Comment by dmix | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmix | Hacker News Reader

The South Bronx really was a war-zone.

http://80s.nyc/#show/40.8265/-73.9080

http://80s.nyc/#show/40.8107/-73.9180

http://80s.nyc/#show/40.8188/-73.9217

http://80s.nyc/#show/40.8229/-73.9167

http://80s.nyc/#show/40.8102/-73.9194

http://80s.nyc/#show/40.8152/-73.9165

All of those rent-control incentivized arsons... empty lots with garbage everywhere... dogs running around with no owners visible.

Edit: correction, while rent-control played a big role in Brooklyn's housing abandonment rate, South Bronx faced a variety of factors in addition to rent control:

> For example, housing abandonment in the South Bronx, probably the most devastated area in the entire city, can be plausibly related to the economics of an obsolete housing stock. The area was one of the most densely populated in the country in the 1940s and 1950s, and the housing stock consists almost entirely of five- and six-story walkups. As population density decreased, fifth- and sixth-story walkup apartments became unrentable at prices sufficient for sound building maintenance, irrespective of rent controls. Arson eventually became the owners' only financially rewarding alternative.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100610/BLOGS01/306109...

Another perspective on the rash of South Bronx arsons is that it was caused by bad data science. See story here: http://nypost.com/2010/05/16/why-the-bronx-burned/

Thanks, I came across that article too. I've included an edit, there were many factors involved in the South Bronx blight (economic and political), but yes fire stations shutting down in neighbourhoods with less political pull was certainly one of them.

The fires ended up ruining entire neighbourhoods due to the poor city response times, but the simple fact is many of them were started due to landlord arson or from poor property maintenance by the owners.

The incentives weren't just rent control but also white-flight population decline leading to decreased rent rolls leading to reduced property valuations that weren't yet reflected in insurance valuations.

And much of that white flight was due to the Federal government funding interstates to the suburbs and subsidizing mortgage loans for whites only that made suburban houses cheaper for white middle-class families to live in than urban apartments. http://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1934-1968-FHA-Redl...

The South Bronx was also entirely redlined by the HOLC in the 1930s, rendering it ineligible for mortgage loans for decades: https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=12/40.8328/...

> And much of that white flight was due to the Federal government funding interstates to the suburbs and subsidizing mortgage loans for whites only that made suburban houses cheaper for white middle-class families to live in than urban apartments. .

That study is for "1934–1968". The civil rights act (1969) made that type of discrimination illegal and included provisions to incentivize the reduction of segregation, yet I've read that nearly 50yrs later housing segregation is still today higher (or as high) than before the civil rights act.

I'm sure that federal policy played a big role in white flight but I'm curious why it hasn't reversed despite these changes... there must be other forces still at play here, that or we're seeing a multi-generational side-effect of bad policy.

But regardless it's interesting to think that so much government policy did the exact opposite of help the poor at federal, state, and city level... from city budgeting of fire stations to mortgage incentives to rent control and zoning laws, etc.

Until white people are comfortable living in a 80% minority neighborhood, self-segregation is potentially inevitable regardless of all other factors.

Play with the little simulation at the bottom here: http://nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-segreg...

Notice how low the similarity percentage has to be to get anything that is remotely integrated.

It likely wouldn't be seen as a 'problem' if economic levels were similar. In Toronto the ethnic enclaves are a highly regarded feature of the city and there is very little tension (if at all). Many of our ethnic groups are doing as well and sometimes better than the native white groups.

It's a natural phenomenon for cultural groups to stick together. I see nothing wrong with that and all groups benefit from the variety in food and festivals.

Although we don't have the super high violence rates that spill over into other neighbourhoods and lower incarceration rates.

It's not just economics - Canada doesn't have slave history.

Many of these neighborhoods are predominantly AA and descendants of freed slaves; many residents view these neighborhoods as their territory and however bad the crime might be, at least it is something that is 'theirs' in a country that stole their land, families, etc.

Encroachment is often viewed as racial assault and non-natives are often treated with suspicion at the least, or outright hostility.

The crime and poverty is a separate issue - but if you'll note, when this is solved, the neighborhoods become gentrified and existing poor residents are rapidly displaced.. for these, it was almost preferable to have the crime since they could still live in 'their home' in a neighborhood they grew up in, etc.

> I'm curious why it hasn't reversed despite these changes...

Then came the gangs (70s-90s, still today)...

