Arash Kamiar: The Curry Campaign is Fear Mongering
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Politics/Mayoral-Race-2015/i-mzkcXB6/0/O/LennyCurry.jpg)
Mayoral candidate Lenny Curry claims that Jacksonville’s crime rates are exploding under Mayor Alvin Brown. In actuality, violent and property crimes are at the lowest they have been in 18 years.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-may-arash-kamiar-the-curry-campaign-is-fear-mongering
My favorite thing that has happened this election season was last Thursday. Two well-meaning twenty-something females were knocking on doors for Curry in Riverside. They ended up on my porch, which was automatically hilarious to me, because I have an AB sign in my front yard. I happened to have the three smear flyers (pictured in article) from Curry sitting on my side table, because I was just complaining about them to a friend. Needless to say, they had thrown these girls into enemy territory and had not prepared them at all!
I'd say the more troubling thing is that Brown was not prepared with this info at the debate. Where was he? Why wasn't he all over Curry about his bad stats? I think this is a big issue for a lot of people and, apparently, Alvin could have swiftly laid it to rest.
Thanks for calling him out on this I am sick of looking at these damn 8x10 mailers I keep getting in the mail my friend even got a birthday card from him. There has to be some serious out of town money in this election.
Arash,
Great job on following the numbers and putting the piece together. There is one flaw with your research that I thought I may had pointed out in some of my posts.
While there is an appearance of doing more with less with regards to the number of officers, there is no data in our possession that actually tells us how many boots are on the ground. The numbers that we're using are based off of budgeted positions in the JSO. Those positions may or may not be filled, and they may or may not be administrative or field officers. Unfortunately, without looking at JSO's actual force #s, we have no way of knowing.
Otherwise great piece. I really wish more people would start following the massive amounts of breadcrumbs that are left behind every story read.
Edit: and the actual police force #s might be a moot point. Regardless of how many were actually on the force, the crime numbers have definitely dropped.
This report from the JSO website has nice chart showing the changes made to force due to budget concerns.
http://www.coj.net/departments/sheriff-s-office/docs/police-services/annual-budget-fy-14.aspx
As you will see, there are positions opened, removed, and shifted every year. This is important to note because of the extreme attention the number "147" has gotten. In no way, shape or form have 147 officers been released. The only ones documented for release were the CCOs and they were funded through a grant anyhow and never reflected on the general funding budget to begin with.
To accurately assess the JSO, you would have to know how many officers are actually on payroll. That's the only way we'll ever receive a clear picture of how these crime numbers shake out and how much of their proposed budget is just accounting fluff. i.e. - do they figure all of the budgeted positions when reporting salary and pension expenditure?
There's always more questions, lol.
The data in the article stops at 2013, so it misses the fact that crime went up in 2014 and (especially) in the first quarter of 2015. The more recent data is just too new to be reflected in the sources referenced in the article. Shootings in particular are way up in 2015, on track to eclipse 2014 by a massive margin.
I agree, though, that Lenny Curry's campaign is glossing over the fact that crime decreased across the board between 1992 and 2013. That trend has been happening with violent crime all over the country despite the fact that when polled Americans typically believe that crime is increasing. It's one of the great disconnects between what Americans believe and what's really happening in their communities.
Quote from: jbliii on May 18, 2015, 10:02:20 AM
The data in the article stops at 2013, so it misses the fact that crime went up in 2014 and (especially) in the first quarter of 2015. The more recent data is just too new to be reflected in the sources referenced in the article. Shootings in particular are way up in 2015, on track to eclipse 2014 by a massive margin.
JSO's own data stops in 2014 and their reported data to FDLE was last in 2013.
The main point being is that using selective data and preying off of media sensationalism isn't exactly telling the truth. Not that there isn't some truth in there, but a lie by omission is still a lie.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 18, 2015, 10:21:03 AM
Quote from: jbliii on May 18, 2015, 10:02:20 AM
The data in the article stops at 2013, so it misses the fact that crime went up in 2014 and (especially) in the first quarter of 2015. The more recent data is just too new to be reflected in the sources referenced in the article. Shootings in particular are way up in 2015, on track to eclipse 2014 by a massive margin.
JSO's own data stops in 2014 and their reported data to FDLE was last in 2013.
No, it doesn't. The 2014 figures are included in the Sheriff's Report on Violent Crime and Manpower (http://www.coj.net/departments/sheriffs-office/docs/reports/201504-violent-crime-and-manpower.aspx). They use the same Uniform Crime Report figures the other sources do, so the numbers will be basically the same. The FBI already has part of the 2014 figures up.
Arash's article is... incomplete. I'll have a lengthier response to this later.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 18, 2015, 10:31:59 AM
No, it doesn't. The 2014 figures are included in the Sheriff's Report on Violent Crime and Manpower (http://www.coj.net/departments/sheriffs-office/docs/reports/201504-violent-crime-and-manpower.aspx). They use the same Uniform Crime Report figures the other sources do, so the numbers will be basically the same. The FBI already has part of the 2014 figures up.
Arash's article is... incomplete. I'll have a lengthier response to this later.
Looking forward to it. My first glance at the FBI UCR reports only shows to 2013 as well.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats
A Republican politician, using fear as a campaign tool?
He sure looks at lot like "W" in that photo. Now that ought to scare everybody.................
Quote from: Tacachale on May 18, 2015, 10:31:59 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 18, 2015, 10:21:03 AM
Quote from: jbliii on May 18, 2015, 10:02:20 AM
The data in the article stops at 2013, so it misses the fact that crime went up in 2014 and (especially) in the first quarter of 2015. The more recent data is just too new to be reflected in the sources referenced in the article. Shootings in particular are way up in 2015, on track to eclipse 2014 by a massive margin.
JSO's own data stops in 2014 and their reported data to FDLE was last in 2013.
No, it doesn't. The 2014 figures are included in the Sheriff's Report on Violent Crime and Manpower (http://www.coj.net/departments/sheriffs-office/docs/reports/201504-violent-crime-and-manpower.aspx). They use the same Uniform Crime Report figures the other sources do, so the numbers will be basically the same. The FBI already has part of the 2014 figures up.
Arash's article is... incomplete. I'll have a lengthier response to this later.
I look forward to it.
Curry has done an outstanding job appealing to his base. I expect that tomorrow he will be "rewarded" for his efforts as Rick Scott has twice been rewarded. It's a conservative, white, Southern base that is watching its power erode with each passing cycle. Tapping into that fear, effectively messaging around it and exploiting the insecurities of it are a craft that modern GOP operatives have perfected. What's sad is that Willie Horton tactics still work in the GOP.
Independent of this election, if you are a Republican, I invite some hard introspection into the company you keep politically and why. I hope some of you find this kind of pandering to the worst nature of people repugnant and demand change within your ranks. I know pointing out moral flaws of partisans often only makes partisans more adversarial however America needs a strong two party system based on differing visions for the future and not fear mongering.
