Please Settle Debate About Bkk And Nyc

[SebD]

I "feel" safer in NYC than BKK, but then, by NYC I'm thinking Manhattan.

It may also be a culture thing in that I feel more affiliated to American laws and customs than I do Thai.

As a PS, I certainly don't feel generally unsafe in either.

I feel far less certain of my safety on many high streets in Britain.

Edited July 19, 2008 by SebD

[Shotime]

NYC born and raised (18 years), 10+ years in Bangkok; now in purgatory paying for my sins

Overall NYC is a safer city. Emergency medical care would be more readily available in NYC (police, fire department, EMS, etc).

On the other hand would not count on a New Yorker giving you a helping hand if you are injured, while I have seen many the occasion of Thais giving assistance to someone in need regardless of their nationality or the colour of their skin.

Of course there are many more places within NYC that you would not want find yourself without a platoon of Marines as backup, but those places would have nothing of interest to a normal city resident or tourist.

Rudy Giuliani was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, which is a federal government position, before becoming Mayor. While I don’t disagree that the man did a great job of getting New York back on its feet and made Mid Town Manhattan a place where people could walk around without fear; I’ve always wondered where did all of the homeless people go?

I also think that your safety has little to do with the colour of ones skin and more to do with your sense of where you are, who is around you and behaving in a manner appropriate to the situation. FWIW

Absolutely. Some people are just victims wherever they are.

Also, NYC is not the most dangerous city in the US.

Edited July 19, 2008 by Shotime

[morrobay]

I lived in Bangkok 2 years, Samson soi 3 and NYC 5 years , 20th & 8th ave. Manhattan.

The most dangerous thing in Bangkok is crossing the street. In my opinion this alone makes Bangkok more dangerous than NYC overall. That is, comparing crime + traffic hazards in Bangkok with same in NYC.

[Tinkelbell]

Not even a debate,

I assure you, you break down in the middle of the night in Queens or the Bronx, you'll wish you were anywhere in BKK, at any time.

For you may be. It depens on what area of Queens you live.

I lived in Forest Hills. I pick NY over BKK anytime. If it was not because of hubby couldn't stand the long winter months in NY, I would never move to Florida at all.

[rikpa]

I lived in Bangkok 2 years, Samson soi 3 and NYC 5 years , 20th & 8th ave. Manhattan.

The most dangerous thing in Bangkok is crossing the street. In my opinion this alone makes Bangkok more dangerous than NYC overall. That is, comparing crime + traffic hazards in Bangkok with same in NYC.

Wait, you lived in Chelsea, and you feel safer in Bangkok? I think the katoeys here would bitch-slap you for that one!

[JimmyTheMook]

As a former Thai who lived in NY for over a decade.

Wow ! Did living in Elmhurst really cause you to transform like that ?

I never had any problem about safety. Well, I guest that depends where you live, or work etc. I had never been to some seedy area in Bronk, or housing project ghetto.

Bronk used to nice when the Yankees played there and we looked forward to seeing my cousin in Riverdale. But these days the BRONX is still just Tha Bronx.

Living there I always felt easy to take bus, subway or taxi at any hour. Taking taxi in the wee hours to the airport or from airport to my home in Queens had done all the time.

No ride on the 7 train in the wee hours ?

I had a little hottie Chinese GF from Sunnyside and she always rode the train around Queens for me.

But in TL. Never once my siblings or friends allow me to take taxi alone. THAT speaks volume about safety issue itself ???. They would religiously pick me up or drop me off. Few times one of the friends had to go in a taxi with me to drop me off. These friends ( bless them) always make sure I never be in a taxi by myself.

[JimmyTheMook]

NYC's crime rate has been in freefall for 10-15 years now. It's an island of wealth. Now more than ever.

There are also 4 other boroughs to NYC.

[Spee]

I do find reading all these paeans to Giuliani sickening. Giuliani was a polarizing, racist figure in the city.

Yeah, you're right. NY was much better off bankrupt, corrupt and crime-ridden under Dinkins and Koch.

[morrobay]

I lived in Bangkok 2 years, Samson soi 3 and NYC 5 years , 20th & 8th ave. Manhattan.

The most dangerous thing in Bangkok is crossing the street. In my opinion this alone makes Bangkok more dangerous than NYC overall. That is, comparing crime + traffic hazards in Bangkok with same in NYC.

