Most Dangerous Neighborhoods in US, Cincinnatti #1

[Brownshirt]

The cities with the top 25 dangerous neighborhoods in the United States are:

 

 

CINCINNATI, Ohio (Central Pky./Liberty St.)

Chicago, Ill. (State St./Garfield Blvd.)

Miami, Fla. (7th Ave./North River Dr.)

Jacksonville, Fla. (Beaver St./Broad St.)

BALTIMORE, Md.(North Ave./Belair Rd.)

Kansas City, Mo. (Bales Ave./30th St.)

Memphis, Tenn. (Warford St./Mount Olive Rd.)

Kansas City, Mo. (Forest Ave./41st St.)

Dallas, Texas (Route 352/Scyene Rd.)

Richmond, Va. (Church Hill)

Memphis, Tenn. (Bellevue Blvd./Lamar Ave.)

Dallas, Texas (2nd Ave./Hatcher St.)

Springfield, Ill. (Cook St./11th St.)

St. Louis, Mo. (14th St./Dr. Martin Luther King Dr.)

Little Rock, Ark. (Roosevelt Rd./Bond St.)

Philadelphia, Pa. (Broad St./Dauphin St.)

Tampa, Fla. (Amelia Ave./Tampa St.)

New York, N.Y. (St. Nicholas Ave./125th St.)

Chicago, Ill. (66th St./Yale Ave.)

BALTIMORE, Md. (Orleans St./Front St.)

CLEVELAND, Ohio (Cedar Ave./55th St.)

Orlando, Fla. (East-West Expy/Orange Blossom Trl.)

Detroit, Mich. (Mount Elliott St./Palmer Ave.)

Chicago, Ill. (Wallace St./58th St.)

Chicago, Ill. (Winchester, Ave./60th St.)

 

 

 

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/most-danger...st-cincinnati-1

[ballpeen]

I bet with a little research one could find a common denominator.

[Guest mz.]

I bet with a little research one could find a common denominator.

 

They are all predominantly Asian?

 

[Brownshirt]

They are all predominantly Asian?

 

Nah, democrats!

 

[mario]

You can't mention the common denominator or you will be a RACIST. God forbid we try to SOLVE the problem in our dangerous cities.

 

 

[ballpeen]

You can't mention the common denominator or you will be a RACIST. God forbid we try to SOLVE the problem in our dangerous cities.

 

No you won't, though you might be called one.

 

I haven't researched at all.....but from the towns on the list i do know, those are the African neighborhoods.

[listercat]

Cincitucky is a dump

[Vegasdogg]

those are the African neighborhoods.

So many dynamics go into that, IMO. Education, Single Parent Homes, Economics, Crime, Housing, Availability of Gangs, Drugs, Employment Opportunities, ect...

 

Many people talk about getting out of those neighborhoods. They talk about a better life away from the 'neighborhood.'

 

It's easy to sit here in Las Vegas in my home and discuss what people should and shouldn't do, but the fact that I was brought up in Willoughby Ohio my enitre life doesn't really afford me the perspective that inner city kids would have.

 

Not making excuses, but when a place is a dump, it usually stays a dump until new, vibrant economies replace the existing dynamics.

 

Just a fact of life. Not a "black thing," but a green (money) thing.

[ballpeen]

I don't disagree with that you are saying.

 

But i still boil it down to one thing...is a lack of money, education or nice surrounding a reason to make a place dangerous?

 

I say no.

[playerjdd]

I hate to comment on this subject but it is a whole lot of factors. Its role models that are teaching little brother the worng way. Its single parents working while their kid does whatever they want cause mom or dad cant be home. Its the slump of schools that are in the inner city and the education level. I can speak from experience. I moved from a small town in New Mexico to Cleveland in the 10th grade. You would think i would have less education coming from New Mexico but it was complete opposite. I was way too ahead for Cleveland. I was considered a smart kid because i had did the same work three years previous.

[daddybull1]

I don't know if it is the "reason" but a common denominator in all of these neighborhoods is the relience upon government for the basic necessities of life....