Quote from: DuvalHusky on May 18, 2015, 12:52:23 PM
.... however America needs a strong two party system based on differing visions for the futur...
On this I call absolute BS and would be willing to discuss it in another thread.
Quote from: stephendare on May 18, 2015, 11:07:22 AM
And I guess that it doesn't matter to them AT ALL that they managed to slander the performance of the Sheriff's Office while trying to win against Alvin at any cost. Least of all the truth.
let me correct you here....
And I guess that it doesn't matter to them AT ALL that they managed to slander the performance of the Sheriff's Office
while at the same time gladly accepting an endorsement from the current sheriff!
Quote from: tufsu1 on May 18, 2015, 12:58:53 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 18, 2015, 11:07:22 AM
And I guess that it doesn't matter to them AT ALL that they managed to slander the performance of the Sheriff's Office while trying to win against Alvin at any cost. Least of all the truth.
let me correct you here....
And I guess that it doesn't matter to them AT ALL that they managed to slander the performance of the Sheriff's Office while at the same time gladly accepting an endorsement from the current sheriff!
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the JSO is loving the fact that someone is helping further the perception of the poor job they're supposedly doing due to a lack of (budgeted) officers (that could potentially be) on the street.
It's kind of tough prove the need for a budget increase when you're already doing a great job with what you have, don't you think?
Quote from: Tacachale on May 18, 2015, 10:31:59 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 18, 2015, 10:21:03 AM
Quote from: jbliii on May 18, 2015, 10:02:20 AM
The data in the article stops at 2013, so it misses the fact that crime went up in 2014 and (especially) in the first quarter of 2015. The more recent data is just too new to be reflected in the sources referenced in the article. Shootings in particular are way up in 2015, on track to eclipse 2014 by a massive margin.
JSO's own data stops in 2014 and their reported data to FDLE was last in 2013.
No, it doesn't. The 2014 figures are included in the Sheriff's Report on Violent Crime and Manpower (http://www.coj.net/departments/sheriffs-office/docs/reports/201504-violent-crime-and-manpower.aspx). They use the same Uniform Crime Report figures the other sources do, so the numbers will be basically the same. The FBI already has part of the 2014 figures up.
Arash's article is... incomplete. I'll have a lengthier response to this later.
The graphs in the article stop at 2013 - that's what I was referencing. You can validate the 2015 increase in shootings by going directly to crime report data. By its nature recent crime report data is less detailed and more prone to change (i.e., not all reports are charged crimes), but the spike in 2015 relative to the last couple of years is real.
I agree with the writer's broader point, though, that the way Curry has gone after this issue is misleading and ignores the broader context of the 20-year trend. Reductions in crime are never as well publicized as increases in crime.
Sorry for the delay in responding.
Arash, you say that while Curry (accurately) cited the Sheriff's Report on Violent Crime and Manpower (http://www.coj.net/departments/sheriffs-office/docs/reports/201504-violent-crime-and-manpower.aspx), you're using other sources, including the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/) report. You don't say that in fact, both sources are using the same figures from the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data. There are two differences I can see: you're including some crimes from the Beaches that the Sheriff's Report omits, and more significantly, as others have said, the BJS has incomplete data for 2014, while the Sheriff's Report has the figures. Leaving out 2014 is an inexplicable oversight.
The 2014 numbers (http://www.coj.net/departments/sheriffs-office/docs/reports/201504-violent-crime-and-manpower.aspx) don't look good. Murders went up to 96 from 93 in 2013 and 71 in 2011. Rapes shot up to 479 from 452 in 2013 and 350 in 2011. Robbery, which you don't really get into, was actually down, while aggravated assault was up. Looking at the UCR data, violent crime has, in fact, trended up since 2011, in the figures and percentages reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Sheriff, and Curry. These statements accurately reflect the reported trends in violent crime during Mayor Brown's tenure.
The article removes the figures from their context as well. Violent crime was on the rise prior to the creation of the Jacksonville Journey under Mayor Peyton in 2009. From that point, violent crime started a serious decline that continued into 2011. However, the budget for Jacksonville Journey has dropped from $30 million in 2009 to $2.1 million this year (not entirely due to Brown, but he's been in charge of the last four budgets). Additionally, dozens of cops have been cut, many of them due to Brown (the debate the exact number continues elsewhere). Brown actually proposed cutting 300 more officers. Unsurprisingly, violent crime has been up during each year. Additionally, as jbliii has said, it appears the trend is continuing this year as well. If you don't believe we've got a serious crime problem on our hands, you must be living in a different city.
Are Curry's statements negative? Yes. Are they "fear-mongering"? Maybe, but no worse than Brown's claims that Curry will "turn back the clock" (http://news.wjct.org/post/face-face-brown-curry-tackle-racism-economic-growth-mayoral-debate) on race relations, among other things he and his operatives have said. Are they false? No.
This was a solid effort at tackling a difficult subject, but the reporting is disappointing.
^ question about the rape figures.....does anybody think that numbers have increased because more people are reporting the crime in recent years...and if so, how is that reflected in the statistics?
Just another nugget to ponder regarding all of the crime in general: All of the numbers reported are based off of the charge at the time of arrest and not conviction. I wonder if there's any correlation of a directive (spoken or unspoken) to initially charge the crimes high and then let the courts decide? Is there any way to compare the charges v/s the convictions?
It's confusing. Although Angela Corey took charge of the SAO in '09 and is known as being really tough on charges, but because the murder #s dropped substantially when/right after she took office I wonder if there's any way to compare policy before and after.
Quote from: tufsu1 on May 19, 2015, 11:32:40 AM
^ question about the rape figures.....does anybody think that numbers have increased because more people are reporting the crime in recent years...and if so, how is that reflected in the statistics?
First hit on google:
QuoteUCR Program Changes Definition of Rape
Includes All Victims and Omits Requirement of Physical Force
In December 2011, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III, approved revisions to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program's 80-year-old definition of rape. As approved, the UCR Program's definition of rape is "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." The revised definition is the collaborative effort of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy Board (APB), which is made up of representatives from all major law enforcement organizations, and staff from the national UCR Program with input from the Office of the Vice President of the United States, the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women, and victim advocacy groups, such as the Women's Law Project.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/cjis-link/march-2012/ucr-program-changes-definition-of-rape
The 'spike' doesn't occur until year '12 to '13.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 19, 2015, 06:02:23 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on May 19, 2015, 11:32:40 AM
^ question about the rape figures.....does anybody think that numbers have increased because more people are reporting the crime in recent years...and if so, how is that reflected in the statistics?
First hit on google:
QuoteUCR Program Changes Definition of Rape
Includes All Victims and Omits Requirement of Physical Force
In December 2011, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III, approved revisions to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program's 80-year-old definition of rape. As approved, the UCR Program's definition of rape is "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." The revised definition is the collaborative effort of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy Board (APB), which is made up of representatives from all major law enforcement organizations, and staff from the national UCR Program with input from the Office of the Vice President of the United States, the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women, and victim advocacy groups, such as the Women's Law Project.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/cjis-link/march-2012/ucr-program-changes-definition-of-rape
The 'spike' doesn't occur until year '12 to '13.