Wait, you lived in Chelsea, and you feel safer in Bangkok? I think the katoeys here would bitch-slap you for that one!

The above says NYC ( Manhattan) is safer.

Yes I lived in Chelsea and took the "E" train to work everday at the W.T.C.

And I had Puerto Rican "girlfriends"

The viewpoint from the original post is comparing traffic hazards in Bangkok with those in Manhattan and because Bangkok is so much more dangerous this makes Bangkok more dangerous overall and overides any crime comparisons.

As far as crime ( at night ) is concerned: The crowded places in Bangkok and NYC are both pretty safe.

When comparing uncrowded places at night in Bangkok with uncrowded places in NYC ( way uptown Manhattan and the Bronx ) then I

would say Bangkok is safer.

[PeaceBlondie]

Sorry I appear to have missed something. What debate Bangkok versus New York City? I wasn't aware that such a debate had been held.

While we are at it, why limit it to BKK v NYC? What about comparisons between Bangkok and Cuidad Bolivar or Stourbridge or Ouagadougou or Alice Springs or Baton Rouge or Nuuk?

I've lived in neither New York nor Bangkok so I can't really comment ...

Bravo! Some NewYorkians and some CockyBangers think their city is the center of the universe, when even in their own country, the urban area is a tiny portion of the country. New Yorkers like to brag that you can get Ugandan or Tibetan food 24 hours per day there, but so what?

[kat]

I have been living in New York City since 1976, when crime was a major problem. I do find reading all these paeans to Giuliani sickening. Giuliani was a polarizing, racist figure in the city. During his first campaign he personally incited a police riot. He was not, repeat not, responsible for the drop in crime in NYC. His chief accomplishment was getting credit somehow for the city's response to 911. The facts are that he left the city's command center located in the World Trade Center even after being warned that it was a risky choice after the attempted bombing of it in 1993. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attack Giuliani, who was not eligible to run in the next mayoral election because of term limits. proposed the idea of suspending the election. Even during the Civil War elections were not suspended. A true lover of democracy.

As a prosecutor, it is true that Giuliani went after the mafia. It is also true that his father was a leg breaker for the mob.

During the 90's crime dropped in all major US cities, most of which were lucky enough not to have Giuliani as mayor. The universal drop in crime is most thoughtfully ascribed to three factors, none of which Giuliani was responsible for: the high incarceration rates of minorities due to the racially biased enforcement of the drug laws, the increase in police coverage following declines in the 70's, and the Roe vs Wade Supreme Court 1973 decision legalizing abortion. Legalized abortion enabled poor women the ability to avoid having unwanted children that would then have had a higher than average rate of criminality. Those states, including NY, that legalized

abortion a few years prior to Roe v. Wade experienced the drop in crime a few years earlier also. Needless to say, the abortion aspect is controversial.

Giuliani, like most politicians, is distinguished chiefly by his ability to claim credit for the achievements of others.

As to whether NYC is safer than BKK, I couldn't say. However, NYC is indeed safe, at least the middle-class areas. I have been burgled and held up at gun-point, but not within the last twenty years. No one ever speaks about crime here or takes special precautions to avoid it. Once again, this observation is restricted to the middle-class neighborhoods. The poor areas are a different world.

I'm from the Bronx, New York, lived in Bangers for 4 years, and am an urban planner and dealt directly with Giuliani Administration, and the issues of the city. You are almost spot on, except that you quote almost verbatim the reasons for drop in NYC decline from Freakonomics. It's a good book, except that they couldn't possibly understand every detail of the city and drop in crime, because they weren't there, and there's only so much that census data tracks can tell you. It was not solely because of enforcement, incarceration or Roe vs. Wade. Any person who lived and grew up in high-crime areas of NYC throughout the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, which I did, and then went on to work on those issues as an urban planner in high-crime neighborhoods, knows that the decrease in crack cocaine use was significant as early as 1990. Crack cocaine is a highly addictive drug with a euphoric high of only 15 minutes, in which after dopamine levels drop dramatically and each successive hit is less intense, so it creates highly manic, desperate, and dangerous crack heads. Like every new drug fad, the epidemic captures its core group of crack heads and then dies out, as they die off or are either incarcerated or fall into homelessness. As the demand grew and supply decreased because of large busts and removal of dealers and users, the street price increased and the amount of product for the money was less. You can see the same trajectory of drug fads with certain generations of heroin use of 70s and current meth use today. It had nothing to do with Roe vs. Wade or Giuliani! The mayoralty of Giuliani wasn't even until 1994, after the dramatic decline in crack cocaine had already been recorded. He certainly had the big realtors in his pocket, however, from the beginning.

