High Crime vs Low Crime

[Roark]

Has anyone done a comparison on the economic benefits of living in high property crime vs low property crime areas?

My initial guess: Since people tend to overestimate the likelihood of being a victim of property crime, the cost of living in an area with a perceived high property crime rate will be much cheaper when factoring in the cost of the risks.

Unfortunately, property crime and violent crime tend to run in tandem. However, violent crime is often not random street crime, but quite frequently domestic abuse or other issues that you won't be a victim of if you move into a high violent crime area. Has anyone weighed the costs and benefits of living in a high violent crime area vs say, traveling a longer distance to work and risking a car accident? My initial guess is that people are much more likely to harm themselves from traveling long distances in a motor vehicle than by exposing themselves to random violent crime, given *most* scenarios.

If you have any links where economists may have weighed this, please submit them, or if you want to engage in careful economic discussion, please do.

[GandK]

I haven't studied it in the context of moving there myself, but I became very interested in this issue when the 20yo newlywed daughter of a friend of ours deliberately moved into a high-crime area of urban Cincinnati with her new husband to serve the poor. We weren't sure how worried for them to be. But they were not harassed in any way, likely because they were not involved in crime or drugs and because they had nothing of value to steal (like most newlyweds).

Journalist's Resource is a good place to look for info on this sort of thing. Pretty much any research study that it's possible to sensationalize finds its way to that site eventually.

[Laura Ingalls]

Interesting idea.
I think part of the problem measuring this is other things come into play besides crime for most of us. For example, I need good public schools. . Someone else needs more quiet or thinks having the best grocery store in town is important.

I did live in the very lowest crime city over 50,000 in the US for many years. It was good, but I think I would have traded a bit more crime for less public safety spending .

[Roark]

Yes, I didn't want to start talking about public schools in this thread (because it is very well known that real estate prices are high in "better" public school areas, and there would have to be some further research about whether the schools pre-select for better test scores or produce them) but since you brought it up I'll say that knowing where the best public schools are helps me decide which areas to avoid. There is a huge price premium there. Also, I am perplexed by the idea that there is a "problem" with finding the answer to this question because there are separate questions that individuals have to weigh in their real estate decisions. I think that people should feel comfortable finding the answer to this question and also comfortable finding the answer to additional questions on pricing.

On the original topic, I'll keep posting research I find. Overall it seems like one should be afraid of motor vehicle accidents more than homicides. This means that moving somewhere that reduces vehicle miles traveled should be more important than moving away from crime. Also, when people are concerned with moving into an area with greater homicides, they should consider that those homicides are often domestic, which means that they don't affect you.

"“One might argue that transportation equipment, and in particular the motor vehicle, must be the most dangerous machines that we interact with on a daily basis,” the researcher states. “The annual toll in motor vehicle crashes exceeds the deaths resulting from the next most dangerous mechanical device, firearms, by about 40%.”"

Here is something on urban vs rural safety:

"Urban roads are far safer than those in rural areas: “Based on data from 2009, highways in rural areas have a fatality risk that is 2.7 times greater than that in urban areas. In general the lower average speeds, greater provision of lighting, greater deployment of traffic control devices and fewer curves in urban areas more than compensate for factors such as the greater number of intersections and the presence of pedestrians.”

(Thanks for the link GandK) http://journalistsresource.org/studies/ ... modes-time

Another site comparing accidents vs crime, and then urban vs rural

" According to a new study (PDF) published today in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, large cities in the U.S. are significantly safer than rural areas. The risk of injury death — which counts both violent crime and accidents — is more than 20% higher in the countryside than it is in large urban areas."

"Now it’s true that the risk of homicide is greater in big cities than it is in the countryside. But the study, which analyzed 1,295,919 deaths from injury between 1999 and 2006, found the rate of dying from an unintentional injury is over 15 times higher than that of homicide for the population as a whole. Whether you live in rural areas or the city, you’re much less likely to die from a gunshot wound — either from someone else or self-inflicted — than you are in a simple accident. Especially car crashes, which make up the bulk of unintentional injury deaths — motor-vehicle-injury-related deaths occurred at a rate that is more than 1.4 times higher than the next leading cause of death."