Interesting. That explains the biggest spike. It still jumped again from 452 in 2013 to 479 in 2014, after the new definition was adopted.
Quote from: tufsu1 on May 19, 2015, 11:32:40 AM
^ question about the rape figures.....does anybody think that numbers have increased because more people are reporting the crime in recent years...and if so, how is that reflected in the statistics?
That would have been convenient, but even just the 6% jump from 2013-2014 tracks with the overall rise in violent crime.
Tachahale, I'm till going through numbers...
based on my very limited review of crime trends, crime spikes and declines at similar levels throughout the country. If Jacksonville is experiencing a spike, are similar increases happening throughout Florida, the South, the country?
Also, do you think that an influx of people can lead to an increase in crime?
Quote from: Tacachale on May 22, 2015, 11:01:10 AM
That would have been convenient, but even just the 6% jump from 2013-2014 tracks with the overall rise in violent crime.
I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here and it kind of wraps around my previous comment:
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 19, 2015, 05:54:57 PM
Just another nugget to ponder regarding all of the crime in general: All of the numbers reported are based off of the charge at the time of arrest and not conviction. I wonder if there's any correlation of a directive (spoken or unspoken) to initially charge the crimes high and then let the courts decide? Is there any way to compare the charges v/s the convictions?
It's confusing. Although Angela Corey took charge of the SAO in '09 and is known as being really tough on charges, but because the murder #s dropped substantially when/right after she took office I wonder if there's any way to compare policy before and after.
Again, we're talking about 'reported' crimes and not convictions. And in today's world, it's not inconceivable to consider how easy it is that what begins as a potential simple battery 911 call from a concerned neighbor that ends up becoming domestic abuse, rape, possession of illegal firearm, etc... because of what the police are trained to do when writing their reports and the origination charge upon arrest.
I'm not trying to minimize any of the offenses, and I'm not suggesting that any of it is standard practice, I'm only asking a question and am extremely curious if there's a way to actually link any of the above together.
Can the small fluctuations in crime (6% in my mind is insignificant) be attributed more to police practice or to actual increases in crime?
Case in point, how has the decriminalization of marijuana affected the overall crime numbers in Washington, Colorado, etc.?
Quote from: TheCat on May 22, 2015, 11:10:43 AM
Tachahale, I'm till going through numbers...
based on my very limited review of crime trends, crime spikes and declines at similar levels throughout the country. If Jacksonville is experiencing a spike, are similar increases happening throughout Florida, the South, the country?
Well, you're the reporter here, but no, it doesn't look like it:
Quote
FDLE Annual Report: Florida's crime rate drops while Jacksonville's rises
By The Times-Union Thu, May 21, 2015 @ 8:38 am | updated Thu, May 21, 2015 @ 9:16 am
Florida's crime rate dropped 4.9 percent last year as compared to 2013, according to a new annual report released by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The total number of crimes fell 3.6 percent from last year which translates into 25,476 fewer crimes than in 2013, FDLE reported.
In Jacksonville the total crime index was up 2.8% over 2013, according to FDLE.
...
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2015-05-21/story/floridas-crime-rate-drops-while-jacksonvilles-rises
Quote from: TheCat on May 22, 2015, 11:11:59 AM
Also, do you think that an influx of people can lead to an increase in crime?
No clue, but I'm pretty sure our population has been growing pretty steadily for a long time.
I'm curious what you mean with this statement:
Quote
2011 is an interesting year. That year we lost 4 percent of our population, around 36,000 people, the first "significant" decrease since 1995 (there was a .49 percent decrease from 2008 to 2009).
According to the Census estimates (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1235000.html), there were 823,291 people in Jax in 2010 and 829,065 in 2011. That's a *gain* of 5774. Similarly, the population grew from 809,891 in 2008 to 813,518 in 2009.
Even if it were true, it's hard to tell what your point is with this statement.
Just a suggestion. If we are going to break down the crime info maybe a new thread would be worthwhile so folks don't miss it thinking it's campaign talk. :)
Yeah, it's annoying that just responding in this thread circulates the piece (and its title) even more, but this is the logical place to critique the stats, or rather Arash's claims about them. Perhaps we could start a new thread, or the mods could alter this title.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 22, 2015, 04:31:32 PM
Yeah, it's annoying that just responding in this thread circulates the piece (and its title) even more, but this is the logical place to critique the stats, or rather Arash's claims about them. Perhaps we could start a new thread, or the mods could alter this title.
Agree, good info will be missed.
Tacahale, sorry for my very delayed response:
QuoteArash, you say that while Curry (accurately) cited the Sheriff's Report on Violent Crime and Manpower, you're using other sources, including the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics report. You don't say that in fact, both sources are using the same figures from the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data. There are two differences I can see: you're including some crimes from the Beaches that the Sheriff's Report omits, and more significantly, as others have said, the BJS has incomplete data for 2014, while the Sheriff's Report has the figures. Leaving out 2014 is an inexplicable oversight.
I included all of Duval County in my report. It would be "inexplicable" if I included JSOs numbers, which does not include all of Duval County.
My apologies for not saying that both data sets are "UCR" numbers. Although JSO is the reporting agency I feel more comfortable using the data once it has been published by FDLE and UCR directly.
BUT...
Let's look at JSO's report.
So, the Curry campaign felt like Brown was at fault for the increase in crime from 2013 to 2014. Is he equally responsible for bringing about the record lows in crime during his tenure? That's what we experienced during Brown's admin.
The "Violent Crime Total" lowest years
2011: 5,182
2012: 5,189
2013: 5,246
2010: 5,469
2014: 5,853
Of the top lowest "violent crime total" numbers, Brown was in office four out of those five years. Three years, if you don't want to count 2011.
When you look at "murder" we had a record low number, 71 killed, in 2011. The last time the number of murders in our city was in the 70s was in 2001, 75 were killed.
This is the report from UCR from 1985 – 2012.
http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Local/RunCrimeJurisbyJurisLarge.cfm (http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Local/RunCrimeJurisbyJurisLarge.cfm)
For whatever reason the data analysis tool is not updated to include 2013 and 2014 but you can add the JSO numbers from the report.
Even if you look at 2014, our violent crime rate is low. It has increased from 2013 but it is, again, very low. 2014, is the 5th lowest year of violent crime since 1985.
And, it was accomplished with less police.
Quote
The 2014 numbers don't look good. Murders went up to 96 from 93 in 2013 and 71 in 2011. Rapes shot up to 479 from 452 in 2013 and 350 in 2011. Robbery, which you don't really get into, was actually down, while aggravated assault was up. Looking at the UCR data, violent crime has, in fact, trended up since 2011, in the figures and percentages reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Sheriff, and Curry. These statements accurately reflect the reported trends in violent crime during Mayor Brown's tenure.