But, yes, I agree. I feel far more unsafe in Bangkok just crossing the street or getting into a taxi then I do in current New York.

*Added:

http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/912514.htm

The decline of crack use in New York City

Drug policy or natural controls? 1990/91

(conclusion)

There is reason to fear untutored experimentation with other drugs. The example of the 1964-72 heroin injectors is instructive. By l971, they had reached the same stage of frustration with heroin which crack smokers are today experiencing with crack. Veins had collapsed and there was not an intact one left into which to inject heroin, even if it had been offered free of charge. Craving treatment and care for health-related problems, heroin injectors were offered methadone. Soon though, unhappiness with methadone led to heavy drinking, and eventually, by 1979, to cocaine injecting (Drucker: 1986). In 1981, heroin-injectors-turned-cocaine-injectors-via-methadone complained that injecting cocaine was making them "freeze up": they believed that soon they would be too "frozen up" to bleed. Presently they began smoking cocaine - as freebase - and when this method of administering the drug proved acceptable to marijuana smokers (who were at the time suffering shortages of that drug), the first stage of the crack epidemic was set (Hamid 1990b).

A critical juncture has been reached in the crack epidemic in low-income minority communities and in drug use in New York City. As crack use declines, it functions as a high risk factor for AIDS and violence related to its distribution may increase, as distributors compete for fewer sales, or as consumers commit more desperate acts to pay increased prices.

The idea of a developmental cycle in drug epidemics incorporating distinct stages of inittiation, widespread diffusion peak, decline and stabilization is a reminder that the dangers and opportunities of the drug are different from stage to stage and should be met by policy sensitive to change.

Edited July 20, 2008 by kat

[CaptHaddock]

'm from the Bronx, New York, lived in Bangers for 4 years, and am an urban planner and dealt directly with Giuliani Administration, and the issues of the city. You are almost spot on, except that you quote almost verbatim the reasons for drop in NYC decline from Freakonomics. It's a good book, except that they couldn't possibly understand every detail of the city and drop in crime, because they weren't there, and there's only so much that census data tracks can tell you. It was not solely because of enforcement, incarceration or Roe vs. Wade. Any person who lived and grew up in high-crime areas of NYC throughout the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, which I did, and then went on to work on those issues as an urban planner in high-crime neighborhoods, knows that the decrease in crack cocaine use was significant as early as 1990. Crack cocaine is a highly addictive drug with a euphoric high of only 15 minutes, in which after dopamine levels drop dramatically and each successive hit is less intense, so it creates highly manic, desperate, and dangerous crack heads. Like every new drug fad, the epidemic captures its core group of crack heads and then dies out, as they die off or are either incarcerated or fall into homelessness. As the demand grew and supply decreased because of large busts and removal of dealers and users, the street price increased and the amount of product for the money was less. You can see the same trajectory of drug fads with certain generations of heroin use of 70s and current meth use today. It had nothing to do with Roe vs. Wade or Giuliani! The mayoralty of Giuliani wasn't even until 1994, after the dramatic decline in crack cocaine had already been recorded. He certainly had the big realtors in his pocket, however, from the beginning.

But, yes, I agree. I feel far more unsafe in Bangkok just crossing the street or getting into a taxi then I do in current New York.

*Added:

http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/912514.htm

The decline of crack use in New York City

Drug policy or natural controls? 1990/91

(conclusion)

There is reason to fear untutored experimentation with other drugs. The example of the 1964-72 heroin injectors is instructive. By l971, they had reached the same stage of frustration with heroin which crack smokers are today experiencing with crack. Veins had collapsed and there was not an intact one left into which to inject heroin, even if it had been offered free of charge. Craving treatment and care for health-related problems, heroin injectors were offered methadone. Soon though, unhappiness with methadone led to heavy drinking, and eventually, by 1979, to cocaine injecting (Drucker: 1986). In 1981, heroin-injectors-turned-cocaine-injectors-via-methadone complained that injecting cocaine was making them "freeze up": they believed that soon they would be too "frozen up" to bleed. Presently they began smoking cocaine - as freebase - and when this method of administering the drug proved acceptable to marijuana smokers (who were at the time suffering shortages of that drug), the first stage of the crack epidemic was set (Hamid 1990b).

