Recent comments in /f/baltimore

z3mcs t1_jeeuxz0 wrote

Hey, I agree with researching things. I just think it's kind of funny when it was like "Why are people trippin because some company wants to dump some waste in Baltimore? Don't be irrational, trust the experts!" And then now the tenor will be ....ehhh, not so fast, lets research.

Like I said in my initial post, we all do it, and I'm not pointing to you or saying you made that original post that got upvoted, cause you didn't, I'm just saying we all have those Ice Cube "first I was like....then I was like" moments, like so.

4

TenTonCloud t1_jeeuvbw wrote

As I’ve seen some people mention, the renovations will include upgrades to the rails at the station to allow HSR travel through as well as having it be part of a larger upgrade to the rail system between Baltimore and NYC that causes so many of the bottlenecks for the rail.

It’s still a far cry from anything like Bullet train level speeds going up and down the coast but it does seem like they’re genuinely taking the necessary steps to making rail travel between these major cities actually attractive enough to see increased use and attention.

7

Dondi_419 OP t1_jeeuei8 wrote

Reply to comment by crystalli0 in Live Webcams?? by Dondi_419

Second edit is correct, but that stuff doesn't go over well in some circles so - doublespeak.

Actually we're just trying to get him to travel. We don't really need to know what he looks like.

−1

Frofro69 t1_jeetody wrote

And in terms of places to avoid, you can clearly see those areas when going through the city. However, if you mind your manners and keep your nose out of others affairs, you could get by in the most blighted areas (like Sandtown-Winchester). Crime definitely is an issue in the city overall, but unless you have a habit of making enemies or hanging around troublemakers in the middle of the night, your chances of being the victim of serious crime are greatly reduced. Not saying it won't happen, since crime can happen to anyone anywhere; but if you're aware of where you are, you'll have no problem anywhere.

4

Frofro69 t1_jeestqd wrote

You could look in the Coldstream-Homestead-Montebello area or Waverly/Charles Village if you're not concerned about distance. They're very nice neighborhoods, affordable, and between two colleges (CHM is near Morgan state and Waverly is near JHU Homewood). There's also lake montebello nearby. You could most likely find a nice house for a reasonable price. My girlfriend lives in CHM, and it's honestly a charming neighborhood. Her house was only like $150k and was newly renovated

4

HuskyCriminologist t1_jees02o wrote

In case anyone is curious I found the original report. After browsing the report for a bit I'm... well I'm not skeptical but I'm not convinced either.

The 95% confidence intervals on the half of the results that have a p-value of < 0.05 are massive. Just as an example, the Average Effect of All Sites was between -0.34 and 0.00. So the study is 95% certain there was an effect of somewhere between -34% and 0%. There were also several observed places where homicides skyrocketed after the implementation of Safe Streets. Sandtown-Winchester's homicide rate went up by a staggering 44% as compared to the synthetic control (i.e., theoretically was caused by safe streets), Belair-Edison's doubled (+103%), Brooklyn's went up by 27%.

On the other hand, the observed non-fatal shooting rates don't match the homicide rates at all. Generally speaking, the rate of non-fatal shootings and the rate of fatal shootings move roughly in lockstep. That's not to say they can't move in different directions, or at different rates, but it is weird and surprising when that happens. This report shows that SW's homicide rate went up by 44% compared to the synthetic control, but their nonfatal shootings dropped by 53% compared to the expected value? Belair-Edison observed 21% fewer nonfatal shootings than was expected, compared to seeing 103% more fatal shootings than expected. On the flip side, Belvedere's nonfatal shootings were 459% (not a typo) higher than expected, but their homicide rate was 40% lower than expected.

This makes absolutely no sense, until you read a bit further and see that the p-value for the impact of Safe Streets on homicides is 0.381. There is a 38% chance that the observed impact on homicide rates is literally random chance.

I'm not saying this study is worthless, but it certainly looks like a case of "we spent a shit ton of money on this report we have to publish something".

56

jabbadarth t1_jeerdmt wrote

It really is a win win. People always point to the safe streets guy who was dealing as a failure of the whole system while arguing for more police and ignoring the myriad situations where police have broken the law.

This is, imo, one of the best ways to handle violence. Get community members to intervene in communities where they live and know people.

38