The article removes the figures from their context as well. Violent crime was on the rise prior to the creation of the Jacksonville Journey under Mayor Peyton in 2009. From that point, violent crime started a serious decline that continued into 2011. However, the budget for Jacksonville Journey has dropped from $30 million in 2009 to $2.1 million this year (not entirely due to Brown, but he's been in charge of the last four budgets). Additionally, dozens of cops have been cut, many of them due to Brown (the debate the exact number continues elsewhere). Brown actually proposed cutting 300 more officers. Unsurprisingly, violent crime has been up during each year. Additionally, as jbliii has said, it appears the trend is continuing this year as well. If you don't believe we've got a serious crime problem on our hands, you must be living in a different city.
Violent crime rate for Duval continued to decline from 2011 - 2013. We increased by nearly 10 percent in 2014.
Maybe? Did Jacksonville Journey really cause a reduction in violent crime? It's possible that it contributed. I don't think you can make that claim.
If you look at the violent crime rate you'll see that crime has steadily declined since 1997. Except for three years; 2000, 2007 and 2014 the violent crime rate has decreased. In 1995, the violent crime rate was 1,369 per 100k people. In 2014, the VCR was 692 per 100k people.
That's the context. I didn't strip it away.
My argument is the Curry Campaign stripped away the context. They were not honest about where crime is today in relationship to historical trends.
Also, although Curry was not explicit in this claim, the implication was crime increased because Brown cut 147 officers. We know now that that is untrue. Further, we have had more crime with more police on the force in our history.
Does Brown receive accolades for recognizing that we can do more with less?
Curry's campaign made it seem like our crime levels were astonishingly high. They aren't. Again, we are in a record low season.
I stand by my premise, the Curry Campaign was fear mongering. If you are going to condemn Brown for the increase, you have to give him accolades for the record low numbers in crime that we experienced.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 22, 2015, 02:20:59 PM
I'm curious what you mean with this statement:
Quote
2011 is an interesting year. That year we lost 4 percent of our population, around 36,000 people, the first "significant" decrease since 1995 (there was a .49 percent decrease from 2008 to 2009).
According to the Census estimates (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1235000.html), there were 823,291 people in Jax in 2010 and 829,065 in 2011. That's a *gain* of 5774. Similarly, the population grew from 809,891 in 2008 to 813,518 in 2009.
Even if it were true, it's hard to tell what your point is with this statement.
According to FDLE, duval county population:
2010: 901,271
2011: 864,601
Find it on this link. Click on any of the "Violent index crimes".
https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/content/getdoc/ad060310-e277-4dc7-b6d5-9a26f582f481/Duval.aspx
(https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/content/getdoc/ad060310-e277-4dc7-b6d5-9a26f582f481/Duval.aspx)
^ the data is incorrect. I go with updated BEBR and Census stats on population
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 11, 2015, 12:53:04 PM
^ the data is incorrect. I go with updated BEBR and Census stats on population
It's not just incorrect. It's WAAAYYYY off. The official 2010 Census count for Duval was 864k. Seems like the FDLE was way off on their 2010 estimate and the 2011 number accounts for a correction based off the official 2010 Census data.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 11, 2015, 02:37:44 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 11, 2015, 12:53:04 PM
^ the data is incorrect. I go with updated BEBR and Census stats on population
It's not just incorrect. It's WAAAYYYY off. The official 2010 Census count for Duval was 864k. Seems like the FDLE was way off on their 2010 estimate and the 2011 number accounts for a correction based off the official 2010 Census data.
I saw that too, but we don't have their (BEBR) 2010 Estimate to go off of, at least not on the front page. Admittedly, I didn't do any real digging.
https://www.bebr.ufl.edu/population/products
It appears that the 2011 FDLE numbers are based off of the 2011 BEBR estimate as well, though the actual census numbers posted in 2012 were much closer.
Quote from: TheCat on June 10, 2015, 10:37:11 PM
Tacahale, sorry for my very delayed response:
QuoteArash, you say that while Curry (accurately) cited the Sheriff's Report on Violent Crime and Manpower, you're using other sources, including the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics report. You don't say that in fact, both sources are using the same figures from the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data. There are two differences I can see: you're including some crimes from the Beaches that the Sheriff's Report omits, and more significantly, as others have said, the BJS has incomplete data for 2014, while the Sheriff's Report has the figures. Leaving out 2014 is an inexplicable oversight.
I included all of Duval County in my report. It would be "inexplicable" if I included JSOs numbers, which does not include all of Duval County.
My apologies for not saying that both data sets are "UCR" numbers. Although JSO is the reporting agency I feel more comfortable using the data once it has been published by FDLE and UCR directly.
Sorry, but I don't buy this. It seems more likely you just misread the two sources as giving different figures, when in reality they give the
same figures, with the JSO report excluding the Beaches but including 2014. If you didn't want to use the JSO report, the numbers shouldn't have been too hard for a reporter to get. At least you should have been clear that you weren't including 2014 (though of course that means the entire piece is a year and a half out of date).
Quote from: TheCat on June 10, 2015, 10:37:11 PM
BUT...
Let's look at JSO's report.
So, the Curry campaign felt like Brown was at fault for the increase in crime from 2013 to 2014. Is he equally responsible for bringing about the record lows in crime during his tenure? That's what we experienced during Brown's admin.
The "Violent Crime Total" lowest years
2011: 5,182
2012: 5,189
2013: 5,246
2010: 5,469
2014: 5,853
Of the top lowest "violent crime total" numbers, Brown was in office four out of those five years. Three years, if you don't want to count 2011.
When you look at "murder" we had a record low number, 71 killed, in 2011. The last time the number of murders in our city was in the 70s was in 2001, 75 were killed.
This is the report from UCR from 1985 – 2012.
http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Local/RunCrimeJurisbyJurisLarge.cfm (http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Local/RunCrimeJurisbyJurisLarge.cfm)
For whatever reason the data analysis tool is not updated to include 2013 and 2014 but you can add the JSO numbers from the report.
Even if you look at 2014, our violent crime rate is low. It has increased from 2013 but it is, again, very low. 2014, is the 5th lowest year of violent crime since 1985.
And, it was accomplished with less police.
There's the rub. The numbers are wrong: crime isn't down. However, your further comments reveal what the discrepancy is. The FDLE's crime indexes and rates are based on faulty population data. This one isn't really on you, it looks like you reported their numbers faithfully (again, through 2013).
This comment exposes the problem:
Quote from: TheCat on June 10, 2015, 10:47:29 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on May 22, 2015, 02:20:59 PM
I'm curious what you mean with this statement:
Quote
2011 is an interesting year. That year we lost 4 percent of our population, around 36,000 people, the first "significant" decrease since 1995 (there was a .49 percent decrease from 2008 to 2009).
