4 ms·

>New York is a wild place. I had family in the East Village, spent many a summer in the city throughout the late 70's - 80's. It was very different from what m

>New York is a wild place. I had family in the East Village, spent many a summer in the city throughout the late 70's - 80's. It was very different from what most folks experience today, I don't think the under 40 crowd understands what Giuliani did for that city and how he basically made it safe and livable. It was like an insane asylum before him and anyone who spent some time there can attest to that. The experience was sort of like a war you fought, the place tried to kill you but fuck no, you were going to do everything you could to get out alive. Haven't been back for around 30 years, still have a little PTSD when it comes to that place...hahaha....

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
The whole country was much more dangerous in the 70s-80s than it was in the 2000s. https://www.statista.com/statistics/187592/death-rate-from-homicide-in-the-us-since-1950/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/187592/death-rate-from-h... NYC's peak-to-trough was bigger than the rest of the country, but it's not obvious that Giuliani was the cause, as opposed to a general trend having a more pronounced effect in the city (possibly because whatever malaise was causing the murders was more concentrated in the city). This is consistent with e.g. the lead-crime hypothesis, but there are a number of other ways that might explain the amplification of crime in the city. Edit: Although, upon looking at this more, in NYC the decline was really pronounced at the beginning of Giuliani's tenure. I am politically predisposed to discredit Giuliani because of his more recent antics, but it's also true that bad people can sometimes accomplish good things. I looked for evidence on this topic and it does seem that the increased enforcement of crimes during Giuliani's mayorship probably had some significant effects on crime. I regret the implication that it did not, since it seems I was likely incorrect.
- gogopuppygogo 5y ago
  I’ve read the decline in crime and overall improvements in society being safer is a direct result of the reduction in lead exposure: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615
  - steveBK123 5y ago
    Most studies show at best it was a 33% contributor.
- burlesona 5y ago
  I know nothing about the NYC / Giuliani subject so no comment on that part. But I wanted to say I really appreciate your edit. I admire your willingness to check your own bias and then consider the possibility that it misled you.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    Thank you for saying so. I was actually banned/rate-limited from this site for being a little too ideological a few years ago and after thinking about the types of comments I was writing I decided to try to change my ways -- and not just here. I'm trying to let myself be led by curiosity rather than indignation or pride when it comes to the news and big issues. I recommend it -- it's actually helped me remove the contention in some personal relationships, in addition to IMO making me a better contributor to internet communities I'm in.
    - mycologos 5y ago
      Boy, if ever there was a redemption story tailored to appeal to an HN audience, this might be it (it worked on me, at least).
    - padastra 5y ago
      Just FYI, like most studies of behaviors and their causes in large populations, the hypothesis that lead exposure resulted in more crime is not proven, see e.g.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5801257/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5801257/ My priors (from a Bayesian perspective) that lead, which in high doses provably can result in brain damage, can have more subtle effects on behavioral inhibition and executive function is pretty high, but I still do not know that I would feel confident saying the evidence is clear.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        I affirm that the hypothesis is not solidly proven at this point. Although I also wonder what else could explain the widespread fall in criminality. Is it possible that the 90s was just the point where we reached economic sufficiency for a large swathe of people who would otherwise have been criminals to attain more? Maybe violent video games have diverted the little criminal in many of us (I jest but I have heard this idea floated in some places)? Did people switch to drugs that were less likely to cause criminal behavior? It would be nice to have an answer but I suspect that we will never have more than questions and conjectures on this one.
- pbourke 5y ago