A critical juncture has been reached in the crack epidemic in low-income minority communities and in drug use in New York City. As crack use declines, it functions as a high risk factor for AIDS and violence related to its distribution may increase, as distributors compete for fewer sales, or as consumers commit more desperate acts to pay increased prices.

The idea of a developmental cycle in drug epidemics incorporating distinct stages of inittiation, widespread diffusion peak, decline and stabilization is a reminder that the dangers and opportunities of the drug are different from stage to stage and should be met by policy sensitive to change.

I am very interested to hear the opinions of a NY urban planner on the subject, since it is your field of study while I have only a citizen's interest in the subject. You are correct that the explanation I posted came from the Freakonomics book. Although Leavitt originated the abortion explanation, he properly gave weight to the incarceration and enforcement issues. So the combination of those forces seems the most persuasive to me, much more so than the "broken windows" self-promotion of people like Kerik.

However, I am very wary of your argument based on the supposed special physical effects of crack cocaine or of some unproven epidemiological theory of crime. It was arguments of this kind, that crack cocaine use was uniquely addictive and disposed the user to far greater levels of violence, that persuded Tip O'Neil and others in Congress to pass the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 that imposed mandatory minimum sentences in drug cases and led to vast increase in incarceration rates for blacks and other minorities. The US Sentencing Commission confirmed in 1990 that the laws were disproportionately applied to blacks. Here's a quote:

"The Commission found that the disparity in sentencing harshness between white and black offenders had increased (U.S. Sentencing Commission, 1991, p. 82). Congress and the Administration did nothing to address this problem. By 1995, no white person had been prosecuted in federal court under the 1986 crack mandatory minimums in Los Angeles and other major cities, although hundreds of blacks had been (Weikel, 1995). Another study by the U.S. Sentencing Commission (1995) found the 100-to-1 powder cocaine-crack cocaine variation seemed to have an invidious impact on black offenders. For example, 88.3 percent of the mandatory crack sentences were imposed on blacks in FY 1993."

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/200...hatUshered.html

It is not a matter of dispute, for example, that the majority of cocaine users (including both the crack and powder forms) are white while the majority of offenders who go to prison for cocaine use are not white. All of this was justified by pleading the special, pernicious effects of crack cocaine. It calls to mind the demon weed campaign against marijuana in the 30's, when its use was largely confined to the black population. Somehow it has always been all too easy for white America to find uniquely abhorrent the intoxicants favored by minorities.

I would go further. In my opinion, there are three historic eras of the suppression and exploitation of black people in America: chattel slavery, the Jim Crow laws of legalized segregation from 1890 until the Civil Rights era of the 60's, and the selective enforcement of drug laws to achieve extraordinary levels of the judicial incarceration of black people. Each stage represents an ingenious and subtle triumph of racism over the evolution of law.

By the way, what have you observed about urban planning in BKK? The development of mass transit is very encouraging especially since BKK lacks the street area ever to manage vehicular traffic acceptably. Unless they were to redevelop in the manner of Baron Haussman. It would be great if they are able to tackle air polution at some point.

Edited July 20, 2008 by CaptHaddock

[geriatrickid]

Gee. I thought the answer was related more to demographics. As most of the burglaries and street robberies were commited by young offenders, when the population aged and some were incarcerated, there were fewer people doing the crimes. 40 year olds with pot bellies just don't make it as purse snatchers or agile burglars. Young males are more likely to commit certain crimes than older males. That's why a comparison between NYC and BKK is not valid without adjusting for that demographic characteristic. BKK has a much younger population so it is to be expected that some crimes will be more pronounced. As the population ages in BKK, so too will the types of crime and incidence of crime change as well.

[kat]

Well, gee, as I explained in the case of New York crime in the late 80s/early 90s, a straight demographic/population analysis just doesn't cut it as an explanation, unless of course you are a bureaucrat from a distance who kneels before demographic census tracts, or an economist pop writer who has most likely never even stepped foot into an inner-city, high-crime neighborhood during the same period.

