He is putting more emphasis on his direct experience than in statistics that are undoubtedly cherry-picked and potentially unreliable (by both political extremes). That's not buying into an emotional narrative; that's doing a reality check.
The direct experience of a single person has almost no value when assessing a problem as big as crime rates. It would be like saying cancer rates are up because two people you know got cancer. Direct experience shouldn't be given that much weight.
Direct experience is colored by emotion. I was mugged in the Mission 10 years ago, and it felt shitty, and it took several years for me to feel comfortable walking in some areas of the city again, especially at night. But my feelings were utterly irrelevant to what actual crime rates have been in the city since then.
I agree with you that crime stats can be politicized, but it's equally sketchy to consider n=1 anecdotes as more reliable indicators. Certainly if you yourself experience or are the victim of crime at some particular rate and intensity, then that's suggestive to you, personally. It's entirely logical to make decisions about your own life -- like moving to a safer neighborhood, or avoiding areas in the city where you've experienced crime -- but it's not particularly useful when talking about the city as a whole, or in making general recommendations to residents on how to be safe.
Aggregated year-over-year statistics are cherrypicked but his emotional experience isn't?
Ok, here's my not cherrypicked experience: The issue is massively overblown. It's nowhere near as bad as the sour-grapes living elsewhere would have you believe.
It is a kind of reality check, but as an individual you just see a very small slice of reality, so generalizing from that in space or time is often misleading. And some people cite their personal experience as a way of shutting down debate, ie 'don't tell me about the data on X, I've seen it with my own eyes', and making lengthy impassioned speeches to sideline other points of view.