  > The whole country was much more dangerous in the 70s-80s than it was in the 2000s. Was that an overall trend in that rural and suburban areas were equally more dangerous, or was it concentrated in cities?
- stevenicr 5y ago
  netflix has 'fear city' and one of the 'trial by media' episodes that give a decent glimpse of things around the time there.. and it shows a very different Giuliani than most people today would think of outside NY I think. I am not an expert - and would love to learn more - but during those times I think there was crime across the country - but in most places it was pockets of crime, mostly separated from the day to day average citizens.. it seems to me that NY at the time, the average citizen had to be on guard and knew they were a few bodies away from being the day's victim.. I feel that much of the rest of the country had crime in certain areas, but certainly not a normal experience on the subway of va/dc/md for example - of course you could wander into areas where the daily normal was different. So stats could say 'it was just NY but everywhere else..' - but I'm not sure stats show enough by where/when to show a better picture of '90% daily commuters experience violence themselves or witness it near' in X-city overall - or is it 30% or commuters, mostly from / in neighborhood Y or Z - but most people in city V don't see in person and aren't constantly worried. If there are stats showing those kinds of things I'd love to learn more - and see what percentage of the country felt the way subway riders in NY felt in the 80s, and how localized or not those things were. I'd guess that the density of NY meant the violence affected more people because more people were nearby to witness it - as opposed to most other places. random thoughts.
cm2012 5y ago
Check the crime reduction timeline. It started during the first year of Dinkins term (1990), not Giuliani. https://images.app.goo.gl/uSbaDcnVffYQ8VhJ8 https://images.app.goo.gl/uSbaDcnVffYQ8VhJ8 Another neat thing, crime tracked nationwide almost exactly with childhood lead exposure https://images.app.goo.gl/ddYD1c3YdxB5wE866 https://images.app.goo.gl/ddYD1c3YdxB5wE866
steveBK123 5y ago
Yes and the trend then continued through 90s,00s and 10s. There is a stark difference in the people I know in NYC who moved in later than early/mid 2000s which aligns roughly with your 40s cutoff. The before people all have stories of being robbed/mugged/assaulted and/or having friends who experienced the same. The cutoff varies by where the people moved in as some areas stayed rougher longer. Most people I know after have not experienced nor know anyone who has experienced this. This is especially true of zoomers / young millennials who moved into more cloistered neighborhoods in doormen buildings.. It gives people a very different perspective on the recent catch&release bail reform (which despite what people assumed, does apply to violent crimes), not prosecuting turnstile jumpers, end of stop&frisk, etc). The pushback seems to be coming now that the surge in violence has spilled out of the poorer neighborhoods into areas where the more comfortable live/work/shop/leisure.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  >There is a stark difference in the people I know in NYC who moved in later than early/mid 2000s which aligns roughly with your 40s cutoff. >The before people all have stories of being robbed/mugged/assaulted and/or having friends who experienced the same. I moved to NYC in early 2000s and I can vouch for not having stories of being robbed/mugged/assaulted. Even after many very late nights out, I do not recall even seeing a fight in Manhattan. It was basically Disneyworld and I had no idea why an older person would be impressed when I would suggest walking around at night alone in NYC. I left a few years ago, and it was still pretty safe, although over the years, the homeless population had started to grow in Manhattan, especially after Bloomberg's reign in my opinion.
  - dougmwne 5y ago
    I have never lived in NYC, but did spend time in SF in 2015. I'm fascinated by these descriptions of pre-2000 NYC because they are so close to my experience in SF. I experienced several close calls and situations I would have never gotten close to in DC. One day I decided to take a stroll from Powell to 16th St. Mission and it was more like stumbling through a refugee camp. I heard ubiquitous stories of muggings, assaults and even one murder from friends and coworkers in the span of just a few months. One story that sticks in my mind is a coworker watching an elderly man being badly beaten in Oakland near where I was living at the time. Everything I have read and heard tells me SF has gotten worse in the past 5 years.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