There are young people and young offenders now in NYC, and in areas of concentrated poverty even more so, but nothing which can compare to the period in question. Don't get me wrong - there is plenty that can be planned and explained with demographic data, but it should work in tandem with and not as a replacement for data at the street level.

In terms of comparisons between BKK and NYC, I agree that formal comparisons are not valid unless controlling for demographics in addition to a combination of other factors as well.

[kat]

'm from the Bronx, New York, lived in Bangers for 4 years, and am an urban planner and dealt directly with Giuliani Administration, and the issues of the city. You are almost spot on, except that you quote almost verbatim the reasons for drop in NYC decline from Freakonomics. It's a good book, except that they couldn't possibly understand every detail of the city and drop in crime, because they weren't there, and there's only so much that census data tracks can tell you. It was not solely because of enforcement, incarceration or Roe vs. Wade. Any person who lived and grew up in high-crime areas of NYC throughout the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, which I did, and then went on to work on those issues as an urban planner in high-crime neighborhoods, knows that the decrease in crack cocaine use was significant as early as 1990. Crack cocaine is a highly addictive drug with a euphoric high of only 15 minutes, in which after dopamine levels drop dramatically and each successive hit is less intense, so it creates highly manic, desperate, and dangerous crack heads. Like every new drug fad, the epidemic captures its core group of crack heads and then dies out, as they die off or are either incarcerated or fall into homelessness. As the demand grew and supply decreased because of large busts and removal of dealers and users, the street price increased and the amount of product for the money was less. You can see the same trajectory of drug fads with certain generations of heroin use of 70s and current meth use today. It had nothing to do with Roe vs. Wade or Giuliani! The mayoralty of Giuliani wasn't even until 1994, after the dramatic decline in crack cocaine had already been recorded. He certainly had the big realtors in his pocket, however, from the beginning.

But, yes, I agree. I feel far more unsafe in Bangkok just crossing the street or getting into a taxi then I do in current New York.

*Added:

http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/912514.htm

The decline of crack use in New York City

Drug policy or natural controls? 1990/91

(conclusion)

There is reason to fear untutored experimentation with other drugs. The example of the 1964-72 heroin injectors is instructive. By l971, they had reached the same stage of frustration with heroin which crack smokers are today experiencing with crack. Veins had collapsed and there was not an intact one left into which to inject heroin, even if it had been offered free of charge. Craving treatment and care for health-related problems, heroin injectors were offered methadone. Soon though, unhappiness with methadone led to heavy drinking, and eventually, by 1979, to cocaine injecting (Drucker: 1986). In 1981, heroin-injectors-turned-cocaine-injectors-via-methadone complained that injecting cocaine was making them "freeze up": they believed that soon they would be too "frozen up" to bleed. Presently they began smoking cocaine - as freebase - and when this method of administering the drug proved acceptable to marijuana smokers (who were at the time suffering shortages of that drug), the first stage of the crack epidemic was set (Hamid 1990b).

A critical juncture has been reached in the crack epidemic in low-income minority communities and in drug use in New York City. As crack use declines, it functions as a high risk factor for AIDS and violence related to its distribution may increase, as distributors compete for fewer sales, or as consumers commit more desperate acts to pay increased prices.

The idea of a developmental cycle in drug epidemics incorporating distinct stages of inittiation, widespread diffusion peak, decline and stabilization is a reminder that the dangers and opportunities of the drug are different from stage to stage and should be met by policy sensitive to change.

I am very interested to hear the opinions of a NY urban planner on the subject, since it is your field of study while I have only a citizen's interest in the subject. You are correct that the explanation I posted came from the Freakonomics book. Although Leavitt originated the abortion explanation, he properly gave weight to the incarceration and enforcement issues. So the combination of those forces seems the most persuasive to me, much more so than the "broken windows" self-promotion of people like Kerik.

