in this area? That’s pretty bold.

Did you read the blog post? Who is saying that people should be forced to stay within their 15-minute areas, whether or not it has what they need, and that there should be no connections between 15-minute areas? That's what he's arguing against.

That is not what is said, so you are misconstruing the point. If DTSS is determined to follow this path, there is evidence that it can lead to more crime.

15-minute city: it should be possible for people to get their daily necessities within a 15-minute walk or bike ride of their homes.
you: this will lead to more crime!

You have not addressed the specific critique of this concept by the leading urban economist in the country that directly leads to such a conclusion. Everyone is free to their own opinions, however I prefer to listen to experts.

Sure I did. His specific critiques are:

1. It's bad if you can't meet your daily necessities within a 15-minute walk or bike ride from your home but also can't get anywhere else to meet them
2. It's bad if the city overall is unconnected

However, nobody is arguing in favor of locking people within unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.

He never said “locking people”. If you’re going to be disingenuous at least be smarter about it.

Nobody is arguing in favor of keeping people within unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.
Nobody is arguing in favor of limiting people to unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.
Nobody is arguing in favor of preventing people from using connections between 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.

I am bemused that you think you’re smarter than a Harvard professor who is the foremost expert in the field.

Which field, specifically, is he the foremost expert in?

I would guess that when you have a PhD, a publication record that’s almost incredible with an massively high H-index, authored the seminal book on the economic value or cities that is required reading for college students all over the country and has an endowed chair at Harvard then maybe you can be considered credible. I am not going to rule that out because anything is possible but I suggest that you get started asap because you’ve got a lot of ground to makeup. Cheers!

So he's a Harvard professor in economics, who wrote a blog post saying that the 15-minute city if badly done will be harmful, and therefore the 15-minute city will increase crime in downtown Silver Spring? Is that what you're saying?

[Anonymous]

Liberals trapped in their homes due to their politics

Totally predictable and hilarious!

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We thought about DTSS because it was so much cheaper but due to the longer commute to downtown Washington on the red line, we bit the bullet and paid 20 percent more to live somewhere else. I’m so glad we did. Our neighborhood has not been free of crime — nowhere is — but it hasn’t suffered from nearly as much violent crime as DTSS. Even if we switched jobs and DTSS was closer to our new jobs I don’t think I’d want to move there now. I know a lot of people like DTSS and aren’t bothered by the crime, and I’m glad they found a place they like. For me it’s just too much.

The people that are not bothered by the crime also seem to be the same people who support the enclavement of DTSS which results in making the neighborhood less convenient, as you deduced, and serves to increase crime. It’s unfortunate. While on an objective data basis it may not prove that your current neighborhood or DTSS are safer, the fact that you feel safer is very important and as you have also deduced, living under the constant uncertainty of how bad crime can get in that neighborhood has significant effects on your quality of life.

What is the "enclavement of DTSS"?

Leading urbanist Ed Glasser says that the “15 minute city” concept is equal to enclavement and ghettoization that reduces opportunity. This concept is being actively promoted by many in Silver Spring as the organizing principle for planning and development of Silver Spring. These same individuals have publicly balked at efforts to reduce sources of crime in the community.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/05/28/the-15-minute-city-is-a-dead-end-cities-must-be-places-of-opportunity-for-everyone/

"Leading urbanist" Ed Glaeser? Ha. Not to mention that he should be embarrassed about that blog post, which consists of arguments against things nobody is arguing for.

Is your contention, anon DCUM rando, that Harvard professor Glaeser is not one of the foremost urban economist in the U.S. and lacks expertise in this area? That’s pretty bold.

Did you read the blog post? Who is saying that people should be forced to stay within their 15-minute areas, whether or not it has what they need, and that there should be no connections between 15-minute areas? That's what he's arguing against.

That is not what is said, so you are misconstruing the point. If DTSS is determined to follow this path, there is evidence that it can lead to more crime.

15-minute city: it should be possible for people to get their daily necessities within a 15-minute walk or bike ride of their homes.
you: this will lead to more crime!

You have not addressed the specific critique of this concept by the leading urban economist in the country that directly leads to such a conclusion. Everyone is free to their own opinions, however I prefer to listen to experts.

Sure I did. His specific critiques are:

1. It's bad if you can't meet your daily necessities within a 15-minute walk or bike ride from your home but also can't get anywhere else to meet them
2. It's bad if the city overall is unconnected

However, nobody is arguing in favor of locking people within unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.

He never said “locking people”. If you’re going to be disingenuous at least be smarter about it.

Nobody is arguing in favor of keeping people within unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.
Nobody is arguing in favor of limiting people to unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.
Nobody is arguing in favor of preventing people from using connections between 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.