The whole country was much more dangerous in the 70s-80s than it was in the 2000s. https://www.statista.com/statistics/187592/death-rate-from-homicide-in-the-us-since-1950/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/187592/death-rate-from-h... NYC's peak-to-trough was bigger than the rest of the country, but it's not obvious that Giuliani was the cause, as opposed to a general trend having a more pronounced effect in the city (possibly because whatever malaise was causing the murders was more concentrated in the city). This is consistent with e.g. the lead-crime hypothesis, but there are a number of other ways that might explain the amplification of crime in the city. Edit: Although, upon looking at this more, in NYC the decline was really pronounced at the beginning of Giuliani's tenure. I am politically predisposed to discredit Giuliani because of his more recent antics, but it's also true that bad people can sometimes accomplish good things. I looked for evidence on this topic and it does seem that the increased enforcement of crimes during Giuliani's mayorship probably had some significant effects on crime. I regret the implication that it did not, since it seems I was likely incorrect.

gogopuppygogo 5y ago
I’ve read the decline in crime and overall improvements in society being safer is a direct result of the reduction in lead exposure: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615
- steveBK123 5y ago
  Most studies show at best it was a 33% contributor.
burlesona 5y ago
I know nothing about the NYC / Giuliani subject so no comment on that part. But I wanted to say I really appreciate your edit. I admire your willingness to check your own bias and then consider the possibility that it misled you.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  Thank you for saying so. I was actually banned/rate-limited from this site for being a little too ideological a few years ago and after thinking about the types of comments I was writing I decided to try to change my ways -- and not just here. I'm trying to let myself be led by curiosity rather than indignation or pride when it comes to the news and big issues. I recommend it -- it's actually helped me remove the contention in some personal relationships, in addition to IMO making me a better contributor to internet communities I'm in.
  - mycologos 5y ago
    Boy, if ever there was a redemption story tailored to appeal to an HN audience, this might be it (it worked on me, at least).
  - padastra 5y ago
    Just FYI, like most studies of behaviors and their causes in large populations, the hypothesis that lead exposure resulted in more crime is not proven, see e.g.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5801257/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5801257/ My priors (from a Bayesian perspective) that lead, which in high doses provably can result in brain damage, can have more subtle effects on behavioral inhibition and executive function is pretty high, but I still do not know that I would feel confident saying the evidence is clear.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      I affirm that the hypothesis is not solidly proven at this point. Although I also wonder what else could explain the widespread fall in criminality. Is it possible that the 90s was just the point where we reached economic sufficiency for a large swathe of people who would otherwise have been criminals to attain more? Maybe violent video games have diverted the little criminal in many of us (I jest but I have heard this idea floated in some places)? Did people switch to drugs that were less likely to cause criminal behavior? It would be nice to have an answer but I suspect that we will never have more than questions and conjectures on this one.
pbourke 5y ago
> The whole country was much more dangerous in the 70s-80s than it was in the 2000s. Was that an overall trend in that rural and suburban areas were equally more dangerous, or was it concentrated in cities?
stevenicr 5y ago
netflix has 'fear city' and one of the 'trial by media' episodes that give a decent glimpse of things around the time there.. and it shows a very different Giuliani than most people today would think of outside NY I think. I am not an expert - and would love to learn more - but during those times I think there was crime across the country - but in most places it was pockets of crime, mostly separated from the day to day average citizens.. it seems to me that NY at the time, the average citizen had to be on guard and knew they were a few bodies away from being the day's victim.. I feel that much of the rest of the country had crime in certain areas, but certainly not a normal experience on the subway of va/dc/md for example - of course you could wander into areas where the daily normal was different. So stats could say 'it was just NY but everywhere else..' - but I'm not sure stats show enough by where/when to show a better picture of '90% daily commuters experience violence themselves or witness it near' in X-city overall - or is it 30% or commuters, mostly from / in neighborhood Y or Z - but most people in city V don't see in person and aren't constantly worried. If there are stats showing those kinds of things I'd love to learn more - and see what percentage of the country felt the way subway riders in NY felt in the 80s, and how localized or not those things were. I'd guess that the density of NY meant the violence affected more people because more people were nearby to witness it - as opposed to most other places. random thoughts.

cm2012 5y ago

Check the crime reduction timeline. It started during the first year of Dinkins term (1990), not Giuliani. https://images.app.goo.gl/uSbaDcnVffYQ8VhJ8 https://images.app.goo.gl/uSbaDcnVffYQ8VhJ8 Another neat thing, crime tracked nationwide almost exactly with childhood lead exposure https://images.app.goo.gl/ddYD1c3YdxB5wE866 https://images.app.goo.gl/ddYD1c3YdxB5wE866

steveBK123 5y ago

Yes and the trend then continued through 90s,00s and 10s. There is a stark difference in the people I know in NYC who moved in later than early/mid 2000s which aligns roughly with your 40s cutoff. The before people all have stories of being robbed/mugged/assaulted and/or having friends who experienced the same. The cutoff varies by where the people moved in as some areas stayed rougher longer. Most people I know after have not experienced nor know anyone who has experienced this. This is especially true of zoomers / young millennials who moved into more cloistered neighborhoods in doormen buildings.. It gives people a very different perspective on the recent catch&release bail reform (which despite what people assumed, does apply to violent crimes), not prosecuting turnstile jumpers, end of stop&frisk, etc). The pushback seems to be coming now that the surge in violence has spilled out of the poorer neighborhoods into areas where the more comfortable live/work/shop/leisure.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
>There is a stark difference in the people I know in NYC who moved in later than early/mid 2000s which aligns roughly with your 40s cutoff. >The before people all have stories of being robbed/mugged/assaulted and/or having friends who experienced the same. I moved to NYC in early 2000s and I can vouch for not having stories of being robbed/mugged/assaulted. Even after many very late nights out, I do not recall even seeing a fight in Manhattan. It was basically Disneyworld and I had no idea why an older person would be impressed when I would suggest walking around at night alone in NYC. I left a few years ago, and it was still pretty safe, although over the years, the homeless population had started to grow in Manhattan, especially after Bloomberg's reign in my opinion.
- dougmwne 5y ago
  I have never lived in NYC, but did spend time in SF in 2015. I'm fascinated by these descriptions of pre-2000 NYC because they are so close to my experience in SF. I experienced several close calls and situations I would have never gotten close to in DC. One day I decided to take a stroll from Powell to 16th St. Mission and it was more like stumbling through a refugee camp. I heard ubiquitous stories of muggings, assaults and even one murder from friends and coworkers in the span of just a few months. One story that sticks in my mind is a coworker watching an elderly man being badly beaten in Oakland near where I was living at the time. Everything I have read and heard tells me SF has gotten worse in the past 5 years.