Skip to comments.USA's safest cities? Surprise: SF is not one of them (Pelosi's district)
Posted on 10/29/2009 10:11:39 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Forbes Magazine, famed for its exhaustive lists, has a new one: America's safest cities. The unusual thing about this list is that the list-makers used more than just violent crime statistics to assess the relative safety. Also among the data collected are the number of workplace fatalities, deaths by traffic, and deaths by natural disaster.
San Francisco ranks #25 in the list of 40 major metropolis regions,behind New York (#8), Detroit (#12), Chicago (#15), and Los Angeles (#19).
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
When you see the homeless and drug addicts on Market Street you will not be surprised.
Anna Marie Hibble (author) seems a tad tense...
Don’t worry!...Stetchface is safe...in her guarded and gated mansion...
“Maybe they don’t know San Francisco from Oakland...”
Yeah, after a while all those liberal cesspools sorta look alike. Sounds like the writer doesn’t like the conclusion so she’s attacking those who reached it.
Cool, the two largest cities nearest to me are in the top five.
Pelosi has increased the number of Washington pick-pockets in San Francisco.
The writer is probably also teed off that SF came in behind San Jose, because SJ doesn’t have any culture like SF does.
As a San Jose resident, I can say it isn’t all that, but I’d rather live here than there.
These rankings remind me of the Places Rated Almanac which said that New York was the healthiest city in the United States to live in because it had more hospitals per capita than any other city! Milwaukee number two??? No way.
I’m scratching my head also. I live in Pittsburgh and according to their list, 7 fatalies from violent crime. Seems to me, from what I read in the news, that this city has at least one shooting or stabbing per day and more than just 7 deaths per year due to this.
The Twin Cities #1?
They must have chosen to not consider the Cedar-Riverside area in MPLS.......
I read that San Francisco’s crime rate was actually underreported. I know it has a history of being quite dangerous.
Columbus Ohio has a Natural Disaster Risk of 34 while Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Pittsburg have a Natural Disaster Risk of 2.
Someone is pulling numbers out of their a*s to come up with this list. In trying to figure out where they came from, it appears others agree: http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/articles/category-discussion-natural-disaster-risk/SDBLBAK938PSJ4IC3JWOKUUZWQ9H
62% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Just don’t go over any of the bridges.
It’s a nice place to visit, not because of anything Pelosi has done, but I wouldn’t live there if it were free.
I was reading in my ol’ hometown paper online about local stuff, they have drive-bys there now or did..
It used to be 2 hours out of the Metro area, now it’s almost a suburb.. too bad.
a lot less drive-bys in the south bay, just avoid the low rider mini-cars zipping in and out of traffic.. it’s a crazy area,, and people. just got to be on your toes. :-]
I’m thinking that means seventh place for that category, not seven events.
I think most people would agree that deaths from all 4 areas combined per 100k population would be more meaningful.
But even this would be of little value, since rates can vary dramatically within areas of city. Better would be a map of death rates by the predominant ethnic makeup of a city, zip code, or annual income per family.
And even better would be some type of website where a user could put in their own methodology to see how the rankings turn out. Oh, but then we wouldn't be TOLD what to think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.