"Motor-vehicle crashes led to 27.61 deaths per 100,000 people in most rural areas, and just 10.58 deaths per 100,000 people [in urban areas]."

http://science.time.com/2013/07/23/in-t ... s-to-live/

[jennypenny]

I think there are a lot of factors and costs to consider. Housing costs would be lower. As far as an automobile, I would think it's cheaper if living in a HC area meant giving up a car. If you kept the car, insurance rates would be higher and you'd own another liability that could be stolen or vandalized. Food and household goods are usually more expensive in HC areas, if available at all. It would take more coordination/effort to keep those costs low. Ethnic grocers are adequate, but ethnic neighborhoods are usually a step up from HC neighborhoods. Public services may also be limited in HC areas (for example, daytime-only library hours).

I think it's worth comparing to see which is better. I would look carefully at the types of crime committed in an area. I wouldn't judge them all the same. Poor neighborhoods are different than immigrant neighborhoods, which are different than gang or drug-filled neighborhoods. I would guess a step up from a HC area, maybe bordering it or in an industrial area, might be the best compromise.

One caveat is to be mindful of your own ethnicity when choosing. I know of neighborhoods in Philly that would drive out certain people if they tried to move there. It's not right, but why be a target? BTW ... I can think of examples of such neighborhoods with *every* ethnicity, not just one, so don't think I'm pointing fingers at any particular group.

[jennypenny]

Overall it seems like one should be afraid of motor vehicle accidents more than homicides. This means that moving somewhere that reduces vehicle miles traveled should be more important than moving away from crime. Also, when people are concerned with moving into an area with greater homicides, they should consider that those homicides are often domestic, which means that they don't affect you.

It isn't surprising that people are more concerned with homicides. How many motor vehicle accidents result in fatalities? I'm pretty sure most homicides do.

[7Wannabe5]

Follow the artists.

[jacob]

Has anyone done a comparison on the economic benefits of living in high property crime vs low property crime areas?

No idea ... but I can make some economist theorizing (oxymoron, runawaaaaaay!!) if you want?

1) If you believe that the real estate market is efficient over a 10-year period (to smooth out recessions), then obviously no. Whatever you save on rent is exactly made up for by extra costs in terms of stress (sirens, shouting, gunshots, ... all night long) lack of appreciation, risk of death, risk of psychic damage (if you get robbed or broken into), having to drive for everything because there are no service in the area including public transportation, bad neighborhood (no "good people" to interact with), having to fix vandalized property, zero maintenance for the past X years, roaches gone wild, sketchy types on every street corner, pot holes everywhere, plywood instead of windows, ...

2) If you believe the opposite, then you assert that you can figure out whether some area is up and coming. Getting gentrified, etc. This should eliminate the costs above and then create a price evolution that reflects this. If you know the secret to this, you score!

In either case, whether the market reflects the price or not, the price is set by the marginal buyer. If you mostly care about not getting shot and do not mind about all the other issues, then likely high crime areas are underpriced from your perspective because the risk adjusted cost of getting murdered is relatively low.

In that case, I should draw your attention to the exact houses residing right under the flight corridor of major airports. I was actually looking at some of those houses where airplanes fly over about 150 feet up every 5 minutes. They are very cheap. That is, insofar that you don't care about slowly going crazy and increasing your cancer risk. If those are not issues (good earplugs, you're almost never home to breathe the fumes) ... those seem like great deals.

However, I care ... and I prefer some sporadic garage tagging to that.

The anecdotal hearsay from Chicago bears out what GandK and jp said about poor areas. If you're obviously NOT a gangbanger: you don't look like one(*); you don't associate with them; ... then they'll leave you alone. Meaning---they won't shoot you. Doesn't mean they're not going to snatch your wallet or your iThing; tag your garage or door or send a stray bullet through one of your windows because the rules of engagement is something like "ready, fire, aim" or "fire, ready, aim" but never "ready, aim, fire".