 

When looking at New Orleans when Katrina hit and the disaster that followed, most of those that were trapped in the city were 3rd and 4th generation welfare recepiants.... The government pays their rent, medical expenses, gives them food and everything else needed for survival... But when the storm hit and after the people were warned, most of these people were trapped waiting for big government to tell them what to do and then do it for them...

 

Many reasons are involved in creating these less than desirable environments but the dependance upon the government causes many to get on that public assistance treadmill and once on it, most find it extremely difficult to get off....

 

Turning this great land of ours into a socialist country will only make it worse not better.....

 

peace

 

T.Dawg

[Guest mz.]

I don't disagree with that you are saying.

 

But i still boil it down to one thing...is a lack of money, education or nice surrounding a reason to make a place dangerous?

 

I say no.

 

I agree.

 

Like you say, it's the "Africans" that make those neighborhoods shitty.

 

...

[sisky fringo]

how Camden, New Jersey didn't even make the list makes me wonder about it's validity. it blows Philly away and it's just across the river. there are others as well, like Patterson and we haven't even left NJ yet. i've been to many many places on that list and there has to be more to the poll.

 

what are the qualifications? a lot of them have pro football and are a major city. is it population based? something is amiss. Cincy sucks and i actually have been robbed there but it's nothing like some other places in NY, NY, or D.C.

 

 

[Vegasdogg]

No Mention of Gary, IN?

 

I thought that would have made the list for sure. Something about the largest gang population in the nation.

[sisky fringo]

i attribute heavy populace to it more than being heavily pigmented. that old saying: when dad's away, the kids will play also applies to a population tipping the scales on police forces. once police (and neighbors) become complacent and/or corrupt crime takes hold much easier.

 

IMO it's not better in small communities because the people are better per se, it's because the situation is much easier to manage. people who want out should just grab their cajones and get out...it almost never ends well when they don't.

[sisky fringo]

No Mention of Gary, IN?

 

I thought that would have made the list for sure. Something about the largest gang population in the nation.

 

i concur Gary is seedy. Indy has it's share of trouble too.

[sisky fringo]

Supply side economics have consistently made the rich richer and the poor poorer, and I posted a very thorough Harvard study on it on the political board about a year ago. So saying "socialist" economics would be the poison is sort of backwards.

 

Trickle down doesn't. Never has.

 

it could with welfare reform.

 

natural selection will (and should) determine who will rise to the top. allowing the weak and less intelligent to flourish through charity is backward, and that in essense is my problem with socialism. strong and intelligent people have an opportunity to thrive in the new environments they relocate to. the ones that feel they couldn't survive as well doing this (relocating to better surroundings) fester and generally get involved criminally to make ends. welfare reform is key to forcing these types to earn legitimitally. it's too easy to do nothing and those that are satisfied with having nothing with assistence have more than most who are struggling without any help. where's the motivation there? who really wants to struggle when you have the option to sit on your ass and do somewhat ok doing nothing? once people are forced to earn they will pay into a system, a system that will also benefit from having less burden on it after welfare reform. it looks good on paper at least.

[ballpeen]

Social programs are meant to give people the opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and prevent a Feudal society where rich families and groups get richer and richer from their existing advantage while the poor get poorer and poorer from their existing disadvantages.

 

I agree that is the plan.....not sure it is working as well in practice as it does in books.

 

I do agree this generation of Africans has more people on the ball and seeming to want to meld in to society rather than segregate in to their own....but the percentages are still far too small.

 

I don't think it is a case anymore of them not being able to do so.

 

Being proud of your culture is normal and expected, and I really do welcome it no matter the group.

 

It just seems to be a counterculture has been established, and that is going to be a problem for all.

 

Good discussion and I thanked some comments I considered well thought out and constructive even if I don't totally agree.

[sisky fringo]

i know we should probably take this over to the other board but i'm scared of that place...scared of it absorbing all my time!

if we keep it just in here, maybe it'll be ok. ?