According to the Census estimates (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1235000.html), there were 823,291 people in Jax in 2010 and 829,065 in 2011. That's a *gain* of 5774. Similarly, the population grew from 809,891 in 2008 to 813,518 in 2009.
Even if it were true, it's hard to tell what your point is with this statement.
According to FDLE, duval county population:
2010: 901,271
2011: 864,601
Find it on this link. Click on any of the "Violent index crimes".
https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/content/getdoc/ad060310-e277-4dc7-b6d5-9a26f582f481/Duval.aspx
(https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/content/getdoc/ad060310-e277-4dc7-b6d5-9a26f582f481/Duval.aspx)
I don't know where the FDLE is getting its population figures from, but as tufsu1 and thelakelander say, it's out of step with the Census population estimates. Here are the Census estimates for Duval County:
2010: 864,263
2011: 872,294
2012: 880,595
2013: 887,322
2014: 897,698
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
The FDLE is off in every single year, meaning the crime rates per 100k people are also off.
Now, I'm not about to try and re-estimate the crime rate based on these numbers. Folks smarter than me can try that. That just leaves us with the bare numbers, and you don't have to be all that smart to see the increase from these figures:
2011 violent crimes
Murder: 71
Rape: 350
Aggravated Assault: 3,183
Total Violent Crimes: 5,182
... to these figures:
2014 violent crimes
Murder: 96
Rape: 479
Aggravated Assault: 3,859
Total Violent Crimes: 5,853
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2015, 03:32:57 PM
so you don't know what the real numbers are, your just sure that the curry campaign was truthful about them? ;)
I know what I read from the Sheriff's report and the FDLE, and the Curry campaign accurately reported the available numbers indicating that murder, rape and assault were up through Brown's term.
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2015, 03:55:58 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 11, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2015, 03:32:57 PM
so you don't know what the real numbers are, your just sure that the curry campaign was truthful about them? ;)
I know what I read from the Sheriff's report and the FDLE, and the Curry campaign accurately reported the available numbers indicating that murder, rape and assault were up through Brown's term.
so, 'explosion of violent crime' would be accurate?
Well, I wouldn't call substantial increases in violent crime a "Picnic at Gumdrop Junction".
Those are the big errors, but the second part of Arash's argument, that there's no connection between police manpower on the streets and crime, also contains has problems.
As can be seen by comparing the crime rates to the officer figures, it's just not correct. The drop in crime in the late 90s came after a substantial increase in officers as well as civilian hires, which allowed Sheriff Glover to move cops from desk jobs back to the streets. As I said before, the drop in crime after 2009 (after several years of increases) came along with more officer hires and the Jacksonville Journey, which devoted $30 million to tackling the problem (this has been reduced to $2.1 million). The increase in violent crime since 2011 came along, unsurprisingly, as Brown cut dozens of officers, eliminated all the community service officers, and proposed cutting hundreds more cops.
It's funny that the piece accuses Curry of "fear mongering" considering that the whole thing is an attempt to make Curry look bad, and to deflect one of the main criticisms against Brown. I always thought this was an odd strategy on Brown's part, it just looked like he was trying to pretend a problem wasn't a problem. Obviously it didn't convince too many people.
I brought this up with Ennis before, but Metro Jacksonville should issue a correction for the inaccurate claims presented in this piece.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 11, 2015, 05:17:05 PM
It's funny that the piece accuses Curry of "fear mongering" considering that the whole thing is an attempt to make Curry look bad, and to deflect one of the main criticisms against Brown.
I think it is far more disingenuous for Curry to have blamed the Mayor for the rise in crime while not ever looking at the Sheriff that endorsed and campaigned for him.
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 11, 2015, 08:51:50 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 11, 2015, 05:17:05 PM
It's funny that the piece accuses Curry of "fear mongering" considering that the whole thing is an attempt to make Curry look bad, and to deflect one of the main criticisms against Brown.
I think it is far more disingenuous for Curry to have blamed the Mayor for the rise in crime while not ever looking at the Sheriff that endorsed and campaigned for him.
And pointing fingers at the mayor for cutting the funding for 147 budgeted positions. Why on earth were those positions unfilled? How many officers does the mayor typically hire? Who's responsibility is it to ensure that their department is capably staffed to do the task at hand?
Last question: How can you justify requesting a budget increase when you've been doing such a fantastic job with less than what you're already allotted?
QuoteSorry, but I don't buy this. It seems more likely you just misread the two sources as giving different figures, when in reality they give the same figures, with the JSO report excluding the Beaches but including 2014. If you didn't want to use the JSO report, the numbers shouldn't have been too hard for a reporter to get. At least you should have been clear that you weren't including 2014 (though of course that means the entire piece is a year and a half out of date).
I'm not selling anything, so we're good.
It's pretty clear that I didn't include 2014 since it wasn't included.
I'll go back and re-read my piece but I'm pretty sure that I said Curry wasn't making his numbers up. He was, as you said of me, "stripping it of context."
First of all, Curry placed blame on Brown for a spike in crime, which is a little disingenuous. Then, the implication was that the reason we had a spike in crime was because we had fewer police on the force, which is also disingenuous.
Especially since, during Brown's tenure we saw lowest violent crime TOTALS since at least 1985.
Do you disagree that from 2011 - 2014 the violent crime TOTAL were the lowest we have seen in 29 years?Was there a spike in crime? Yes. Is it because Brown did what...? Seriously, how did he cause the crime incrase? Was it because he didn't replace the police assigned to schools and the port?
What Curry did would be like me blaming Delaney for a spike in crime in 2011, a nearly 13 percent increase. The last three years of Delaney's term the murders increased by 22% from 75 murders in 2001 to 92 in 2003.
QuoteThere's the rub. The numbers are wrong: crime isn't down. However, your further comments reveal what the discrepancy is. The FDLE's crime indexes and rates are based on faulty population data. This one isn't really on you, it looks like you reported their numbers faithfully (again, through 2013).
This comment exposes the problem:
The numbers are not wrong.
I understand the conversation about FDLE having wrong population numbers which messes with the crime rate.
That's interesting and requires more looking into but half of my response included total numbers, which is not based on a rate. The piece included not just the rate but also the total numbers, side by side to each other.
I wrote the following in my last reponse:
Quote
BUT...
Let's look at JSO's report.
So, the Curry campaign felt like Brown was at fault for the increase in crime from 2013 to 2014. Is he equally responsible for bringing about the record lows in crime during his tenure? That's what we experienced during Brown's admin.
The "Violent Crime Total" lowest years
2011: 5,182
2012: 5,189
2013: 5,246
2010: 5,469
2014: 5,853
Of the top lowest "violent crime total" numbers, Brown was in office four out of those five years. Three years, if you don't want to count 2011.
When you look at "murder" we had a record low number, 71 killed, in 2011. The last time the number of murders in our city was in the 70s was in 2001, 75 were killed.