(*) Skin color ... this, unfortunately, is still an issue.

Your risk of damage also depends on whether you think defensively (what could possible go wrong in this situation) or whether naive optimism gets you into stupid situations that wiser people would have avoided. This again would influence your perception of "safety". Experienced urbanites would likely reach a completely different safety rating someone who who've lived forever in a suburban bubble.

TL;DR - You're more likely to die by car than you are to get shot. (But also consider that poor drivers are more likely to die by car just as people who are into crime are more likely to die by bullet. If you're a careful driver and don't drive insane roads, your probabilities go down by a lot.). However, the extra and nonlethal costs of a high crime area should also be considered and those vary person by person.

[Riggerjack]

As someone who has rolled and burned a car (spinning on the roof of your car, in between rolls is an unforgettable experience!), and who grew up with criminals, I choose to drive.

Yes, living in the sticks means a higher chance of death by deer/tree/bear than someone living in a high crime area has of death by crime. However, that is only looking at death, a depressing myopic view, indeed. Look at the total package. My deer/tree/bear is more likely to kill me than your burglar/rapist/gang member is to kill you. But my trees, deer and bear make a more positive impression on my life each day I don't die.

On a separate note, crime rate has consistently dropped for generations. Sociology can't explain why it's gone down. At the same time, prison population is much higher. The cynical side of me would like to point out that this is because crimes committed on the prison population doesn't get counted in those crime statistics.

What I can say, having grown up with criminals, is there is a different set of acceptable behaviors. A set I am more comfortable keeping at a distance. I wouldn't avoid a high crime area for fear of my life, I'd avoid it for quality of life.

[billc]

i think there are enough opportunities to find affordable shelter in low crime areas that it's not really worth messing with high crime areas. The mental energy expended on daily life (security, food, transit, etc) is probably greater than the mental energy required to scout out an affordable solution in a low crime area (roommates, garage apartment, owning a duplex, etc).

Obviously it's a rare event, and that's kind of your point - but look at riots in Baltimore this past spring. One of the only grocery stores in area (CVS) was burned to the ground. Plenty of row houses for sale in West Baltimore for <$15,000, but they're under $15,000 for a reason. Especially as tensions build based on race issues related to policing, it's probably advisable to avoid risky areas.

[SimpleLife]

I think the issue is deeper than whether crime actually affects you as a direct victim. Jacob pointed out the psychological and emotional damage that can come as a result of living under a flight path, on a busy street, in a bad neighborhood where people are standing on the street corners, graffiti, etc.

If you are eventually a direct victim, what is the cost to you? I would wager that it negates the savings of a cheaper house or apartment after being robbed, beaten, or raped.

1) You can either spend a lot of money to live in good area with a reasonable commute.

2) You can spend little money and live in a good area with a long commute.

3) You can live in a ghetto and have a reasonable commute.

Something has to give, either what you are paying, how much you commute, or the safety of the neighborhood.

[Riggerjack]

Let me talk about my experiences in high crime areas.

Outside every military base or fort there is an unsavory neighborhood, I'm going to talk about Parkland, outside McChord AFB, and Dyer street, outside Ft Bliss.

These are not particularly ethnic neighborhoods. The military presence increases the Asian populations, but Parkland is fairly white, and El Paso is mainly white and Mexican.

In the 80's, my uncles regularly kicked in doors in Parkland. They prided themselves on never getting caught in residential robberies. (All but one are lifers, now. But still not for residential robberies...) They targeted the day working, employed, low to middle class. No apts, the suburban developments were better laid out for smash and dash robberies. Usually in and out in 2 minutes, grab jewelry, electronics (if mobile enough) cash, etc. If they hit your place, you'd come home to a busted front door, some of your stuff tossed, maybe some missing. They would put more effort into the higher value targets, but this was the day in, day out routine.

As a minimalist, your stuff would not attract their attention. And stuff is not that big a concern, right? So the property crime isn't that big a deal.

In the early 90's I was stationed at Ft Bliss, and spent most nights at some place on Dyer street. There were over 200 drive by shootings the year I left. I only saw one, from across the street, as the bars emptied out and someone fired into the crowd. But I've been in the bar that had a gang chase someone thru, and the cops came back the next night asking for witnesses, because he didn't survive that chase. A close friend got beaten and stabbed (with a broken bottle) in the parking lot by a gang "wilding" thru. Not a random thing, it was his choice to be on Dyer after dark, but nearly random, as in wrong place/time/skintone. I was inside at the time, and had no idea what was happening in the parking lot. There was plenty of low key violence, but that was the highlights.

Don't hang out in bars, keep your head down, again not a big deal, you can still live in a low rent place and be safe.

My uncle Jimmy is a few months younger than me, half Japanese, slim and 5'8". His advice for surviving jail time was "Stay awake as long as you can. Watch for someone small and alone, and when you have to sleep, pick a fight with that guy, right in front of a guard. You can sleep all day in solitary." That is prison life, and they don't stay there forever. The prison population mostly rotates in and out of high crime areas and prisons. Even the guys who only went in once, and are determined to go straight, come out, and have to make their lives work. HCAs are where they live while trying to figure that out.

What I'm trying to say is I grew up with folks who had loyalty as the prime defining group characteristic. The world was divided into "one of us, or just a potential target" and still, you had to keep your guard up, even against friends. As a teenage boy and young man, this seemed natural, of course the world is divided as us vs them, and the "us" is a fluid definition. Never dropping your guard is an exhausting way to live your life. It also limits your ability to seek opportunities.

The real down side is that low rent is where you are, if your options are limited. Halfway houses, addicts, and plenty of folks who learned about mating rituals involving coercion, blah, blah. It's where the soap opera, the DramaRama, is the way of life. Too many people, with too much time, too few resources, only entertained by TV and the games they can play on each other.

It's that last part that raises the hair on the back of my neck. If you are good at social games, it may be entertaining to you, too. Know before you go, because this is the big leagues of social games, and the competition is bloody, precisely because the stakes are so low.

Look, you can live in HCAs, and live and prosper, never getting any good stories or drama. You can keep your nose clean, and your head down, and add to your savings. But the real costs are mainly not financial. Factor that in.

[Papers of Indenture]

I spent 18 months in a high crime area of Baltimore. I put up with 1 home burglary (committed by my neighbors) and 1 high speed police chase ending with a burning car laying on it's roof in my front lawn (literally). I finally decided I had enough after having a junkie shot to pieces on my front door step (literally) as I was 12 paces away eating my dinner and then later being threatened by the shooters (a 54 year old man and a 15 year old boy).

That being said...I was paying $300/month to live in a 3 story 3br/1.5ba house.

My experience is that if you are in a truly high crime area...the crime will find you.

[SimpleLife]

I spent 18 months in a high crime area of Baltimore. I put up with 1 home burglary (committed by my neighbors) and 1 high speed police chase ending with a burning car laying on it's roof in my front lawn (literally). I finally decided I had enough after having a junkie shot to pieces on my front door step (literally) as I was 12 paces away eating my dinner and then later being threatened by the shooters (a 54 year old man and a 15 year old boy).

That being said...I was paying $300/month to live in a 3 story 3br/1.5ba house.

My experience is that if you are in a truly high crime area...the crime will find you.

Yep. I would sacrifice a few things to ERE, but dealing with that is not one of them.

[7Wannabe5]

I really like my high crime neighborhood-lol. It's the opposite of a food desert because all the recent immigrants run wonderful little inexpensive markets full of better quality, higher variety foodstuffs than I was even able to purchase at the very upscale markets in the college town I previously inhabited. There all sorts of free or very low cost cultural events such as festivals, art shows, lectures, concerts going on all the time. Tonight I am attending a free panel discussion, including Alice Waters, on the Greening of Detroit. Everybody is very friendly, and I already feel like a part of the community having lived here less than a year total. The elderly Polish woman across the street from me keeps watch from her balcony and feels free to yell commentary at the men I am dating when they double-park to pick me up. When I am at my vacant lots gardening, people come up and offer me the use of lawn mowers, advice or some of whatever they are growing or just to chit-chat. If my sister's car needs a jump, somebody gets right up off their porch and comes over to help. A very polite 10 year old with Bengali accent will approach me in the market, and say "Good afternoon, Miss. I remember you from my school. " and shake my hand.

OTOH, I have had a bike and a garden cart stolen from my yard, and I have been solicited for prostitution and offered Xanax by a kid on a bike. I don't drink very much or wander around by myself after dark, so maybe crime is less of an issue for me, but it's not like I wandered around by myself after dark when I lived in college towns, suburbs or countryside either. The biggest downside is that it is at least a 6 mile bike ride to anything resembling serious green space. My share of rent and utilities for my half of classic 1930s architecture, rather large 2 bedroom flat with front porch and small yard and basement is $300/month. My sister pays around $400 because she has 3 dogs.

Generally, it has been my experience that I very much prefer a mix of culture and nature in my lifestyle. College towns or small cities like Ann Arbor, Austin or Asheville will offer this mix but at a very high price, the suburbs are a poor sort of middle-class compromise along the lines of default-to-"No"-long-married-sex, and living in the countryside/nature and visiting the city is more expense and hassle and environmentally unsound than living in the city and visiting the countryside/nature.

[bradley]

Something has to give, either what you are paying, how much you commute, or the safety of the neighborhood.

Or you can work to eliminate the commute by either working from home, or finding a job nearby. Also, you can compromise with the living situation, like billc said: living with roommates, garage apartment, etc.)

In any case, there's many up-and-coming places on the East Coast that are "medium-crime," if you will, or whose crimes are mostly related to things that you can actually avoid (car break ins--- then don't own a car, etc.) There is a sweet spot to find, but you can really only decide that for yourself based on what you're comfortable with.

[sky]

People often want to take a shortcut to low-cost quality outcomes.

One of these shortcuts is what I call bottom-feeding, which means searching for outcomes in situations that are suboptimal, dangerous, distasteful, ugly or otherwise undesirable because the bottom-feeder believes this is where the best deals and lowest costs are found.

Often low-cost quality outcomes are available in these places, but the bottom-feeder is focused more on finding the negative conditions "because that is where the best deals are".

Bottom-feeding is a form of mental laziness. The search for low-cost high quality outcomes must include a constant self analysis of what quality is and what quality means to the individual. A review of the full range of options is important, not just the options that must be cheap because of the negatives which drive the price down. The selection and purchase shoud be based on a balance of price and quality.

[startbyserving]

I agree with both pro and con opinion sets here. People do overestimate the chance of being involved in crime, especially in areas that are not truly "hardcore" I.e. I live in a city / town where there isn't a street I would be afraid to walk at night as a good size guy. (Okay, I've learned to narrow my risk, so there are some streets I would RATHER not walk at this point. What myself and other people in my community consider a high-crime area some of you in major cities probably consider a joke. At least in my case, I'd say there is some opportunity to live in/around a general high crime area successfully.

While in college I spent some time in public housing. I wouldn't recommend the first location to anyone, and I might go further into detail on it if this circles back. My second location was what I'll describe as a "pocket ghetto". Some cities prefer to spread out the crime and build public housing in otherwise good areas. This is a location I moved to after my original location was slated for replacement (Perfectly good housing is often demolished, just to be replaced with housing that looks more modern/ "less like public housing"). In my second location, I lived on the edge of the complex facing the street, and didn't have to drive into he complex if I didn't choose to. I did encounter some issues while I was there:

• Side swipe / hit and run on Sig. other's car late at night.
• A passerby maliciously knocked my motorcycle over for enjoyment (I almost caught them, but people in these areas can be seemingly like you see on TV. Someone knocked on my door and let me know what happened. But then when the police showed up, they "weren't sure".).
• Intoxicated persons getting confused and knocking on my door late at night in error.
• Couple above me shouting / stomping, etc at all hours.
• Routine entry to verify house was kept orderly (Specific to public housing).