 

it's not about laziness, shep, it's about inferiority. you simply can't level the playing field enough to make everything fair without compromising other's liberty. using the racecar analogy, even in the same cars some are just going to be better drivers. show me a system that rewards success, without propping up mediocrity just to keep things even, and i might just buy in.

 

life isn't fair.

 

being born with financial advantage can be unfair, yes, but it only limits you so much. this is America, after all. you don't have to be A#1 to be doing ok. genetic advantage is much more unfair, but that's the breaks. to me, to even that one out is as truly unAmerican as it gets. a racecar might be better than some other's in the race but if you're a good driver you'll place far from last, and that is a pretty good place to be. IMO socialism weakens the species.

[Brownshirt]

how Camden, New Jersey didn't even make the list makes me wonder about it's validity. it blows Philly away and it's just across the river. there are others as well, like Patterson and we haven't even left NJ yet. i've been to many many places on that list and there has to be more to the poll.

 

what are the qualifications? a lot of them have pro football and are a major city. is it population based? something is amiss. Cincy sucks and i actually have been robbed there but it's nothing like some other places in NY, NY, or D.C.

 

Hey Sisky, here's partial criteria for the rankings, for the rest follow the yellow brick link:

 

 

The methodology and data used to determine the list of the 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in America is simple and utilizes information from many reliable third party sources. Using FBI data from 17,000 different agencies Dr. Schiller and his team looked at key indicators as identified within the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Incidents and rates per 1,000 people in a neighborhood population for specific violent crimes were then calculated.

 

 

The violent crimes considered by Dr. Schiller as key indicators of a "dangerous neighborhood" are:

 

murder

 

non-negligent manslaughter

 

forcible rape

 

armed robbery

 

aggravated assault

 

Other crimes like date rape, domestic assault and child abuse (not classified as aggravated), and petty theft were excluded from the data. Property crimes, however, were incorporated in to the rating given to the various neighborhoods identified in the study.

 

Researchers looking to identify the most dangerous neighborhood in America compiled ratings for each of these factors. An overall rating was assigned to neighborhoods based on a combination of violent crime data and property crime figures. A prediction was then made of the likelihood, per 1000 people in the neighborhood, that a resident would fall victim to one of the identified crimes.

 

The data was collected over a period of three years and deviations were added. Confounding variables such as socio-economic conditions, proximity to social service centers, policing resources per area, and age/condition of the neighborhood were not factored into the results.

 

 

 

[lemosley01]

Social programs are meant to give people the opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and prevent a Feudal society where rich families and groups get richer and richer from their existing advantage while the poor get poorer and poorer from their existing disadvantages.

 

That isn't the job of the government. It isn't in their mandate or their legal authorty, and it clearly doesn't work. All it does is breed a culture of people who depend on the government - they are now more slaves to 'good intentions' than to poverty.

 

We've had 'social programs' since the 1930s, and, as we regularly hear, the rich get richer. You could restribute all of the wealth in the US to everyone equally and within a few years it will all end up with a few people again. And the poor will go right back to being 'poor'.

 

I'd say 70 years of experimentation, failure, and however many trillions of hard dollars and lost economics is proof it doesn't work.

 

History proves again and again that the best people will always rise to the top. Your way simply means that those people are punished for suceeding. Eventually, you'll beat them down enough they stop caring and stop trying.

 

I can guarantee you that the poor and middle class can't fund those programs then.

 

'trickle up' economics doesn't work - poor people don't create wealth, they simply demand a share of it they haven't earned.

[sisky fringo]

America will never stop creating opportunities for the disadvantaged to transcend. The environments (if you really watch the docs) are absolutely dreadful. Undernourished, drug addicted mom, absent dad, gangs everywhere, bullets flying, shitty schools... it's a nightmare. And left to "fend for themselves," we know what will happen with a very low percentage of fairly amazing exceptions.

 

To not create programs to break these cycles... that's an actual moral travesty, not gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't cause anybody any problems anywhere any time, let alone cause suffering. Turning away from poverty is cruel.