This is the report from UCR from 1985 – 2012.
http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Local/RunCrimeJurisbyJurisLarge.cfm
For whatever reason the data analysis tool is not updated to include 2013 and 2014 but you can add the JSO numbers from the report.
Even if you look at 2014, our violent crime rate is low. It has increased from 2013 but it is, again, very low. 2014, is the 5th lowest year of violent crime since 1985.
And, it was accomplished with less police.
The "Violent Crime Total" lowest years
2011: 5,182
2012: 5,189
2013: 5,246
2010: 5,469
2014: 5,853
These figures are the
Total Number of violent crime
Not the rate of violent crime. So, my greater point, which I think you keep ignoring is that even when we look at 2014 we see that it is 5th lowest "violent crime total" year since 1985!
If we keep looking we see that Brown was in office 4 out of the 5 lowest years in violent crime since 1985.
So, you want to make the claim that Brown was the cause of the crime increases? Maybe he also deserves an award for overseeing the lowest levels of violent crime this city has ever seen?
QuoteThere's the rub. The numbers are wrong: crime isn't down. However, your further comments reveal what the discrepancy is. The FDLE's crime indexes and rates are based on faulty population data. This one isn't really on you, it looks like you reported their numbers faithfully (again, through 2013).
Again, the numbers aren't wrong. Even when you look at total crime figures, independent of the population, the last five years have been low.
Just to be clear, I think this is all asinine. I think crime reports have to be looked with a gigantic grain of salt. I also think the debate over increases and decreases only matter in light of trends.
Just to be even more clear, I am not arguing that Brown is the cause of lowered crime. I'm arguing that Curry was mongering fear by using a spike in crime that happened during one the lowest seasons of crime this city has ever seen.
Then, what does this mean according to you or Curry? In 2014 the violent crime
total was 5,853 an increase of 607 instances of violent crime from 2013. What's Curry's solution? Hire 147 more police to combat 607 more instances of violent crime? Yeah, that will be effective ::).
Quote from: TheCat on June 11, 2015, 11:01:01 PM
Hire 147 more police to combat 607 more instances of violent crime? Yeah, that will be effective ::).
Cat, as we discussed, this is one of the most mis-used figures in the entire debate.
Allow me to re-phrase for you:
QuoteBudget 147 more unfilled police positions to combat 607 more instances of violent crime? Yeah, that will be effective ::).
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 11, 2015, 10:54:34 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 11, 2015, 08:51:50 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 11, 2015, 05:17:05 PM
It's funny that the piece accuses Curry of "fear mongering" considering that the whole thing is an attempt to make Curry look bad, and to deflect one of the main criticisms against Brown.
I think it is far more disingenuous for Curry to have blamed the Mayor for the rise in crime while not ever looking at the Sheriff that endorsed and campaigned for him.
And pointing fingers at the mayor for cutting the funding for 147 budgeted positions. Why on earth were those positions unfilled? How many officers does the mayor typically hire? Who's responsibility is it to ensure that their department is capably staffed to do the task at hand?
Last question: How can you justify requesting a budget increase when you've been doing such a fantastic job with less than what you're already allotted?
Yes, blaming the Sheriff for everything was Brown's other tactic. It was even worse, as it just opened the door for the Sheriff to say, "well you set the budgets, you cut dozens of officers and Jacksonville Journey, you haven't solved the pension, and now violent crime is up." I imagine that's what led to the second claim, as articulated here, that our crime problem simply doesn't exist. But it creates a real mixed message: is crime a real problem that's the Sheriff's fault, or is it not really a problem after all?
Quote from: TheCat on June 11, 2015, 11:01:01 PM
QuoteSorry, but I don't buy this. It seems more likely you just misread the two sources as giving different figures, when in reality they give the same figures, with the JSO report excluding the Beaches but including 2014. If you didn't want to use the JSO report, the numbers shouldn't have been too hard for a reporter to get. At least you should have been clear that you weren't including 2014 (though of course that means the entire piece is a year and a half out of date).
I'm not selling anything, so we're good.
It's pretty clear that I didn't include 2014 since it wasn't included.
I'll go back and re-read my piece but I'm pretty sure that I said Curry wasn't making his numbers up. He was, as you said of me, "stripping it of context."
All my comments are directed at what appeared in the piece. That's what's important, as it's the thing that ran on the MJ front page and went out before the election.
You do say that Curry accurately reports the numbers from the Sheriff. However, you say that you use other sources (FDLE and BJS) that reveal different conclusions: that "Since Mayor Alvin Brown has been in office there has been a 1 percent decrease in total violent crime and a 2.4 percent decrease in the violent crime rate."
What you
don't say is that the sources have essentially the same data, but that yours are a year and a half out of date. You'd draw pretty much the same conclusion based on any of the sources if they were up to date.
Quote from: TheCat on June 11, 2015, 11:01:01 PM
First of all, Curry placed blame on Brown for a spike in crime, which is a little disingenuous. Then, the implication was that the reason we had a spike in crime was because we had fewer police on the force, which is also disingenuous.
Especially since, during Brown's tenure we saw lowest violent crime TOTALS since at least 1985.
Do you disagree that from 2011 - 2014 the violent crime TOTAL were the lowest we have seen in 29 years?
Was there a spike in crime? Yes. Is it because Brown did what...? Seriously, how did he cause the crime incrase? Was it because he didn't replace the police assigned to schools and the port?
What Curry did would be like me blaming Delaney for a spike in crime in 2011, a nearly 13 percent increase. The last three years of Delaney's term the murders increased by 22% from 75 murders in 2001 to 92 in 2003.
I don't know, it could well be that crime is at a low since 1985. I'm no expert, but clearly crime stats fluctuate over time. There are historical, national, and statewide trends, there are differences in reporting. To me, the issue is less that crime is higher (or lower) than some previous point, it's that it has steadily increased during Brown's four years in office from where it was. It's done that despite
downward trends across Florida. That's the point where you look at what's different. In the context of a mayoral race you look at what the mayor has done in his purview.
The mayor sets the budget, and here, he cut dozens of officers, he cut all the CSOs, he cut the Jacksonville Journey. He failed to solve the pension issue that eats up so much of our budget (until recently, hopefully). He proposed cutting 300 more officers. All this is fair game.
Quote from: TheCat on June 11, 2015, 11:01:01 PM
QuoteThere's the rub. The numbers are wrong: crime isn't down. However, your further comments reveal what the discrepancy is. The FDLE's crime indexes and rates are based on faulty population data. This one isn't really on you, it looks like you reported their numbers faithfully (again, through 2013).
This comment exposes the problem:
The numbers are not wrong.
I understand the conversation about FDLE having wrong population numbers which messes with the crime rate.
That's interesting and requires more looking into but half of my response included total numbers, which is not based on a rate. The piece included not just the rate but also the total numbers, side by side to each other.
I wrote the following in my last reponse:
Quote
BUT...
Let's look at JSO's report.
So, the Curry campaign felt like Brown was at fault for the increase in crime from 2013 to 2014. Is he equally responsible for bringing about the record lows in crime during his tenure? That's what we experienced during Brown's admin.
