Poll: Is St. Louis Really The Most Dangerous City?

There it was in news reports from coast to coast — St. Louis is the most dangerous city:

“St. Louis has replaced Camden, New Jersey as the most dangerous U.S. city, according to a study based on FBI crime data and released Monday. St. Louis had 2,070 violent crimes per 100,000 residents last year, well over the national average of 429, according to the report issued by social science publisher CQ Press. Camden ranked second this year, with Detroit, Michigan; Flint, Michigan; and Oakland, California rounding out the top five most crime-ridden cities, according to the report.” (Reuters)

And like clockwork the validity of the study is questioned:

Each year when Crime in the United States is published, some entities use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, or region. Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual reporting units from cities, metropolitan areas, states, or colleges or universities solely on the basis of their population coverage or student enrollment. (FBI)

At the same time violent crime has spiked:

“(KMOV) – With 25 homicides, November is one of the most deadly months St. Louis has ever seen. It’s also the worst month St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom says he’s seen in his 23 years as a police officer.”

In 2007 St.. Louis was ranked #2 most dangerous by the same group.  In November 2007 I wrote:

“Do I feel unsafe in the city? No. Are there places where I might feel unsafe at 1am, you bet! But there are likely places I’d feel unsafe in the safest city? Absolutely.”

The poll this week asks your thoughts on this #1 ranking.

– Steve Patterson

Readers Like St. Louis’ Gateway Transportation Center

In the poll last week readers liked our combined Amtrak & Greyhound station but were not impressed with the surroundings.

Q: St. Louis’ combined Amtrak & Greyhound station opened on 11/21/2008. Your thoughts on the station?

1. Can’t compete with the heyday of Union Station but it is a vast improvement over facilities for the decades prior. 84 [58.74%]
2. The station is OK but the immediate area needs attention. 33 [23.08%]
3. Other answer… 11 [7.69%]
4. James Howard Kunstler was right, it is an embarrassing eyesore. 8 [5.59%]
5. Unsure/no opinion 5 [3.5%]
6. I didn’t like it at first but I’ve warmed to it. 1 [0.7%]
7. I liked it at first but I’m less and less impressed as times goes on. 1 [0.7%]

The following are the “other” answers:

1. I LOVE IT !
2. Needs to be near the Metro, needs multilevel parking garage.
3. nice. but money should be invested in union station
4. Should of used Union Station
5. Why not re-use Union Station? It works, and would make it seem less empty
6. Where is the option for like?
7. It is an eyesore, and embarrassing that the original is so under-utilized.
8. functional, but architecturally weak
9. I like it, plain and simple
10. It’s not terrible, but an under utilized Union Station is criminal!
11. I have liked it all along.

Amtrak pulled out of Union Station in the early 70s, switching to a shack under the large train shed and finally to a “temporary” along the rail lines.  Union Station, a massive structure, was sold to private developers.  Additional structures have been constructed between the former station and the rail lines.  Amtrak doesn’t like to back into stations.  Need more reasons why not Union Station?

I don’t get the comment above, “Needs to be near the Metro.”  They could not be any closer together!

ABOVE: View of Civic Center MetroLink & bus transfer center as seen from the east entrance