However, I am very wary of your argument based on the supposed special physical effects of crack cocaine or of some unproven epidemiological theory of crime. It was arguments of this kind, that crack cocaine use was uniquely addictive and disposed the user to far greater levels of violence, that persuded Tip O'Neil and others in Congress to pass the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 that imposed mandatory minimum sentences in drug cases and led to vast increase in incarceration rates for blacks and other minorities. The US Sentencing Commission confirmed in 1990 that the laws were disproportionately applied to blacks. Here's a quote:

"The Commission found that the disparity in sentencing harshness between white and black offenders had increased (U.S. Sentencing Commission, 1991, p. 82). Congress and the Administration did nothing to address this problem. By 1995, no white person had been prosecuted in federal court under the 1986 crack mandatory minimums in Los Angeles and other major cities, although hundreds of blacks had been (Weikel, 1995). Another study by the U.S. Sentencing Commission (1995) found the 100-to-1 powder cocaine-crack cocaine variation seemed to have an invidious impact on black offenders. For example, 88.3 percent of the mandatory crack sentences were imposed on blacks in FY 1993."

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/200...hatUshered.html

It is not a matter of dispute, for example, that the majority of cocaine users (including both the crack and powder forms) are white while the majority of offenders who go to prison for cocaine use are not white. All of this was justified by pleading the special, pernicious effects of crack cocaine. It calls to mind the demon weed campaign against marijuana in the 30's, when its use was largely confined to the black population. Somehow it has always been all too easy for white America to find uniquely abhorrent the intoxicants favored by minorities.

I would go further. In my opinion, there are three historic eras of the suppression and exploitation of black people in America: chattel slavery, the Jim Crow laws of legalized segregation from 1890 until the Civil Rights era of the 60's, and the selective enforcement of drug laws to achieve extraordinary levels of the judicial incarceration of black people. Each stage represents an ingenious and subtle triumph of racism over the evolution of law.

By the way, what have you observed about urban planning in BKK? The development of mass transit is very encouraging especially since BKK lacks the street area ever to manage vehicular traffic acceptably. Unless they were to redevelop in the manner of Baron Haussman. It would be great if they are able to tackle air polution at some point.

Hi Haddock:

You bring up some very good points which I want to discuss. I don't have the time right now to discuss them at length, but I will continue later tonight. It will be fun, because you bring up the same points that are directly in my area of interest. We can continue if people don't mind a proper discussion without complaining that we are off topic.

To briefly state my point, I understand your point about Tip O'Neil's racist laws that targeted low-income crack cocaine users over higher-income and largely white cocaine users in the 80s, but that doesn't change the characteristics of crack cocaine addiction, and the ravages of it in low-income communities. It only highlights the bias and fear in Congress toward one demographic over another. I have not even read your points about history yet, but that is a keen interest of mine so we will have fund discussing it later, I hope.

As for planning in BKK, every planner I know including organizations that I have worked with in BKK agrees that there was never a planning tradition in the City to begin with, hence some of the particular issues that have arisen due to rapid development with non-existent planning. It is a mess, and some things will never be able to be improved, because of earlier negligence or apathy.

[CaptHaddock]

You bring up some very good points which I want to discuss.

Interested in your views. You are not, by any chance, the Kat who lived in BKK and had a website of interviews and reports about Thailand, are you? There was a Kat's Korner or something like that linked to the Bangkok Post when I first became interested in Thailand a few years ago.

[Old Man River]

I am not going to argue with the crime rate statistics. From my view, as a foreigner living in Bangkok, I feel safer living here than I have in several US cities (NY included). I am not saying Bangkok's crime rate is lower than NY, but it does seem that violent crimes against foreigners in Bangkok is lower than violent crimes against locals.

I have absolutely nothing to back this up as it is my perception, nothing more.

[kjameson]

My basis for giving credit to Giuliani is based on information like this:

New York Times 09 September 2007, written by Matt Bai

"In New York, Giuliani started a practice — later imitated by mayors around the country — of instilling “metrics” to measure government’s progress. The most notable of these was in policing, where William Bratton, Giuliani’s first police chief, introduced the “Compstat” program, under which the city was divided by police precinct and detailed reports were compiled outlining the incidence of crime in each of those precincts. Based on these reports, the department could analyze where exactly crime was a problem and why, and depending on the likely causes, the police could then assign more or specialized units to specific blocks and neighborhoods. Compstat was one of the shining government successes of its era, and Giuliani expanded the principle to other city departments. “If you can’t measure something,” he likes to say, “then you cannot manage it.”"

