I sometimes feel like a crazy person in today's news. A city notorious for decriminalizing... everything, is now crying that crime is too high. What exactly is the news break here?
I think you really just wanted to make the case that the city's policies spurred crime, which is fine, but you should then do that directly instead of making kind of nonsensical snarky quips.
You are correct in my case. My entire comment was three sentences. It was perhaps just a hair snarky, admittedly, but I don't think it was full of quips or nonsensical.
I feel like there should be a way more reasonable middle ground on where to live between 'people are suffering let them steal from you and do whatever they want outside of murder' and 'no gay marriages, no abortion, no welfare', which seem about what we're stuck with anymore.
Does a city exist that is progressive in nature but tough on crime?
I've lived in 6 cities between the great lakes and FL, and it seems like all were way too far in one direction or the other.
If not in policy itself, then in the people.
The US is a big, beautiful, lately-developed, scenically/climatically diverse land that hasn’t had the need to go high-density. Nobody is pushing to build another Manhattan…if the US people had wanted it, the US would have built several Manhattans over the last few decades. Most “normal” (?) US people seem to like their little plot of land and their own detached house, especially as they build families and grow older. The US has always had that luxury/basic human right and the resources to build such houses and that has led to lower population densities even in cities. Most people like a little elbow room (cue the “sprawl is the Devil’s underpants” crowd).
In the early-mid 20th Century, “high-density” meant access to major cultural venues and performances, top performances in sports, first crack at new technologies, broader access to economic opportunities, ease of finding your unique subculture that you could fit into, etc.. and you paid for it in cost-of-living and congestion (time/hassle tax).
Unless you have a major fixation on live performances on a regular basis, most of those positive arguments have weakened in the face of the advances in IT. Not totally gone away, but an occasional visit to a “densely populated” area will check off most of those boxes. The button that says “I <heart> NY, from a comfortable distance” comes to mind.
If a particular densely populated area is your querencia, then of course you have a strong reason/commitment to stay and improve it. Clean it up, it’s your town. Welcome to the slog. You can’t just buy or choose it, you have to build it.
If it isn’t your querencia, then the benefits from trying yet another “densely populated” area seem to have weakened over time and perhaps you should broaden your outlook on things. Do you really want 10000/sq mi, or will 2000/sq mi suffice (or even 500/sq mi) with the occasional trip to any one of several densely populated cities? You’ll see more of the US/world that way, and maybe even save money. You’ll certainly save on the congestion/hassle tax on a day-to-day basis. Get to plant a real garden. Smile at your neighbor who isn’t just the jerk who lives above you.
What are the positive values that you associate with “densely populated”? They differ by individual. Is it size? There are people who like their City to be so big that they couldn’t possibly grok all of it in their lifetime. There is always something new. Some prefer a City they can just fit into their head, like a comfortable overstuffed chair. Some want a small village, to free the rest of their mind for the rest of the human experience. Enquiring minds want to know…
Singapore? You’ll need a system of low wage foreign workers to clean up after your citizens and a complete readjustment to living in small apartment high rises.
Americans don’t want either?
edit: my bad - "Decriminalization or decriminalisation is the lessening or termination of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts" so these things can still be classified as crimes