> No city census or national crime analysis categorizes burglary as a violent crime, and I'm not sure why you called SF out on it.
Most other cities aren't wallowing in it the same way, and aren't holier than thou despite their polices clearly having caused the issue. But you're right, it's not just SF. LA and Seattle are pretty much right there too.
The crime cities like SF are worth calling out in a way that other violent cities aren't though because there's a giant epidemic of what we're pressured to call "non-violent crime" like shoplifting and car theft that gets violent instantly whenever the criminal doesn't get their way. I've personally seen people get shoved out of the way of a fleeing thief, and videos of people being attacked when they come back at the wrong time and discover their car being robbed. To say SF isn't violent ignores that the residents are on the edge of violence constantly.
> SF is 55 out of the biggest 100 cities on burglary rates, by the way.
These crime rates are what's reported by the police and they refuse to take reports of anything that hasn't escalated so they ignore most of what the everyday person suffers. These statistics should be seen more as evidence of collusion in the SFPD, not used to prove the safety of the city.
That's a strange way of spelling Cleveland, Memphis, Baton Rouge, Tulsa, Baltimore, Albuquerque, Detroit, Mobile, Cincinnati, Toledo, Des Moines, Seattle, Indianapolis, Spokane, St. Louis, San Bernadino, Bakersfield, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Minneapolis, Durham, Orlando, Wichita... And I can't be bothered to list the next 30, all of whom also have more burglaries per capita than SF, and most of which also have more assaults, murders, and rapes.
LA is #73 on the burglary index, by the way.
You're making a lot of claims, and providing zero data for them.
> These crime rates are what's reported by the police and they refuse to take reports of anything that hasn't escalated
I live in two of the drug cities and visit others, and pay taxes that support many of these policies specifically. Do you live in one of the west-coast cities in question, or is this an abstract political battle for you? If you live here, do you feel you're a representative resident?
> if all you have is anecdotes, speculation and just-so stories?
Well, there's the crux of it, these are anecdotes that have happened to me personally. Over decades of experience and watching things change. And there's tons of data collected by victims but as has been pointed out, the news often chooses to report on acknowledged crime where a police officer has been sent out and taken a report. FB groups where people log violent street interactions or businesses' windows being broken show a definite uptick that government statistics don't. I know it's true because I walk past enough of those broken windows and stabbing sites to provide a reality check for what I'm seeing published.
We know that there are vastly more actual rapes than reported rapes and punished rapes. Why it is so unreasonable that there are vastly more actual attacks and robberies than reported?
> [other cities] all of whom also have more burglaries per capita than SF, and most of which also have more assaults, murders, and rapes.
Perception of livability despite violent crime has a lot to do with the localization of that crime. If only certain areas, at certain times, are dangerous - and if those areas are ones that can be avoided - then you can generally just go elsewhere with your family and be fine. That's the liberal way SF and such used to work. Sure, there were sleezy places but the street people would even helpfully and quietly warn tourists - "Hey bud, there's a lot of drugs down here, you should really take your kids a few blocks that way."
But once it spills over into random attacks outside that area, such that you can be killed at the busiest coffee shop in the city, the entire veneer of safety goes away.
We're saying two main things: that it got bad really quickly and predictably, and it's being officially downplayed.
> Please provide a shred of evidence that this doesn't happen in any of the other other cities listed in
It's somewhat annoying that what should be an issue of local policy ends up being purity-checked by people trying to decide if we're too partisan in national politics. We're talking about our policies, not trying to claim that other cities can't fail just as hard as we are but with a different set of errors.
Most other cities aren't wallowing in it the same way, and aren't holier than thou despite their polices clearly having caused the issue. But you're right, it's not just SF. LA and Seattle are pretty much right there too.
The crime cities like SF are worth calling out in a way that other violent cities aren't though because there's a giant epidemic of what we're pressured to call "non-violent crime" like shoplifting and car theft that gets violent instantly whenever the criminal doesn't get their way. I've personally seen people get shoved out of the way of a fleeing thief, and videos of people being attacked when they come back at the wrong time and discover their car being robbed. To say SF isn't violent ignores that the residents are on the edge of violence constantly.
> SF is 55 out of the biggest 100 cities on burglary rates, by the way.
These crime rates are what's reported by the police and they refuse to take reports of anything that hasn't escalated so they ignore most of what the everyday person suffers. These statistics should be seen more as evidence of collusion in the SFPD, not used to prove the safety of the city.