Neighborhoods like this are/were/became:

a) literal war zones

b) in many cases extremely hostile to non 'natives'

Pretty much if you lived there, you wanted to survive or get out, and no one in their right mind who had a choice wanted to move in, until the gentrification wave of late 90s to now, which only came after crack wars ended and gangs started to be sucessfully supressed..

As for 'policy' -

If you dig beyond the surface corruption, there are plenty of not-so-implausible tinfoil hat theories relating to using drug related crime as a foreign and domestic political tool in most countries..

Reminds me of St. Louis today, it's completely hollowed out with dilapidated buildings everywhere. Sad.

Except St Louis isn't coming back.

Never. Unfortunately.

One of the most stunning parts of the movie Koyaanisqatsi are the demolition of builds in the South Bronx (I'm pretty sure they're there, can someone confirm?). And, the scenes from the movie Wolfen look very similar to the above scenes.

Those were in St. Louis, MO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt–Igoe

Hence the name of the song. (smacks side of head) Thanks.

Looks like Baltimore.

Looks like Detroit today.

Have you been there lately? Fewer dogs but still similar.

If anything, there's more dogs.

I know it's fun to be edgy, but it's even more fun to be pedantic and provide links of what those actual locations look like today:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8265393,-73.9077102,3a,75y,7...

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8107336,-73.9187274,3a,75y,1...

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8187207,-73.921799,3a,75y,13...

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8228232,-73.9165044,3a,75y,3...

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8104059,-73.9199855,3a,75y,8...

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8147291,-73.9166855,3a,75y,3...

>For Bronx, we found that the violent crime rate is one of the highest in the nation, across communities of all sizes (both large and small). Violent offenses tracked included rape, murder and non-negligent manslaughter, armed robbery, and aggravated assault, including assault with a deadly weapon. According to NeighborhoodScout's analysis of FBI reported crime data, your chance of becoming a victim of one of these crimes in Bronx is one in 94.

>NeighborhoodScout's analysis also reveals that Bronx's rate for property crime is 19 per one thousand population. This makes Bronx a place where there is an above average chance of becoming a victim of a property crime, when compared to all other communities in America of all population sizes. Property crimes are motor vehicle theft, arson, larceny, and burglary. Your chance of becoming a victim of any of these crimes in Bronx is one in 54.

Take a walk down there some night and tell me what it looks like up close. Don't bring your wallet.

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ny/bronx/crime

Unless it's gone radically downhill since I was there 4 years ago, it's really just fine...

I mean if you're paranoid about ever having anything happen to you, sure, don't go there. But honestly you should be more worried about heart disease than murder.

This is what I personally can't stand about internet posters. Posting forcefully about things they have done no research on.

The borough of the Bronx compared to a number of cities Using total crime as that's what was used.

Chances of being a victim of property/violent crime Bronx 1 in 95, 1 in 54 Cleveland 1 in 63, 1 in 16 Denver 1 in 148, 1 in 28 San Francisco 1 in 127, 1 in 16

25% more likely to be a affected by violent crime than in San Francisco. And Less likely to be affected by property crime.

No one is saying all areas of the Bronx are utopias (definitely not), but from what I've experienced, people posting comments like the above are either made to disparage, or often are just blindly repeating what someone has read with zero knowledge of facts.

> With a crime rate of 70 per one thousand residents, San Francisco has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes - from the smallest towns to the very largest cities. One's chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime here is one in 14.

  https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ny/bronx/crime
  https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/mo/st-louis/crime
  https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/oh/cleveland/crime
  https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/co/denver/crime
  https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/san-francisco/crime

Thank you for putting those statistics in context; I was going to ask StanislavPetrov to do it, given that he was happy enough to reply to my comment with some "research".

This whole thing is turning into a bizarre "у вас негров линчуют" scenario, complete with a Russian name (one that I'm sure the original Petrov - who actually knew enough about what his particular area of expertise to save the world - would have been loathe to see.)

What I personally can't stand are braying internet jackasses who read statistics and try to tell people who actually live somewhere how things are.

Thank you for reframing your argument from "it's still a desolate warzone" down to "crime exists in a major American city".

If I do take a walk, and end up un-mugged, un-raped and un-murdered, will I be able to talk you down to "property values are significantly lower than suburban Connecticut"?

Wow what an improvement all around, thanks for that. Some of the empty lots are still there but fenced off and with far less blight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com