3 ms·

The United States government is currently responsible for funding people to move into previously peaceful communities and jack up the murder rate, with zero pri

by temphn 14y ago

The United States government is currently responsible for funding people to move into previously peaceful communities and jack up the murder rate, with zero prior review of their propensity to commit violence. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/306872/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american... American Murder Mystery Why is crime rising in so many American cities? The answer implicates one of the most celebrated antipoverty programs of recent decades. ... About six months ago, they decided to put a hunch to the test. Janikowski merged his computer map of crime patterns with Betts’s map of Section 8 rentals. Where Janikowski saw a bunny rabbit, Betts saw a sideways horseshoe (“He has a better imagination,” she said). Otherwise, the match was near-perfect. On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section 8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots. Betts remembers her discomfort as she looked at the map. The couple had been musing about the connection for months, but they were amazed—and deflated—to see how perfectly the two data sets fit together. She knew right away that this would be a “hard thing to say or write.” Nobody in the antipoverty community and nobody in city leadership was going to welcome the news that the noble experiment that they’d been engaged in for the past decade had been bringing the city down, in ways they’d never expected. But the connection was too obvious to ignore, and Betts and Janikowski figured that the same thing must be happening all around the country. That's the US Government "helping". Why would anyone trust them to intercede in a dispute between neighbors?

geebee 14y ago
Like I said, the law isn't anyone's idea of a good first option. The law is where you go when talking to your neighbors has turned out to be useless, the lawbreaking is obvious, and the damage is great enough that you need to coerce someone into stopping. Also want to be fair here, - in general, I would not expect airbnb rentals to lead to this kind of dispute very often. But the gov't wouldn't be interceding in the minutiae of a dispute between neighbors here, they'd be creating and enforcing legislation around minimum lease duration, which I think is a much less objectionable role for government.
- temphn 14y ago
  But the gov't wouldn't be interceding in the minutiae of a dispute between neighbors here, they'd be creating and enforcing legislation Every new law makes something that was previously discretionary either compulsory or forbidden. Do you trust the DoJ to enforce these new laws for the benefit of the guy with loud neighbors? Or do you think instead that they will be used to help landlords and hoteliers with deep pockets come up with excuses to chuck tenants and soak internet rental startups? If you don't want AirBnB rooms nearby, (a) talk to them, (b) talk to your landlord, (c) move, (d) look on a map to see whether AirBnB rooms will be rented nearby. Most people in SF, NYC, or the Valley don't even know their neighbors. A large NYC apartment is like a hotel anyway, there might be 1-2 faces you'd recognize in the elevator but that's it. These fears have zero stats behind them while the USG moving in murderers next door unfortunately has plenty of statistical backing.
  - geebee 14y ago
    I'm not sure what this has to do with long vs short term rentals, other than that you don't trust the government to do anything. I also see absolutely no reason why supporting regulation of short term rentals somehow commits you to supporting a failed section 8 program, other than that the government is involved in both. You left out option e) urge your representative in government to limit short term rentals, and once this laws are in place, bring a civil lawsuit or take some other legally coercive measure if your neighbor refuses to comply. That said, I would prefer to see these laws kept as local as possible, and many communities will be perfectly happy to allow short term rentals, as it will provide them with a new way to profit from their property. I'd agree that if a local district decides to allow AirBnBs to proliferate, and you aren't happy, then you must move - preferably to a place that doesn't allow them. You will accept that restriction in exchange for the benefits you believe it brings you. Keep in mind, there's a strong undercurrent of libertarianism that supports heavy decentralization rather than zero regulation across the board - you just have to promise not to try to impose your will on the next township over.
