Anecdotal obviously, but the whole place seemed less orderly than you’d expect given the booming economy there.
I get that personal connections can be a thing (my sister hated Paris because some creep spit on her after she didn't want to flirt with him) but you realize that statistically that data doesn't support your statement right?
I mean if someone said "would you rather move to a city with a 1% violent crime rate where you know someone who's part of that 1% or a different city with a 7% violent crime rate but nobody you know has been affected", you can do whatever you want but I'll take the first option.
(inb4 "different neighborhoods", "crime rates aren't the same across all demographics", etc)
No, I mean "less orderly." The "mugger" was more of a drunk opportunist than a serious criminal. This sort of low-level disorder seemed quite tolerated in Seattle, even compared to Baltimore. Of course, part of the reason for the move was going somewhere safer than downtown Baltimore. But fun fact, Seattle's property crime rate, at 46 per 1,000, is higher than Baltimore's, at 43 per 1,000. The property crime rate in New York City is a third as high, at 16 per 100,000.
But lots of homelessness and open-air drug-dealing (and so on) can make a pretty big impact on what walking down the street on a Tuesday feels like. (I'm not making an argument that one is more desirable than the other. I'm just noting that I think I understand the distinction.)