I am bemused that you think you’re smarter than a Harvard professor who is the foremost expert in the field.

Which field, specifically, is he the foremost expert in?

I would guess that when you have a PhD, a publication record that’s almost incredible with an massively high H-index, authored the seminal book on the economic value or cities that is required reading for college students all over the country and has an endowed chair at Harvard then maybe you can be considered credible. I am not going to rule that out because anything is possible but I suggest that you get started asap because you’ve got a lot of ground to makeup. Cheers!

So he's a Harvard professor in economics, who wrote a blog post saying that the 15-minute city if badly done will be harmful, and therefore the 15-minute city will increase crime in downtown Silver Spring? Is that what you're saying?

I love you. Keep being you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. If you want to actually keep yourself safer, you'll walk instead of driving, day or night. Car accidents and obesity, that's what'll kill you, not crime.

+1

But there's a whole spectrum of safety -- not just life of death. We buckle our seat belts when we drive to help minimize risk. We can change behavior in the community to minimize risk as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberals trapped in their homes due to their politics

Totally predictable and hilarious!

Yup.

One would expect them to wise up but they won't.

They'll sacrifice their kids and spouses and families instead of recognizing their nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. If you want to actually keep yourself safer, you'll walk instead of driving, day or night. Car accidents and obesity, that's what'll kill you, not crime.

+1

But there's a whole spectrum of safety -- not just life of death. We buckle our seat belts when we drive to help minimize risk. We can change behavior in the community to minimize risk as well.

And that's why some people want to have weapons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. If you want to actually keep yourself safer, you'll walk instead of driving, day or night. Car accidents and obesity, that's what'll kill you, not crime.

+1

But there's a whole spectrum of safety -- not just life of death. We buckle our seat belts when we drive to help minimize risk. We can change behavior in the community to minimize risk as well.

And people do. Whether it’s when or where they decide to live, enjoy recreation, shop, dine, etc. If affects everyones choices every day in explicit and implicit ways whether they want to admit it or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. If you want to actually keep yourself safer, you'll walk instead of driving, day or night. Car accidents and obesity, that's what'll kill you, not crime.

+1

But there's a whole spectrum of safety -- not just life of death. We buckle our seat belts when we drive to help minimize risk. We can change behavior in the community to minimize risk as well.

And that's why some people want to have weapons.

Even though they actually increase risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals trapped in their homes due to their politics

Totally predictable and hilarious!

Yup.

One would expect them to wise up but they won't.

They'll sacrifice their kids and spouses and families instead of recognizing their nonsense.

Forget it! We see you and your nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberals trapped in their homes due to their politics

Totally predictable and hilarious!

Yep

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. If you want to actually keep yourself safer, you'll walk instead of driving, day or night. Car accidents and obesity, that's what'll kill you, not crime.

Why can’t we worry about both? I can take precautionary measures against both carjackings and diabetes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sadly, I have absolutely stopped running errands in the evening and night. I know that doesn’t prevent everything, and over this past year it has seemed to make sense. I started thinking about the Giant and CVS nearby my house the same way I used to think about ATM machine in terms of better time of day to go and times to try to avoid.

Same. I try to avoid the ATM or gas station at night. DH usually runs those errands but I’ve asked him to try to do them in the daytime now. Things feel less safe. And for those of you who think we’re hiding under the covers, refusing to go out, we’re not. We’re just trying to make slight changes to our behavior like getting gas in the daytime if possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. If you want to actually keep yourself safer, you'll walk instead of driving, day or night. Car accidents and obesity, that's what'll kill you, not crime.

Why can’t we worry about both? I can take precautionary measures against both carjackings and diabetes.

Apparently you can only choose one. Not sure what I’m supposed to do if I’m accosted while walking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sadly, I have absolutely stopped running errands in the evening and night. I know that doesn’t prevent everything, and over this past year it has seemed to make sense. I started thinking about the Giant and CVS nearby my house the same way I used to think about ATM machine in terms of better time of day to go and times to try to avoid.

Same. I try to avoid the ATM or gas station at night. DH usually runs those errands but I’ve asked him to try to do them in the daytime now. Things feel less safe. And for those of you who think we’re hiding under the covers, refusing to go out, we’re not. We’re just trying to make slight changes to our behavior like getting gas in the daytime if possible.

+1

I actually only really feel unsafe at the gas station. I have been approached by men asking for money multiple times. I felt very vulnerable especially since I say no. I am always on alert that one might get angry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. If you want to actually keep yourself safer, you'll walk instead of driving, day or night. Car accidents and obesity, that's what'll kill you, not crime.

Why can’t we worry about both? I can take precautionary measures against both carjackings and diabetes.

Because it's easier to present a false dichotomy instead of addressing the issue.