urbanSTL

Arch City wrote:To say, "oh that crime is gang related, once the gangs are dealt with, then the problem is gone," leaves a few ideas in my head. First, we are so apathetic to allow gangs in our society, then we justify their violence as "gang related," therefore whatever violence occurs is deserved, or not our problem? Second, when is the key as this should be addressed now. Third, these gangs have members younger than many of us. Finally, I would like to see future investigations into the PD, however that probably will not happen.

Interesting comment. I don't know if you were speaking in general or directly to me, but if so, I was not suggesting by any stretch of the imagination apathy in regard to gangs and drug violence. However, they are key pieces of the crime problem regardless of what side of town they occur. In a similar thread, I suggested that these problems need to be addressed by the community with more resources - particularly in North St. Louis - but some people have a tendency to be adverse to implementing resources, yet they complain about the social/crime problems that are directly tied to a lack of resources.

zas wrote:However, I think Steve is doing a service to the community-at-large, by bringing these issues to light.



If there are problems, such as high per-capita murders, high per-capita car thefts, excessive rapes, etc., one cannot expect these things to change unless there is publicity and a spotlight highlighting these issues.



Negative publicity can lead to positive change. You should not expect any TV station to deliver news that only paints St. Louis as a utopia. If they do, the fundamental changes that need to take place, never will.

We know that NO city in America (or the world for that matter) is utopia.



I don't think anyone is discounting the need to bring such issues to the light. I don't think anyone is discounting Steve as a person or his hard work. It's not even about the city getting negative publicity. Aren't we used to that by now? What we have a problem with is how the news is brought to light. Publicity (good and bad) is needed to facilitate changes in the community, but how an outlet goes about disseminating information can sometimes be problematic. Let's be honest about that.

Steve, thanks for coming on here to discuss the issue.



As for the report, I watched on KMOV.com and have a few comments.



I think the basic idea behind your story is right on. Downtown is experiencing a revival and I think it is good that a local new outlet is focusing on an aspect that otherwise could/would drive away potential users if not addressed head on. Dealing with nuisance crime is an important part of making downtown better. The spots the report points out make all the sense in the world. Without people there is no crime and areas like Washington Avenue (though aided by the number of homeless in the area), Union Station, and the ballpark all attract large numbers of people.



If anything stands out, it is the number of crimes at the large underground garage on 4th street, as all the other "hot spots" are obvious destinations that attract crime, to my knowledge the 4th street garage is not part of any big destination. It stands out in the report as the obvious garage where security measures are likely insufficient.



The issue I have is perhaps the context of the report and its tone. Because the report does not reference crime for any other areas of the city or region as a whole, one watching the report simply is met with the notion of downtown as a lawless place. While I understand the purpose of the report was not to detail the car break-in hot spots for the St. Louis region, I can't fault you too much for that lack of comparison.



As for the tone, KMOV generally does a good job with their city coverage, presenting good and bad locally. People on this site are sometimes a bit sensitive of City criticism, since it seems that many local media outlets don’t do the research and critical thinking necessary to produce journalism that portrays the true nature of the city, recognizing that the city is more than just negatives.



I just felt the introduction left a bit to be desired, focusing on downtown and crime. I know it was designed to hook me into watching, but an intro that instead pointed out that with downtown’s increased population and popularity have brought some increased crime might have been better. Point out the reason for the crime. It is not just because it is downtown. It is not just because the city is crime ridden. It is because downtown is experiencing a resurgence and entrepreneurial criminals, just like anyone else, want a piece of the action and these are the spots they are looking to get some action.



I would encourage you to do similar such studies on other topics. Given the shopping season, maybe a report showing crime levels at local malls and major strip shopping centers. Given the number of people on this site who throw out that downtown is no more unsafe than your average suburban shopping mall, I think such a story would be really interesting and timely.



One other note. It is good to see that one member of the media is willing to openly show that they read this site. I hope you enjoy what you read and hope you participate more, because it is interesting to have the medias perception of St. Louis, since much of what we talk about is based on the perception of the city. And maybe you will find a few good story ideas on here too.

publiceye wrote:PS The circuit attorney's website lets its readers track cases through the courts. How many people hand-wringing about this kind of story took the time to figure out which circuit judges up for retention on Tuesday's ballot routinely let car clouters walk out of court?

This is a great question. Is there anyone who provides analysis of judges beyond the bar association ratings I (and, I'm sure, about 5 other people) use to vote?