I cannot disagree with Kat and CaptHaddock that he may have been lucky in his timing, and I'm sure he took credit for improvements that were not his. You will have to admit while he was mayor things improved, so maybe, just maybe it was due to the fact that as a good manager he put the right people in the right places and good things happened. You don't always have to be a nice person to be a good manager.

Just to be clear about this he would not get my vote for president.

But I do thank you for adding to my word knowledge, I did have to look up "paeans".

This is a Thailand forum so debates about former Mayors of US cities isn't really appropriate so I'll end my part in it here.

[kjameson]

As a prosecutor, it is true that Giuliani went after the mafia. It is also true that his father was a leg breaker for the mob.

Sorry, one last thing. Perhaps you should ignore everything I do or say as my grandfather went to prison for armed robbery.

How does what ones forbearers have done have any bearing on who we are as a person? Actually my grandfather did it because his family was hungry during the 30's depression.

[kjameson]

As a prosecutor, it is true that Giuliani went after the mafia. It is also true that his father was a leg breaker for the mob.

Sorry, one last thing. Perhaps you should ignore everything I do or say as my grandfather went to prison for armed robbery.

How does what ones forbearers have done have any bearing on who we are as a person? Actually my grandfather did it because his family was hungry during the 30's depression.

That should be forebearers as in ancestors, not forbearer as in to control oneself when provoked. How I have two new words that NYC education system at work again

Sorry for the additional post, but no Edit button was available to me (it was an hour before I looked at the post again).

[CaptHaddock]

My basis for giving credit to Giuliani is based on information like this:

New York Times 09 September 2007, written by Matt Bai

"In New York, Giuliani started a practice — later imitated by mayors around the country — of instilling "metrics" to measure government's progress. The most notable of these was in policing, where William Bratton, Giuliani's first police chief, introduced the "Compstat" program, under which the city was divided by police precinct and detailed reports were compiled outlining the incidence of crime in each of those precincts. Based on these reports, the department could analyze where exactly crime was a problem and why, and depending on the likely causes, the police could then assign more or specialized units to specific blocks and neighborhoods. Compstat was one of the shining government successes of its era, and Giuliani expanded the principle to other city departments. "If you can't measure something," he likes to say, "then you cannot manage it.""

I cannot disagree with Kat and CaptHaddock that he may have been lucky in his timing, and I'm sure he took credit for improvements that were not his. You will have to admit while he was mayor things improved, so maybe, just maybe it was due to the fact that as a good manager he put the right people in the right places and good things happened. You don't always have to be a nice person to be a good manager.

Just to be clear about this he would not get my vote for president.

But I do thank you for adding to my word knowledge, I did have to look up "paeans".

This is a Thailand forum so debates about former Mayors of US cities isn't really appropriate so I'll end my part in it here.

Compstat was, and is, an excellent achievement. It was the contribution of William Bratton between 1994 and 1996 when Giuliani fired him. Why did Giuliani fire his outstanding chief of police? Because Bratton, not Giuliani, was featured on the cover of Time magazine.

[girlx]

interesting posts kat and cpt haddock... keep them coming!

[girlx]

p.s. for those worried about danger in their homes, check out the self defense table on this page

[kat]

My basis for giving credit to Giuliani is based on information like this:

New York Times 09 September 2007, written by Matt Bai

"In New York, Giuliani started a practice — later imitated by mayors around the country — of instilling "metrics" to measure government's progress. The most notable of these was in policing, where William Bratton, Giuliani's first police chief, introduced the "Compstat" program, under which the city was divided by police precinct and detailed reports were compiled outlining the incidence of crime in each of those precincts. Based on these reports, the department could analyze where exactly crime was a problem and why, and depending on the likely causes, the police could then assign more or specialized units to specific blocks and neighborhoods. Compstat was one of the shining government successes of its era, and Giuliani expanded the principle to other city departments. "If you can't measure something," he likes to say, "then you cannot manage it.""

I cannot disagree with Kat and CaptHaddock that he may have been lucky in his timing, and I'm sure he took credit for improvements that were not his. You will have to admit while he was mayor things improved, so maybe, just maybe it was due to the fact that as a good manager he put the right people in the right places and good things happened. You don't always have to be a nice person to be a good manager.

Just to be clear about this he would not get my vote for president.

