On Mar 20, 5:32*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:12:03 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski



wrote:
On Mar 20, 5:04*pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski

wrote:
But I believe that in general, the larger the
metro area, the larger such neighborhoods are likely to be, and the
worse conditions might be within them.

Any evidence of this other than pop culture and stereotyping?

Mostly, just my anecdotal experience. *Philly and Cleveland and Los
Angeles come to mind. *I'm sure there are exceptions, which is why I
said "in general."

I wonder if you have contrary evidence?

Particularly in relation to NYC?

I've looked up stats for violent crimes in cities in the US in
general, and NYC is one of the biggest cities and had lower violent
crime rates per person than many smaller cities.

But I don't really know, which is way I don't go around talking about
places I don't know about as dangerous, or proposing theories like
yours w/o evidence.

John, I've learned a lot in my life. Sometimes I don't remember the
sources of what I've learned. Sometimes I'm not positive about what
I've learned, but I state my impressions anyway, prefacing them
with something like "I believe." I think most people do that.

Look at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_16.html

Check the "rate" columns for Group I (i.e. largest) cities, on down to
Group VI, the smallest cities. Check the crime rates for all the
types of crimes. Do you see the same trends I do?

- Frank Krygowski