The "Violent Crime Total" lowest years
2011: 5,182
2012: 5,189
2013: 5,246
2010: 5,469
2014: 5,853
Of the top lowest "violent crime total" numbers, Brown was in office four out of those five years. Three years, if you don't want to count 2011.
When you look at "murder" we had a record low number, 71 killed, in 2011. The last time the number of murders in our city was in the 70s was in 2001, 75 were killed.
This is the report from UCR from 1985 – 2012.
http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Local/RunCrimeJurisbyJurisLarge.cfm
For whatever reason the data analysis tool is not updated to include 2013 and 2014 but you can add the JSO numbers from the report.
Even if you look at 2014, our violent crime rate is low. It has increased from 2013 but it is, again, very low. 2014, is the 5th lowest year of violent crime since 1985.
And, it was accomplished with less police.
The "Violent Crime Total" lowest years
2011: 5,182
2012: 5,189
2013: 5,246
2010: 5,469
2014: 5,853
These figures are the Total Number of violent crime Not the rate of violent crime. So, my greater point, which I think you keep ignoring is that even when we look at 2014 we see that it is 5th lowest "violent crime total" year since 1985!
If we keep looking we see that Brown was in office 4 out of the 5 lowest years in violent crime since 1985.
So, you want to make the claim that Brown was the cause of the crime increases? Maybe he also deserves an award for overseeing the lowest levels of violent crime this city has ever seen?
Again, all my comments refer to what you put in the article. Clearly, the crime rate figures are wrong because they're based on population data that's way off. As I said, this isn't on you, you correctly reported the source. But honestly, you should have caught that if you're putting something on the front page. Ennis, tufsu1, and I all noticed it as soon as it was posted. It's not like there's a lack of fact checkers around here. And, of course, the figures also leave out 2014.
The piece does mention the violent crime totals. But, of course, it excludes the 2014 numbers, which are up.
Quote from: TheCat on June 11, 2015, 11:01:01 PM
QuoteThere's the rub. The numbers are wrong: crime isn't down. However, your further comments reveal what the discrepancy is. The FDLE's crime indexes and rates are based on faulty population data. This one isn't really on you, it looks like you reported their numbers faithfully (again, through 2013).
Again, the numbers aren't wrong. Even when you look at total crime figures, independent of the population, the last five years have been low.
Just to be clear, I think this is all asinine. I think crime reports have to be looked with a gigantic grain of salt. I also think the debate over increases and decreases only matter in light of trends.
Just to be even more clear, I am not arguing that Brown is the cause of lowered crime. I'm arguing that Curry was mongering fear by using a spike in crime that happened during one the lowest seasons of crime this city has ever seen.
Then, what does this mean according to you or Curry? In 2014 the violent crime total was 5,853 an increase of 607 instances of violent crime from 2013. What's Curry's solution? Hire 147 more police to combat 607 more instances of violent crime? Yeah, that will be effective ::).
Either Alvin Brown was phenomenally unlucky and just happened to govern over four years of increasing violent crime he had no control over, or some of his policies came home to roost. Clearly, I think it was the latter, and enough other voters agreed that it's all going to be Curry's problem in a couple of weeks.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 11, 2015, 05:17:05 PM
Those are the big errors, but the second part of Arash's argument, that there's no connection between police manpower on the streets and crime, also contains has problems.
As can be seen by comparing the crime rates to the officer figures, it's just not correct. The drop in crime in the late 90s came after a substantial increase in officers as well as civilian hires, which allowed Sheriff Glover to move cops from desk jobs back to the streets. As I said before, the drop in crime after 2009 (after several years of increases) came along with more officer hires and the Jacksonville Journey, which devoted $30 million to tackling the problem (this has been reduced to $2.1 million). The increase in violent crime since 2011 came along, unsurprisingly, as Brown cut dozens of officers, eliminated all the community service officers, and proposed cutting hundreds more cops.
It's funny that the piece accuses Curry of "fear mongering" considering that the whole thing is an attempt to make Curry look bad, and to deflect one of the main criticisms against Brown. I always thought this was an odd strategy on Brown's part, it just looked like he was trying to pretend a problem wasn't a problem. Obviously it didn't convince too many people.
I brought this up with Ennis before, but Metro Jacksonville should issue a correction for the inaccurate claims presented in this piece.
You still haven't shown big errors, or small ones for that matter.
If you would like me to issue a correction on behalf FDLE population numbers, I suppose I can look into that.
I think it's funny that you think it's funny. It's funny how you think that the op-ed providing historical context to crime is the same thing as Curry making it seem like Jacksonville is headed towards "Mad Jax", if you will.
Anyway,
I feel like Jacksonville Journey is a net positive for our city. I have no idea if it is or isn't and neither do you but i suppose we can both feel that way.
Let's be clear on what you (and, maybe even I) are saying...
You are saying, the people who committed crimes would have otherwise not have committed those crimes if Jacksonville Journey was funded.
You are saying, the 600+ more violent crimes that occurred from 2013 to 2014 would have been prevented if we had invested $30 million or so in Jacksonville Journey.
You are saying, that those individuals that committed crimes would have been a part of the key demographics that Jacksonville Journey focused on within the last three to four years, in which they were underfunded.
Maybe?
Let's look at some numbers. This is the Violent Crime Total (
not the rate) since 1985.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Politics/Mayoral-Race-2015/i-kg23CTt/0/O/JacksonvilleViolentCrimeTotal.jpg)
Except for a few blips there is a steady decline in Violent Crime since 1986. In 2007, a leap in violent crime that bucked the trend (side note, 2006 is when Baldwin abandoned their police force and JSO took over).
If a program is so effective that it can be credited for reducing crime by 33 percent in two years, from 2007 to 2009, we should probably continue to reduce JSO in size in order to pump money into Jacksonville Journey. That's a phenomenal result.
My understanding is JJ launched earlier than 2009. This is a link announcing JJ in 12/07.
http://qa-www.coj.net/Departments/The-Jacksonville-Journey/Journey-Take-A-Step-Historical-Information/Steering-Committee/Press-Conference.aspx
(http://qa-www.coj.net/Departments/The-Jacksonville-Journey/Journey-Take-A-Step-Historical-Information/Steering-Committee/Press-Conference.aspx)
Then again, if I look at the Violent Crime Total in 2006 and again in 2009, the trend downward continues as though there wasn't a spike in 2007 and 2008 at all, which is consistent with the downward trend we have seen over the last 30 years.
And, of course, there is probably much more to the "Brown didn't fund JJ" talk track. Soon, we'll have a report that JJ was never actually funded at $30 million and that is the reason COJ has money magically appearing in their accounts. ;)
Quote from: TheCat on June 12, 2015, 01:02:10 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 11, 2015, 05:17:05 PM
Those are the big errors, but the second part of Arash's argument, that there's no connection between police manpower on the streets and crime, also contains has problems.
