Post Number: 280
|Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 7:32 pm: || |
I know that this is an older article but why isn't this ALL OVER THE NEWS and why doesn't Detroit use this to its full potential.
I bet 2007 will be better than 06'
DVA= Downtown Visitors Area
Post Number: 4037
|Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 7:59 pm: || |
http://www.tedconline.com/uplo ads/2007_Final_Crime_Report .pdf
Post Number: 588
|Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 8:18 pm: || |
OK, based upon a quick skim of the report and some historical knowledge...
-people in the neighborhoods have known "this" for years, and it pisses them off that resources are committed "down town" while the 'hoods are not fit for habitation. Hyperbole, of course, but the City & DPD have always policed the daylights out of "DVA." A little more perspective - as a kid from the 'hood I had the sense that I had walked into a martial law situation when I first visited WSU and then CBD... never had seen so many 5-0
-savvy readers probably view the report with skepticism. Last year's version (via CULMA @ WSU) was read by some as self-serving: geographic definition is unnatural
Post Number: 2251
|Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 8:43 pm: || |
The geographic definition of this report is about as natural as it can get.
If anything, this report is far more accurate than the reports done by USA Today and others. I know Jason Booza and he's an outstanding demographer and also knows the fields of criminal justice and law enforcement well beyond most people. He's not the type to issue a report skewed toward the person paying for it. He's going to state the facts as they are, even if it's not favorable.
Post Number: 590
|Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 9:04 pm: || |
I don't know the author, so I cannot say (is he CULMA? I've known some crooks over there, or at least a few who give academics a bad name. I'll take you at your word and assume that he's not one that I wouldn't "Lyke").
How was DVA defined? The explanation on p. 3 could be read as self-servingly arbitrary. Why not define in terms of where "visitors" actually tread?
Don't get me wrong: the method and study are not devoid of merit, but for me it should be read with same sense of caution some counsel using when reading Bush Administration intelligence reports re: Iran... not necessarily crap, but beware of biased/partisan currents.
Post Number: 2253
|Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 9:10 pm: || |
CULMA hasn't existed for a while now. The Center for Urban Studies is part of the Geography & Urban Planning Department at WSU. No crooks that I know of over there. All staff that I know are respected in their fields.
The DVA definitions likely coincide with police precincts, patrol areas, etc. That's the easiest way to put the data to a geographic area. It would be nearly impossible to define where visitors actually tread, let alone match crime stats to them.
Post Number: 592
|Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 9:24 pm: || |
No kidding. Didn't know that. If I substituted "bark at the moon" for "crook" would you know what I mean?
You might be right re: crime data (I'm in a different world, data-wise), but I would hope that CVB has a better sense than us re: where our visitors visit. In fact, if an annual tracking study isn't in place then someone should be taken to the woodshed. My intuition says, though, that the Cultural Center and JLA footprint should be included in a study such as this. Also, I'm taking points off for insufficiently defined DVA (gimme details re: selection process).
Having said all that, remember one of my original points: I agree that CBD is pretty safe and a lot safer than my former homes.
Post Number: 1089
|Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 11:29 pm: || |
Is it possible that our Greater Downtown is safer because it's overall abandoned? What I mean by abandoned is that I wouldn't call it a busy, bustling CBD in any form with a lot of people walking around down there.