    - temphn 14y ago
      e) urge your representative in government Well, there are 700,000 people in the average Congressional district. Go ahead and urge, it will do nothing. You need some kind of political megaphone (like a newspaper) to get them to listen. I also see absolutely no reason why supporting regulation of short term rentals somehow commits you to supporting a failed section 8 program, other than that the government is involved in both. The point is: should we trust the same government which is moving in murderers next door to intercede? As for whether the program is failed, no argument there from me, but has "urging your representative" done anything about it? The idea that new laws will solve a problem is the fundamental fallacy. Who is enforcing the laws? What is their track record on other problems? And so why do you trust them?
radley 14y ago
I gave you an upvote for the interesting and unique stat. You're probably getting downvoted for almost paranoid conclusion you add after.
rayiner 14y ago
First, crime has been falling in American cities almost monotonically since the 1980's, aside from a slight uptick in the last several years as a result of the recession. Second, nobody thinks that Section 8 doesn't increase crime in nicer neighborhoods. The rationale is that spreading out the poor families via Section 8 reduces overall crime in the city versus concentrating them into the projects. I used to live in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in Chicago, and many of the surrounding high-rises took Section 8 residents. While I'm sure they raised property crime slightly in the area, I think most people preferred that state of affairs to having the Cabrini-Green projects next door.
- temphn 14y ago
  they raised property crime slightly The article shows that they increased the murder rate substantially. Moreover, most people would prefer to have 10 murderers focusing their attentions on each other than having them next door. A spatially localized Cabrini Green which you can avoid is far superior to one that you cannot, especially when it is your tax dollars that are being used against your will to create this dangerous situation. By contrast, AirBnB is not forcing you to pay the rent for the hipsters boarded in your neighbor's domicile. nobody thinks that Section 8 doesn't increase crime in nicer neighborhoods OK. So we agree that official United States government policy increased crime in nicer neighborhoods and that nobody thinks differently. And we probably agree that murders are considerably more serious than any of the hypothetical harms caused by apartment rentals, especially given the statistical evidence for a direct causal effect of government policy presented in the article. So: given that it is still official US government policy to increase the murder rate in middle class neighborhoods (Section 8's budget was raised to $19B in 2011), exactly why should anyone believe other government housing regulations would promote the common welfare?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The article doesn't show shit. It completely ignores the fact that murders in large cities hit record lows right before the recession, even though such cities are the heaviest users of Section 8. As for mid-size cities? Look at the cities on that list and see what happened to their Hispanic immigrant profile over the last two decades. The article makes no attempt to factor out that phenomenon. Section 8 is a solution to a problem that has no good solution. Segregation is worse--it destroys economic development in the ghettos and its not like those people can't go up to the nice neighborhoods. Moreover, it's not like people who live in Chicago want to take the suburb route and move to the suburbs, separated by distance so the poor minorities can't reach them.