 

creating opportunities for the disadvantaged to transcend...i like how you put that, and i think that's a great thing. but hat's different than doing it for them. no need to watch the docs--i could film them myself, or even be the subject of some. and that's not arrogance>>>just look at the subject matter. i rub elbows with some of the most disgusting humans walking among us. it doesn't go away by itself and those who embrace the lifestyle make their own beds. the welfare system is a serious enabler. after some serious welfare reform if a person continues to supplement their lifestyle criminally they will be left dead, in prison, or....well dead or in prison. that's pretty much it...it's just a matter of time. there are casualties from this as well and our current system we have in place already helps those who help themselves...anything more would be essentially doing it for them.

 

"turning away from poverty" is the answer for those in poverty. i maintain if you want to break the cycle, get off your butt and move out of the "hood". things might be tough for a spell but it will probably be the best decision they've ever made. why do they stay? because we enable them to with welfare. it's a big step to make the move and very foreign to them, but essentially they don't have to because being supported by big brother government is better than fending your own way out in the real world. socialism would be no better at helping the cause either.

 

why do we want some of them assimilated anyway? my world lacks candy canes and lollipops and not everyone can get a piece of the pie. carrying every single human being is not sustainable living, no matter what moral glasses we view the world through.

[lemosley01]

America will never stop creating opportunities for the disadvantaged to transcend. The environments (if you really watch the docs) are absolutely dreadful. Undernourished, drug addicted mom, absent dad, gangs everywhere, bullets flying, shitty schools... it's a nightmare. And left to "fend for themselves," we know what will happen with a very low percentage of fairly amazing exceptions.

 

To not create programs to break these cycles... that's an actual moral travesty, not gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't cause anybody any problems anywhere any time, let alone cause suffering. Turning away from poverty is cruel.

 

No more cruel than making the rest of us slaves to pay for it.

 

I don't think 'turning away from poverty' is cruel; it's natural selection. As you said, there are exceptions, and the losers will always be losers. That is very Darwinian. Don't you believe in Darwin's theories?

 

 

[sisky fringo]

Property crimes, however, were incorporated in to the rating given to the various neighborhoods identified in the study.

well that does speak to why Cincy may have earned the #1 spot. they are some thieving bastards in Bengalville.

 

thanks Brownshirt.

[sisky fringo]

You could restribute all of the wealth in the US to everyone equally and within a few years it will all end up with a few people again. And the poor will go right back to being 'poor'.

as valid as it gets. i have heard this my whole life and believe it through and through, some people just have a knack for making money and it's impossible to overcome. it's the nature of our species.

 

a good post as well.

[sisky fringo]

demicans, republicrats, talking points...useless topics for sure. breaking free from the bipartisan rhetoric and focusing on personal sustainability is the only hope i see on my horizon.

[daddybull1]

Admittedly I'm not an expert on the different forms of government but I think my opinions do have some validity or at least some good food for thought....

 

Although we've had a welfare program since the 30's it really started kicking into gear during the Johnson administration with the great society mentality... I'm all for leveling the playing field but at some point I have to say enough is enough...

 

The system ain't working and its getting worse... How else can you explain some families being 3rd & 4th generations on the welfare roles?????

 

I'm all for helping people and to this day I continue to contribute my money to worthy causes... Shouldn't government assistance programs have the ultimate goal of making people self sufficient rather than encouraging continued reliance????

 

In my generation (damn I'm sounding like a relic) it was an embarrasment to be on assistance but today in some peoples minds its a god given right... Why do you think social security is in such dire straits... Money from that program has been diverted into so many social programs that its bringing down the entire system....

 

Getting back to the topic of this thread, undesireable neighborhoods are always populated by families with low incomes.... Trouble is, being poor isn't a blank check for being a criminal.... Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him to fish and he'll sustain himself for a lifetime... There's just one catch, ya have to actually go fishing and expell some effort in order to catch the fish... It wont be delivered in the mail on the 1st of the month...

 

peace

 

T.Dawg

[Vegasdogg]

Supply side economics have consistently made the rich richer and the poor poorer,

You could not be further from the truth. Take a look around the world, bro. Look to India, China, Brazil. Look at all of the emerging economies that were once the poorest nations in the world.