But I do thank you for adding to my word knowledge, I did have to look up "paeans".

This is a Thailand forum so debates about former Mayors of US cities isn't really appropriate so I'll end my part in it here.

Compstat was, and is, an excellent achievement. It was the contribution of William Bratton between 1994 and 1996 when Giuliani fired him. Why did Giuliani fire his outstanding chief of police? Because Bratton, not Giuliani, was featured on the cover of Time magazine.

Very good point, Haddock. But my previous point about the crack cocaine epidemic as the significant factor in falling crime stats in the early 90s still stands. I liked your points about history, but there are many other facets of urban history and migration that are equally significant, especially after the reconstruction period. I don't think we are in disagreement, but I know Levitt's book just simply doesn't cover all of the factors well.

[dingdongrb]

I lived in Bangkok 2 years, Samson soi 3 and NYC 5 years , 20th & 8th ave. Manhattan.

The most dangerous thing in Bangkok is crossing the street. In my opinion this alone makes Bangkok more dangerous than NYC overall. That is, comparing crime + traffic hazards in Bangkok with same in NYC.

I agree, when crossing a street, NYC is safer...

When walking under a construction crane, BKK is safer...

[NoSpeakIt]

i dont know if this has been mentioned yet, but its basically been proven that it is not RG who solved NY's crime problem, it was the legalization of abortion. checkout the book freakonomics if you dont believe me.

[200mphplus]

I am a girl, 21, and have lived in NYC on and off for about 7 years, and have lived here in BKK for one, and NYC BY FAR is much safer then BKK.. It is so much cleaner, safer, etc. You can go out at night late as you want (alone as agirl) and you are safe. here in bkk, no way, not safe at all. I mean you dont go out in harlem or brooklyn like that, but in NYC its much safer then BKK.

[Groongthep]

I am a girl, 21, and have lived in NYC on and off for about 7 years, and have lived here in BKK for one, and NYC BY FAR is much safer then BKK.. It is so much cleaner, safer, etc. You can go out at night late as you want (alone as agirl) and you are safe. here in bkk, no way, not safe at all. I mean you dont go out in harlem or brooklyn like that, but in NYC its much safer then BKK.

Last time I looked Brooklyn and Harlem were still parts of NYC. Here in Bangkok would you walk alone through Khlong Toei at night?

[200mphplus]

I am a girl, 21, and have lived in NYC on and off for about 7 years, and have lived here in BKK for one, and NYC BY FAR is much safer then BKK.. It is so much cleaner, safer, etc. You can go out at night late as you want (alone as agirl) and you are safe. here in bkk, no way, not safe at all. I mean you dont go out in harlem or brooklyn like that, but in NYC its much safer then BKK.

Last time I looked Brooklyn and Harlem were still parts of NYC. Here in Bangkok would you walk alone through Khlong Toei at night?

Umm no actually you are wrong. Harlem and Brooklyn are considered there own city, such as harlem and brooklyn. thats why NYC is an ISLAND where brooklyn is south of the ISLAND and Harlem is in the NORTH. Just to set you straight. I lived there almost all my life. and BANGKOK is not safe , esp for foreign women. I have experienced much unsafe things here already. where in NY, i never have. So please get your facts stragiht.

[Groongthep]

I am a girl, 21, and have lived in NYC on and off for about 7 years, and have lived here in BKK for one, and NYC BY FAR is much safer then BKK.. It is so much cleaner, safer, etc. You can go out at night late as you want (alone as agirl) and you are safe. here in bkk, no way, not safe at all. I mean you dont go out in harlem or brooklyn like that, but in NYC its much safer then BKK.

Last time I looked Brooklyn and Harlem were still parts of NYC. Here in Bangkok would you walk alone through Khlong Toei at night?

Umm no actually you are wrong. Harlem and Brooklyn are considered there own city, such as harlem and brooklyn. thats why NYC is an ISLAND where brooklyn is south of the ISLAND and Harlem is in the NORTH. Just to set you straight. I lived there almost all my life. and BANGKOK is not safe , esp for foreign women. I have experienced much unsafe things here already. where in NY, i never have. So please get your facts stragiht.

Nonsense. New York City comprises five boroughs: The Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island. Harlem is on the north side of Manhattan. Source: The official government of New York City website nyc.gov