by temphn 14y ago

geebee 14y ago

Like I said, the law isn't anyone's idea of a good first option. The law is where you go when talking to your neighbors has turned out to be useless, the lawbreaking is obvious, and the damage is great enough that you need to coerce someone into stopping. Also want to be fair here, - in general, I would not expect airbnb rentals to lead to this kind of dispute very often. But the gov't wouldn't be interceding in the minutiae of a dispute between neighbors here, they'd be creating and enforcing legislation around minimum lease duration, which I think is a much less objectionable role for government.

temphn 14y ago
But the gov't wouldn't be interceding in the minutiae of a dispute between neighbors here, they'd be creating and enforcing legislation Every new law makes something that was previously discretionary either compulsory or forbidden. Do you trust the DoJ to enforce these new laws for the benefit of the guy with loud neighbors? Or do you think instead that they will be used to help landlords and hoteliers with deep pockets come up with excuses to chuck tenants and soak internet rental startups? If you don't want AirBnB rooms nearby, (a) talk to them, (b) talk to your landlord, (c) move, (d) look on a map to see whether AirBnB rooms will be rented nearby. Most people in SF, NYC, or the Valley don't even know their neighbors. A large NYC apartment is like a hotel anyway, there might be 1-2 faces you'd recognize in the elevator but that's it. These fears have zero stats behind them while the USG moving in murderers next door unfortunately has plenty of statistical backing.
- geebee 14y ago
  I'm not sure what this has to do with long vs short term rentals, other than that you don't trust the government to do anything. I also see absolutely no reason why supporting regulation of short term rentals somehow commits you to supporting a failed section 8 program, other than that the government is involved in both. You left out option e) urge your representative in government to limit short term rentals, and once this laws are in place, bring a civil lawsuit or take some other legally coercive measure if your neighbor refuses to comply. That said, I would prefer to see these laws kept as local as possible, and many communities will be perfectly happy to allow short term rentals, as it will provide them with a new way to profit from their property. I'd agree that if a local district decides to allow AirBnBs to proliferate, and you aren't happy, then you must move - preferably to a place that doesn't allow them. You will accept that restriction in exchange for the benefits you believe it brings you. Keep in mind, there's a strong undercurrent of libertarianism that supports heavy decentralization rather than zero regulation across the board - you just have to promise not to try to impose your will on the next township over.
  - temphn 14y ago
    e) urge your representative in government Well, there are 700,000 people in the average Congressional district. Go ahead and urge, it will do nothing. You need some kind of political megaphone (like a newspaper) to get them to listen. I also see absolutely no reason why supporting regulation of short term rentals somehow commits you to supporting a failed section 8 program, other than that the government is involved in both. The point is: should we trust the same government which is moving in murderers next door to intercede? As for whether the program is failed, no argument there from me, but has "urging your representative" done anything about it? The idea that new laws will solve a problem is the fundamental fallacy. Who is enforcing the laws? What is their track record on other problems? And so why do you trust them?

radley 14y ago

I gave you an upvote for the interesting and unique stat. You're probably getting downvoted for almost paranoid conclusion you add after.

rayiner 14y ago

First, crime has been falling in American cities almost monotonically since the 1980's, aside from a slight uptick in the last several years as a result of the recession. Second, nobody thinks that Section 8 doesn't increase crime in nicer neighborhoods. The rationale is that spreading out the poor families via Section 8 reduces overall crime in the city versus concentrating them into the projects. I used to live in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in Chicago, and many of the surrounding high-rises took Section 8 residents. While I'm sure they raised property crime slightly in the area, I think most people preferred that state of affairs to having the Cabrini-Green projects next door.

temphn 14y ago
they raised property crime slightly The article shows that they increased the murder rate substantially. Moreover, most people would prefer to have 10 murderers focusing their attentions on each other than having them next door. A spatially localized Cabrini Green which you can avoid is far superior to one that you cannot, especially when it is your tax dollars that are being used against your will to create this dangerous situation. By contrast, AirBnB is not forcing you to pay the rent for the hipsters boarded in your neighbor's domicile. nobody thinks that Section 8 doesn't increase crime in nicer neighborhoods OK. So we agree that official United States government policy increased crime in nicer neighborhoods and that nobody thinks differently. And we probably agree that murders are considerably more serious than any of the hypothetical harms caused by apartment rentals, especially given the statistical evidence for a direct causal effect of government policy presented in the article. So: given that it is still official US government policy to increase the murder rate in middle class neighborhoods (Section 8's budget was raised to $19B in 2011), exactly why should anyone believe other government housing regulations would promote the common welfare?
- rayiner 14y ago
  The article doesn't show shit. It completely ignores the fact that murders in large cities hit record lows right before the recession, even though such cities are the heaviest users of Section 8. As for mid-size cities? Look at the cities on that list and see what happened to their Hispanic immigrant profile over the last two decades. The article makes no attempt to factor out that phenomenon. Section 8 is a solution to a problem that has no good solution. Segregation is worse--it destroys economic development in the ghettos and its not like those people can't go up to the nice neighborhoods. Moreover, it's not like people who live in Chicago want to take the suburb route and move to the suburbs, separated by distance so the poor minorities can't reach them.