Conversely it’s also had a consistently higher property crime rate.
As to ease when you "start extremely high" -- SF is now safer, when it comes to violent crime, than most major cities in the US. What it does have is an extremely high rate of quality of life crime.
Interestingly, San Francisco's population declined from 775,000 in 1950 to 679,000 in 1980.
Sources:
Homicide in San Francisco, 1849-2003 (https://cjrc.osu.edu/research/interdisciplinary/hvd/united-s...)
Historical population of San Francisco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco) plus some linear interpolation
My brain:
> Don't look at the Non-Hispanic Black alone row
> Don't look at the Non-Hispanic Black alone row
> Don't look at the Non-Hispanic Black alone row
> Don't look at the Non-Hispanic Black alone row
> FUCK
An undesirable place that washed up people ended up, riddled with crime and violence.
I think I might be getting the story wrong, but I recall hearing there used to be much more crime.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7126a1.htm
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state...
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. We're all afraid of all the wrong things.
I really don't understand what you're talking about.
I wouldn't put too much weight in those kinds of comments.
This isn't just some media driven hysteria.
I think where to draw the line is this "undesirable place" business. That's highly subjective, judgemental, and can cause you to lose sight of a lot.
But I think the belief/feelings that this translates to much worse crime is just not correct. I can sympathize and agree with the idea that homeless and drug problems makes SF less desirable, but I don't think it moves the needle that much on safety and crime.
The only reason I said this, is because I was there for Miami Music Week, and they had multiple shootings two years in a row. It also has a bit of a reputation from the "cocaine cowboys" years. Honestly, the city had a bit of a "feel" to it, but it also seemed to have a great amount of character.
I'm not really passing judgement myself. I live in a place that many people would call "undesirable", and it does hurt... it's also not really fair, because it's a beautiful city with rich culture heritage, and continuing culture.
However, we have lots of shootings here too, and I understand why people are a little apprehensive.
If a homeless person walks up to you and aggressively threatens you as you are passing by, no crime has occurred. But if you're an SF native, you've learned to shrug it off as a commonplace occurrence. You've learned to become thick skinned towards these incidences. And when a real crime has happened, you'd likely assign more gravitas to it.
This is why there is a disconnect between numbers and quoted statistics and how people feel.
Depending on what they say, isn't that still technically "assault"? Or "disturbing the peace"?
Also, if there's poop all over the sidewalks, those are all crimes too.
The problem is that all these petty crimes are generally never reported, and certainly not acted upon by police. So they never show up in the crime statistics.
There's a disconnect between the numbers and quoted statistics and reality, because the statistics come from the police, and their reporting isn't accurate. It isn't accurate anywhere of course, because police aren't perfect and many crimes go unreported for various reasons, but to SF natives, it may seem that this is worse in SF than other places, or in SF in earlier times.
Some guy / lady yelled at you for 10 seconds aggressively. Are you now going to call the cops / file a police report?
I think a majority of people would just move on with their day. So yes, to your point, this wouldn't show up in any statistics.