I'm sure SS will have issue with this, but nonetheless here's a study establishing a point i've made before about crime being an issue with public housing residents:

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/04/05/rep...-cha-residents/

 

Between 2000 and 2008, violent crime was down 26 percent citywide. But during that same period of time, large numbers of public housing residents were being relocated from demolished projects, and violent crime increased 21 percent in the neighborhoods where they moved, the Sun-Times reported.

 

Crime dropped in neighborhoods where public housing developments were replaced with mixed-income communities, the Sun-Times reported.

Why will I have a problem with data? It appears to be a descriptive study of crime statistics, not a prescriptive study of why poors are inherently inferior.

Edited April 5, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

Isn't poverty and crime and established link?

 

And I guess we have two SSs

FYI here's the actual study:

 

http://www.urban.org/publications/412523.html

Actually I will take issue with the Sun-Times article!

 

Between 2000 and 2008, violent crime was down 26 percent citywide. But during that same period of time, large numbers of public housing residents were being relocated from demolished projects, and violent crime increased 21 percent in the neighborhoods where they moved, the Sun-Times reported

 

This seriously misstates what the study found:

 

But, in a relatively small number of areas in Chicago and Atlanta that received more than a few relocated households, crime decreased less than it would have if no former public housing residents had moved in.

Compared with a similar neighborhood with no relocated households, a neighborhood with a high density of relocated households has a violent crime rate that is 21 percent higher in Atlanta and Chicago.

 

That article quote implies that violence followed relocated residents everywhere, which is not true. It's also not true that violent crime increased 21% in neighborhoods where they moved.

 

Violent crime continued to decrease city-wide but didn't decrease as fast in neighborhoods with high concentrations of relocated residents. That's a vastly different statement.

 

Overall, our findings show that a substantial majority of neighborhoods in both cities were able to absorb public housing relocation voucher households without any adverse effect on neighborhood conditions.

 

So, no problem with the study. Interesting stuff. Big problems with crappy, misleading journalism that fuels prejudices.

Edited April 5, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

Wait, I'm a bit confused -- so is this following people who were in a concentrated form of public housing, and then were relocated to mixed income neighborhoods? If that's the case, it seems to me that there should be a distinction between people transitioning from concentrated public housing to mixed income neighborhoods after their "formative" years, and people who are raised in mixed income neighborhoods. I would think that the former would include people who sort of "fell in" to crime, and then continued after they were moved; but, if they had been raised in mixed-income neighborhoods, they might have not become involved with crime at all.

Wait, I'm a bit confused -- so is this following people who were in a concentrated form of public housing, and then were relocated to mixed income neighborhoods? If that's the case, it seems to me that there should be a distinction between people transitioning from concentrated public housing to mixed income neighborhoods after their "formative" years, and people who are raised in mixed income neighborhoods. I would think that the former would include people who sort of "fell in" to crime, and then continued after they were moved; but, if they had been raised in mixed-income neighborhoods, they might have not become involved with crime at all.

 

It's people who were relocated from large public housing projects like Robert Taylor.

It's people who were relocated from large public housing projects like Robert Taylor.

 

Ok; in that case my original question/comment stands.

 

EDIT: More specifically, I meant that it might be unwise to look at that data and say "SEE THEY WERE CRIMINALS NO MATTER WHERE WE PUT THEM" for the reasons I mentioned above.

Edited April 5, 201213 yr by farmteam

Ok; in that case my original question/comment stands.

 

EDIT: More specifically, I meant that it might be unwise to look at that data and say "SEE THEY WERE CRIMINALS NO MATTER WHERE WE PUT THEM" for the reasons I mentioned above.

 

The study is actually pretty interesting and it's helpful in examining the effectiveness of these relocation policies and where they might be improved.

 

But the way those articles characterized the study was pretty terrible for the reasons you mentioned as well as flat-out misrepresenting what the study found.