Retro diner in Detroit neighborhood wards off crime | Hacker News Reader

Retro diner in Detroit neighborhood wards off crime

freep.com

52 pointsrmason30 comments

I don't understand how he does it - just be good to people and they leave you alone? So all the other business owners who got mugged or even killed were bad to some people, and got what they deserved?

The article doesn't really give me the confidence that I could open a shop in that area, be nice to people and everything would be fine and dandy...

The trick is to open your shop 40 years ago and be nice towards the kids who will grow up to commit all sorts of crimes. But because they've had a rapport with you since they were kids, they will avoid directing their criminal activities in your direction.

You always have a risk from kids or outsiders who don't know about you, but it's certainly a lot safer being part of a community than an outsider - which is what you're seen as if you start literally putting up walls between yourself and your customers.

The outside gangs still have to face of the local gang in order to get to you. I agree that will probably not stop some random meth head from grabbing your tip jar and running, but the more organized criminals will at least think for 60 seconds before deciding if you are a valuable enough target to be worth getting into a turf war.

You don't have to be "bad" to be disliked, you just have to be distant and distrustful. In that neighborhood it's not irrational to build a fortress in your business, but that's exactly why this one diner stands out, he's one of them and he lives with them in his business.

You probably couldn't go in and safely start a business there, because of the terrible reality of the neighborhood, and because you're not part of the neighborhood. It's plausible that a local could do it.

> The article doesn't really give me the confidence that I could open a shop in that area, be nice to people and everything would be fine and dandy...

what i can't reconcile is that it did kind of did give me that confidence. in my belly anyway.

brain still says no.

> The article doesn't really give me the confidence that I could open a shop in that area, be nice to people and everything would be fine and dandy...

You would never feel safe enough. All those kids out there causing trouble, John knows who they are and who their parents are. Imagine if your best friend tried to rob one day. The second he opened his mouth, you'd know who he is, and you could say, "Jim? What the hell are you doing, man?"

Maybe if you moved there to open a shop, started with the bulletproof glass, then took it down one day after you got to know everyone, you could do that too. But it requires a different mindset than most people trying to operate a business.

But it's no guarantee. There was the time this guy found out midcourse that the old lady he was robbing was Rosa Parks and went through with it anyway.

That's what I meant when I said, "But it requires a different mindset than most people trying to operate a business." Business owners want guarantees. John's in it for different reasons.

If John got robbed, I doubt he'd go all Fort Knox. He'd just chalk it up to random luck and go about his days as he always had. His house and car are doubtless already paid for. He doesn't need to sweat his bottom line anymore.

Maybe the cause and effect is reversed- every place may start off like this, and then they get robbed, so they put up security.

The ones that randomly have never been robbed end up with no security.

There are actually a few restaurants like this in the poorer sections of Detroit. My family has frequented Scottie Simpsons in the Brightmoor section for over fifty years and it's got the best fish and chips I've had this side of London. Its never been robbed or tagged with graffiti.

There's another possibility: Front for money laundering.

memorandum: "we are laundering money. please do not rob us"

For anyone else who was perplexed by the references to "coney islands": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coney_Island_(restaurant)

The church next door might have an influence: http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/1dfc9a53402155b7687767caf6f8...

Or the fact that they close at 3:30PM everyday.

in detroit, everywhere is next door to a storefront church.

This is a nice feel-good story, but if you think for even five seconds about what it being true would have to imply about "the neighborhood", you'll prefer thinking "random good luck."

That's the kissing cousin of Confirmation Bias. If you think "random good luck" every time you find a piece of evidence that dos not match what you already believe (aka your preconceptions), you will never learn a single thing.

What do you mean?

It is quite simply the worst neighborhood in Detroit for crime. It's got 6% of the cities population but leads for shootings. For any given year you have a 1 in 7 chance of being a victim of crime.

There are plenty of places you could go in Detroit, have a good time and be relatively safe compared to most major cities. Despite this safe haven restaurant this neighborhood isn't one of them.

Here's a neighborhood crime map, darkest blue is safest:

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/mi/detroit/crime/

The two gray areas are not Detroit, they're Highland Park and Hamtramack. Belle Isle (island in the river) since it was taken over by the state is now crawling with state troopers and is one of the safest areas in the city.

It is quite simply the worst neighborhood in Detroit for crime.

Yes, I think the article is clear about that; it actually says it was rated the worst in the country. What I don't get is what the story "implies about the neighborhood" that one would prefer to think he simply has luck.

Try phrasing the thesis of this article in a sentence beginning with the words "People in this neighborhood choose to..." It is absolutely, 100% clear what that thesis is and how that sentence must end. The decisionmaking model it implies is insane, unlikely, and also a thing that nobody who writes at any US newspaper (and certainly not the DFP) can actually get away with writing in any circumstance whatsoever, owing to the neighborhood demographics.

I apologize if I'm a little slow but I still have no idea what I'm supposed to infer. Could you come out and just say clearly what you're trying to convey?

> It is absolutely, 100% clear what that thesis is and how that sentence must end.

It really isn't. I have a vague sense that you're avoiding saying something because you're afraid of being called a racist, or some-such. But that's about all I'm getting from this.

"People in this neighborhood choose to rob well-defended chain stores (with more resources for possible criminal prosecution, like video tapes) instead of ill-defended, independent one-man shops". Sounds a little crazy, but I am getting the strong sense that isn't the thesis statement you were imagining.

Is that so unexpected, though? Ingroup vs. Outgroup.

Many. many people will steal from "faceless corporations", even if they wouldn't steal from an individual.

The owner is clearly part of the in-group.

People in this neighborhood choose to not rob a classic diner.

People in this neighborhood respect John's Diner, and its proprietor.

People in this neighborhood like the one restaurant they have left.

I'm just as confused as the rest of the people.

"People in this neighborhood choose to not rob this particular old diner"? I too am not sure what you're trying to say.

I thought of it more as being entrenched within a community. For a Californian, this would be like robbing an In-N-Out

Reply on news.ycombinator.com