Why is crime rising in so many American cities?

[opsec]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/6872/1/

Atash,
  I didn't realize the full implications of your current living situation until I read this. For those interested in the Reader's Digest version: violent crime statistics have a near 100% correlation with the location of section 8 housing.

[Atash Hagmahani]

One reason I never wanted to own section 8 housing.

Right along Delridge is pretty bad for that very reason. One of the few parts of W. Seattle that scare me. High Point is not great but it's not 100% public housing, and it's not full yet.

When I moved here, I was stunned at how much crime there was. But the neighbors were largely in denial. One of them went so far as to say that the "bad neighborhood" was "GONE! THEY TOTALLY REMOVED IT". Another one came up with this cock-and-bull theory as to how one of the little lambs who lived there might have "accidentally" and totally "innocently" might have caused some damage to my property that I would call "vandalism".

Well, they took out the old public housing and put in 3 times as much. The idea was something like the ugly WW2 vintage public buildings were committing the crimes, and not some of the people living in them. Not all the people. Some of the inhabitants were net victims. I don't make blanket statements accusing whole socioeconomic classes for crime...which, oddly enough, pools up on both extremes of the socioeconomic spectrum! Different kinds of crime, though....

[Eddie]

What's it like trying to collect back rent from gang bangers? Is vandalism or any damage covered by the state? Just curious how it works. I would imagine that home owners insurance rates would go up constantly from claim after claim. Surely there must be some benefit in your favor for taking on the hassle to begin with.

[Atash Hagmahani]

I've known people who rent to Section 8. Some landlords actually like Section 8. The reason is that at least part of the rent is guaranteed. Plus, there is unlimited demand. It's really really easy to find tenants. 

I never have. I simply announce that I am not "section 8 qualified" (despite the fact that I probably could be if I applied...which I don't...). I have had bad experiences from section 8 prospects showing up at open houses crack-addled and being obnoxious while their kids run amok.

I have known landlords who did, and it turned into a nightmare, because "something" would inevitably happen, and they are very difficult to evict. Also, if it doesn't work out, it's hard to get out of the program again, unless you are between tenants.

Most landlords I know personally say "don't do it".

[Lady Lilya]

Don't you have to have the apartments inspected and stuff if you do it?  That doesn't sound too pleasant to me.

[Atash Hagmahani]

Yes, that's right, though 99.9% of apartments would pass the inspections.

Unfortunately, thanks to the radical city council, now ALL apartments have to be inspected. :(  Interestingly, most tenants are opposed. They don't like the idea of their apartments being inspected (not everybody would be inspected; they would sample the apartments--but they don't like the idea of being the one who IS), and they don't like the idea of the landlord passing the cost along to them.

[Lore]

Here in Canada, your "Section 8" would be the stuff of dreams for an empire of social workers. We are unfortunately building a similar pile of suburban "affordable housing." In fact, you can't build a new development of any size without incorporating a prescribed number of "affordable" suites.  The process is too immature for smart observations to be made by local observers, and there will be personal and political reticence to admit a mistake or threaten vested interests, but the outcome will assuredly be just as dismal.

The phenomenon reminds me of tossing bread to starlings. The more you offer, the more birds show up.

Lesson for new home buyers: spot these complexes + avoid them like the plague.

[opsec]

Unfortunately, thanks to the radical city council, now ALL apartments have to be inspected.

This sounds like it could be challenged on 4th amendment grounds. I bet if somebody filed suit, it would be overturned. There is no probable cause to suspect that a particular apartment is in violation of the law.

Lesson for new home buyers: spot these complexes + avoid them like the plague

.

I think there are maps available online. I haven't looked myself though.

[Dame]

Lore, here in Canada, where would you like the less than affluent to live. 

[Lore]

Lore, here in Canada, where would you like the less than affluent to live.

Point taken. I don't know. Since you ask, I'll try to post some thoughts and ask you and others here for help.

I don't think much good comes of artificial segregation based on income level or other factors associated with it. I have enough experience of my own to be aware of some of the issues in subsidized housing.

