However, that
data set was non-illness deaths. Deaths
are certainly an indicator of personal safety, but there are many other types
of data, such as non-homicide crime rates, that also affect perceived personal
safety.
I’m not
going to dig through crime statistics.
There are many, many studies on the internet that dig into the data more
than I can or wish to. Instead, I’ll
stipulate that certain crimes, such as muggings, are almost certainly more
frequent in San Francisco and Oakland than in Sonoma and Cotati. (Although I’ll note that there has been a
slow migration of poverty and crime to drivable suburbia, which factors into the
growing appeal of walkable urbanism.)
I’ll further
stipulate that crime rates in urban cores affect the perception of walkable
urban life and are likely impediments to urbanism.
Which gets
to the topic about which I really want to write. Who’s responsible for reducing urban crime
rates?
Almost
everyone points toward big city mayors.
Here in the Bay Area, blame is often directed at Oakland Mayor Jean
Quan. And a good friend recently emailed
me to complain about the mayor of the large city in my friend’s metropolitan
area.
But there’s
a logical flaw with the finger-pointing.
Although crime has always been a part of urban life, a lot of current
crime is tied to the unfortunate intersection of four areas of public policy.
Public
housing policies which for too long put lower-income folks into settings which
lacked role models and which allowed bullies to intimidate other
residents. These flawed public housing
projects quickly became breeding grounds for crime.
Safety net policies
which for too long had the unintended consequence of encouraging the breakup of
families, further reducing possible role models.
Gun policies
which, whatever one’s perspective on the law, have left guns in the hands of
those who would use them with ill intent.
Drug
policies which created the potential for an illegal, but highly profitable,
underground economy.
And
compounding these policies is the diversion of locally-generated revenue to
higher levels of government, from where is it returned to cities with constraints
imposed from above. And often with a portion
of the money diverted to less urban areas where it propped up financially
unsustainable land uses. The cities are
left with a lack of funds and a lack of discretion on how to use the remaining dollars.
Do you see
the problem? Not one of those policies
is city-driven. All are set at the federal
and/or state government levels. We’ve given
our big city mayors a difficult problem to solve, put them in shackles, taken
away most of their tools, and then kicked them for failing. If we treated our children that way, we’d be
guilty of child abuse. Instead we treat
it as politics as usual.
This failure to give cities control over their
own destinies is consistent with a long-term trend in human history. Despite cities being the birth place of
civilization, the continuing source of most economic activity, and arguably the
inherent way that we organize our affairs, nation-states have gradually usurped
the primacy of cities.
This isn’t
meant as a criticism of any particular politician or political party, unless we
want to point at Henry VIII as a key figure in making England more important
than London. Instead, I’m only trying to
aim a spotlight on the unreasonableness of taking authority away from cities while
also expecting them to successfully tackle difficult problems.
We may not need
to return more authority to cities to reduce crime or to encourage urbanism,
but it’d be a good step.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment