Here's what I found most interesting about the article:
St. Louis has been spending millions of dollars on urban renewal even as the crime rate climbs.
Funny how so many buy into the notion that if we just give people in urban areas more free stuff (nicer homes, trendier businesses, etc.) they will be compelled to turn from their wicked ways and stop killing each other. Interesting how it never occurs to lawmakers that it might work the other way around...that violent crime is what causes urban areas to deteriorate into slums.
The fact is, successful businesses are one of the factors that bring prosperity to any area. But it's tough to run a business when you have to be constantly worried about being robbed or shot. Consequently, businesses don't stick around long in crime-ridden areas. Reduce crime first, and voluntary urban renewal will follow.
So...how do we reduce crime in urban areas? The first step would be to call off the War on Drugs...but that's another post.
1 comment:
Imagine if they included East St. Louis in the stats!
I'm pretty sure that the best way to reduce violent crime is to have your baseball team win the World Series.
Other than that, yeah, de-criminalizing the posession, use, and sale of drugs would eliminate a lot of the violence from that market. But then more people would engage in casual drug use! The horror!
But, to play devil's advocate, is the problem really the drug war? Why is crime so high in St. Louis City but relatively safe in St. Louis County? The same question could be asked about Baltimore, which has similarly horrible violent crime stats, and a similar number of attemts to "renew" the inner city at great expense, while the county thrives with a fraction of the public spending. In both cities, white flight has long since been replaced by middle-class black flight, so it's hard to blame it on race if you're a conservative or racism if you're a liberal.
Post a Comment