Private property ownership seems to be a key component in the distinction between how we view a dwelling now and how it was understood by our grandparents. Coming out of the Depression, people generally knew how to live within their means. A house was an investment in every sense of the word - an achievement - a source of personal pride. You took the best possible care of your yard, and repaired things that needed repairing, and planned to stay in YOUR PLACE for an extended period. Home ownership was emblematic of social stability, and widely respected as such. Neighbors looked out for each other. If you had low income, your house was smaller as you were obliged to buy what you could afford.

That paradigm was ruined by easy access to credit and conspicuous consumerism. People who didn't deserve it moved into oversized superhouses with all the latest accoutrements WITHOUT OWNING THEM. It was like leasing a snazzy sports car. The sense of commitment - of having worked hard to earn something - was gone. Subsidized housing encourages a similar psychology of entitlement and disposability. Rare is the situation where a person finds low income housing where s/he is happy and stable, and that is usually a product of attitude rather than circumstance.

I think the approach of having people work toward something should be a good statistical INVERSE predictor of the amount of trouble that will surface in a neighborhood. Families with a deep personal stake in their quality of life will take more care and do a better job of guarding against the sort of trouble that we see in that article.

Does that make some sense?

[Atash Hagmahani]

I don't think much good comes of artificial segregation based on income level or other factors associated with it.

In the olden days--in this country I mean really really a long time ago--but you still see it in other parts of the world either from legacy or they still do it--rich and poor lived fairly close together. Often rubbing shoulders--the manor houses contained live-in staff who were penniless.

In some parts of the world you still see mansions looming over hovels. In some parts of Europe you can see working-class housing within very easy walking distance to mansions. They were separated, but by no more distance than necessary to fit enough of each social class to make it a neighborhood. Indeed, servants HAD to live within easy walking distance of their employers! Unless they were live-in, but that was probably less common in the cities aside from maybe a few key staff needed 24/7 (personal helpers for the elderly, nursemaids, that sort of thing). 10% of the population of Jolly Old England were domestics!

Why the difference? I would guess more than anything else that in the old days, for better or worse, crime was taken more seriously IF THE VICTIM WERE RICH. I know that murder rates in Jolly Old (18th century) England were dramatically worse than in modern-day New York City (contrary to common belief that high crime rates are a modern phenomenon. Actually, they go up and down in long cycles). Then, as now, the police only bothered to investigate a small fraction of crimes--but they tended to favor and defend specifically the rich more blatantly than they do even now.

I doubt they were any safer. Probably not! But it was probably more of a psychological feeling. They were more used to the idea of living closer to the poor than their successors are.

In his book "The road ahead", Bill Gates envisioned an extreme of wealth-segregation, with the wealthy living in deep-rural resort-type communities, the idea being that technology would make it possible. I doubt the trend will go to that extreme, but such has been the trend.

[Mike]

Lore, here in Canada, where would you like the less than affluent to live.

The less affluent have  options:
1) Live with a relative.
2) Live with a friend.
3) Find a religion that offers housing.
4) Join the military

Taking care of the less affluent is time consuming and expensive.  The government is not suited for that job.

[Lore]

Taking care of the less affluent is time consuming and expensive.  The government is not suited for that job.

Sure, under normal circumstances. But we face a looming wave of millions of homeless on the horizon. The problem will be of sufficient size that government is motivated to Do Something. Mortgaging nationwide seems to be in disarray, so the "policy" thus far seems to be a matter of finding ways for as many people as possible to stay in their homes for as long as possible, until such time as it behooves the lending institution to use the boot.

"Strategic defaults" are a perfect example of the systemwide breakdown in our definition of property and ownership. If there is to be a broad "bottom" in the housing market, we will not see it until the mortgage situation is cleared up, and that will take longer than most people think IMO.

[Eddie]

Im not sure about Canadas options for the less affluent, but here in the states we have shelters run by the government for those who don't have family, friends, relatives or a religion that would take them (cost effective) or no longer qualify for the military.

[Eddie]

We also have tent cities which is another option and the ability to squat in foreclosed homes...nice ones.