On the flip side I did see the community as welcoming and helpful. The majority of the real problem in the public housing wasn't the true residents. Perhaps 'temporary released' criminals mentioned by the poster above. I had a 'yard sale' a few times selling cheap groceries for good prices I had gotten for free. Neighbors seemed to like this. Someone offered me tools if I ever needed to work on my car. A grandmother the floor above me would offer me food and such. I was perhaps too friendly because they were extremely talkative and I spend hours visiting sometimes. (I wasn't their only friend, they just had an extremely talkative personality that was too much for me). Person across the hall from me appeared to leave late in the evening to go to work. Of course he played video games and I recall him getting the newest iphone at the time. Myself I was part of the 10-20% white population of a 80-90% black complex, but I was made to feel welcome. (Occasionally someone did ask if I was a cop... ha ha. Of course I told them, not a chance.)

Some of my issues were typical "apartment living" such as noisy neighbors. Some of my issues were issues with "having stuff" and not managing it properly. If you consider that I lived there about 5 years total, those things seem pretty minimal compared to the money I saved. Because a lot of crime is "inside jobs" where ever you live it can be beneficial when people know you live a humble life, without a lot of stuff.
As far as purchasing something, I would probably stick with single - family houses because you won't want to share a wall or floor with someone that has mental problems. If you get a street or so away, houses are still much cheaper than other areas in the city, but without the hassle of seeing / hearing as much of the activity. Just remember that any work you put into a house in a bad area might be "money down the drain." I.e. If you pay $70,000 for a house that would cost $120,000 to build, how much do you think $5000 in hard wood floors or new kitchen cabinets will add to the value of the home? Maybe less than you think. Not a big deal if you plan to stay there at least 5-10 years, but something to consider.

The Latino areas in my city, are what concerns me the most. I might be over-reacting, but if someone committed a crime, the ability to easily disappear to Mexico or even somewhere else in the U.S. seems too easy. Perhaps the threat or deportation is good enough for most, but I am still leery. Yet, even these area's have some "lucrative transition housing" Not quite in the area and not quite out of the area either. I drove down a particular street where most of the houses had No trespassing signs and/or security systems. It seemed the residents were taking things seriously. These areas seemed like the cost / benefit could pay off, especially if you aren't keeping a lot to steal to begin with.

Regardless of area, I think a low cost security system could be a sound investment. (Especially installed in a way that swiping the recording itself would not be easy.)

Without children to think about living in a general 'high crime" area seems do-able. I think it really comes down to priorities and what you consider your home/house to be. My specific situation sig. other won't let me get away with much in this regard. flowers and Hummingbirds are way too important to them to be inside all the time. They also don't care for dealing with most of the people you run into in these areas. (Even the nice ones can still be a bother as they don't value their time.) We've done a lot of "driving in neighborhoods" to see what we can / can't agree on. I'll be pushing for something as humble as I can get away with, and that will have to be good enough.

[12b-6]

I have lived in high crime areas for a while now. Even if I knew with absolute certainty that I would never be a victim of crime, they still would not be worth the reduced COL. Like Jacob points out, there are numerous psychological effects caused by constant noise, unabashed harassment of women, garbage everywhere (including your lawn), broken glass EVERYWHERE, people with junkyards in their yards, vermin, cockroaches, stray animals, untrained and poorly cared for pets, people constantly honking horns and yelling at all hours of the day and night, and etc. The crime is the least troubling part of high crime areas. I don't think they are ever worth it.

[Andre900]

I believe it's best to avoid stupid places, stupid people, and stupid things. High-crime areas are stupid places full of stupid people doing stupid things.

One of the worst problems with being poor is having to live near poor people.