 

They are all pulling their people out of poverty and out of despair, all because of free enterprise.

 

The law of supply side economics has instituted more change and more upward mobility for the poor nations of the world than all the aid COMBINED!! Think about that. Socialism is a dead science, and it is going the way of the dodo bird and communism. Aid and Socialism is the worst thing a country can depend upon.

 

 

I am not saying we should get rid of all social problems, but to say that free enterprise and supply side economics makes poor people poorer is rubbish.

 

Supply side econimics is a law much like gravity.

 

You only need to look to Africa to see what aid and socialism does to a poor country that is not afforded the opportunity to be self-sustaining.

 

Socialism does more harm than good - at the outset it makes those handing out the goodies feel better about themselves, but in the long run it kills the spirit!

 

Y

[Guest mz.]

Don't you believe in Darwin's theories?

 

How does a theory of evolution over time apply to people currently living?

 

[Vegasdogg]

It's like baseball, with the Pirates asked to compete with the Red Sox or Yankees. Lazy ass Pirates. Just try harder! Sell more tickets and sign bigger TV deals! Lazy, lazy Pirates! If only other sports would learn that a salary cap is socialist! And socialist is French for evil! Right? Wanting to help the poor is actually evil in some Orwellian way!

Whoa whoa whoa! Wait a minute. The Florida Marlins and Arizona Diamondbacks won the WS and they are not big market teams.

 

Small market or big market, MANAGEMENT is what counts. Here are some numbers of payroll for the MLB teams and their results:

 

NY Yankees: $201 mil - failed to make the postseason - eliminated in division series by Indians

NY Mets: $139 mil - failed to make postseason (2)

Detroit Tigers: $139 mil - failed to make postseason (2)

Boston Red Sox: $138 mil - eliminated in league championship by TB Rays - won World Series

Chicago White Sox: $121 mil - eliminated in division series by TB Rays - failed to make postseason

LA Angels: $119 mil - eliminated in division series by Red Sox - eliminated in division series by Red Sox

Chicago Cubs: $119 mil - eliminated in division series by Dodgers - eliminated in division series by Diamondbacks

LA Dodgers: $119 mil - eliminated in league championship by Phillies - failed to make postseason

Seattle Mariners: $118 mil - failed to make postseason (2)

Atlanta Braves: $102 mil - failed by make postseason (2)

St. Louis Cardinals: $101 mil - failed to make postseason (2)

Toronto Blue Jays: $99 mil - failed to make postseason (2)

Phil. Phillies: $98 mil - won World Series - eliminated in division series by Rockies

Houston Astros: $89 mil - failed to make postseason (2)

Milwaukee Brewers: $81 mil - eliminated in division series by Phillies - failed to make postseason

Cleveland Indians: $79 mil - failed to make postseason - eliminated in championship series by Red Sox

SF Giants: $77 mil - failed to make postseason (2)

Cincinnatti Reds: $74 mil - failed to make postseason (2)

San Diego Padres: $74 mil - failed to make postseason (2)

Colorado Rockies: $69 mil - failed to make postseason - lost World Series

Texas Rangers: $68 mil - failed to make postseason (2)

Baltimore Orioles: $67 mil - failed to make postseason (2)

Arizona Diamondbacks: $66 mil - failed to make postseason - eliminated in league championship by Rockies

Minnesota Twins: $62 mil - failed to make postseason (2)

KC Royals: $58 mil - failed to make postseason (2)

Washington Nationals: $55 mil - failed to make postseason (2)

Pittsburgh Pirates: $49 mil - failed to make postseason (2)

Oakland Athletics: $48 mil - failed to make postseason (2)

Tampa Bay Rays: $44 mil - won American league, lost in World Series - failed to make postseason

Florida Marlins: $22 mil - failed to make postseason (2)

 

Small market teams like Colorado, Florida, Arizona and Tampa compete (and they're all in the bottom 1/4 of markets with the Pirates) for the World Championship! Why? Not because of big markets, but good management.