As can be seen by comparing the crime rates to the officer figures, it's just not correct. The drop in crime in the late 90s came after a substantial increase in officers as well as civilian hires, which allowed Sheriff Glover to move cops from desk jobs back to the streets. As I said before, the drop in crime after 2009 (after several years of increases) came along with more officer hires and the Jacksonville Journey, which devoted $30 million to tackling the problem (this has been reduced to $2.1 million). The increase in violent crime since 2011 came along, unsurprisingly, as Brown cut dozens of officers, eliminated all the community service officers, and proposed cutting hundreds more cops.
It's funny that the piece accuses Curry of "fear mongering" considering that the whole thing is an attempt to make Curry look bad, and to deflect one of the main criticisms against Brown. I always thought this was an odd strategy on Brown's part, it just looked like he was trying to pretend a problem wasn't a problem. Obviously it didn't convince too many people.
I brought this up with Ennis before, but Metro Jacksonville should issue a correction for the inaccurate claims presented in this piece.
You still haven't shown big errors, or small ones for that matter.
If you would like me to issue a correction on behalf FDLE population numbers, I suppose I can look into that.
Yes, relying on those crime rate stats that are based on faulty population counts is a problem. The bigger problem is that the piece makes all these claims as if they're based on different data, when really it's just another year out of date. Your argument is that Curry's claims were contradicted by your evidence, but the reality is that your evidence was faulty. You say things like, "Since Mayor Alvin Brown has been in office there has been a 1 percent decrease in total violent crime and a 2.4 percent decrease in the violent crime rate", which is false. It's out of date. All the neat graphs and charts are also out of date. And everything about crime rates is both out of date and based on bad data.
Quote from: TheCat on June 12, 2015, 01:02:10 AM
I think it's funny that you think it's funny. It's funny how you think that the op-ed providing historical context to crime is the same thing as Curry making it seem like Jacksonville is headed towards "Mad Jax", if you will.
I don't have any problem with you writing an op-ed. I did it too. I do have a problem with Metro Jacksonville running a piece that contains so much problematic data and so many factual errors. It makes the site look bad. I assure you I'm not the only one who thinks that.
There was also a problem with tone and perspective in the front page pieces and the forum postings throughout the campaign season, which also make the site look bad, but that's a conversation for elsewhere.
Quote from: TheCat on June 12, 2015, 01:02:10 AM
Anyway,
I feel like Jacksonville Journey is a net positive for our city. I have no idea if it is or isn't and neither do you but i suppose we can both feel that way.
Let's be clear on what you (and, maybe even I) are saying...
You are saying, the people who committed crimes would have otherwise not have committed those crimes if Jacksonville Journey was funded.
You are saying, the 600+ more violent crimes that occurred from 2013 to 2014 would have been prevented if we had invested $30 million or so in Jacksonville Journey.
You are saying, that those individuals that committed crimes would have been a part of the key demographics that Jacksonville Journey focused on within the last three to four years, in which they were underfunded.
Maybe?
Let's look at some numbers. This is the Violent Crime Total (not the rate) since 1985.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Politics/Mayoral-Race-2015/i-kg23CTt/0/O/JacksonvilleViolentCrimeTotal.jpg)
Except for a few blips there is a steady decline in Violent Crime since 1986. In 2007, a leap in violent crime that bucked the trend (side note, 2006 is when Baldwin abandoned their police force and JSO took over).
If a program is so effective that it can be credited for reducing crime by 33 percent in two years, from 2007 to 2009, we should probably continue to reduce JSO in size in order to pump money into Jacksonville Journey. That's a phenomenal result.
My understanding is JJ launched earlier than 2009. This is a link announcing JJ in 12/07.
http://qa-www.coj.net/Departments/The-Jacksonville-Journey/Journey-Take-A-Step-Historical-Information/Steering-Committee/Press-Conference.aspx
(http://qa-www.coj.net/Departments/The-Jacksonville-Journey/Journey-Take-A-Step-Historical-Information/Steering-Committee/Press-Conference.aspx)
Then again, if I look at the Violent Crime Total in 2006 and again in 2009, the trend downward continues as though there wasn't a spike in 2007 and 2008 at all, which is consistent with the downward trend we have seen over the last 30 years.
And, of course, there is probably much more to the "Brown didn't fund JJ" talk track. Soon, we'll have a report that JJ was never actually funded at $30 million and that is the reason COJ has money magically appearing in their accounts. ;)
Jacksonville Journey was established in 2007 but most programs kicked off in January 2009. I'm sure I can dig up something to that effect. It was launched because crime was rising in years leading up to it, particularly in some categories (murder was especially bad at that time). Crime went down for several years after JJ got going; murder plummeted. Now that the programs have been cut and officers are off the street (not entirely due to Brown, but the last four budgets were his), crime has risen again since 2011. Do you really not believe there's a connection there?
Quote from: Tacachale on June 11, 2015, 11:14:44 PM
Yes, blaming the Sheriff for everything was Brown's other tactic. It was even worse, as it just opened the door for the Sheriff to say, "well you set the budgets, you cut dozens of officers and Jacksonville Journey, you haven't solved the pension, and now violent crime is up." I imagine that's what led to the second claim, as articulated here, that our crime problem simply doesn't exist. But it creates a real mixed message: is crime a real problem that's the Sheriff's fault, or is it not really a problem after all?
you conveniently ignore that the Mayor (and Council) gave the Sheriff authorization to re-hire 80 officers...and he chose not to do it!
Even if you look at the crime rates by using population estimates from BEBR and the Census, the rates are similar.
This table shows that the violent crime rate dropped every year of Browns term except for 2014.
This is for DUVAL county as a whole. If I get a chance I'll look at the rates before 2010 and for Jacksonville.
The discrepancy in FDLE's 2010 pop. number in comparison to BEBR and the Census is curious.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Politics/Mayoral-Race-2015/i-cXvbKnq/0/O/ViolentCrimeRate_Duval.png)
QuoteYes, relying on those crime rate stats that are based on faulty population counts is a problem. The bigger problem is that the piece makes all these claims as if they're based on different data, when really it's just another year out of date. Your argument is that Curry's claims were contradicted by your evidence, but the reality is that your evidence was faulty. You say things like, "Since Mayor Alvin Brown has been in office there has been a 1 percent decrease in total violent crime and a 2.4 percent decrease in the violent crime rate", which is false. It's out of date. All the neat graphs and charts are also out of date. And everything about crime rates is both out of date and based on bad data.
Please refer the chart above. False and "out of date" are two different things.
I didn't say Curry's claims are wrong. I said Curry's claims are not the whole picture.
Tachahale, you are totally incorrect. It's not bad data. Now the last 4 years of the FDLE population estimates are cross referenced with BEBR and the Census you should feel a bit more comfortable in being able to say, "we had record low crime rates."
I'll say this again, even when you include 2014 and look at the total amount of violent crimes in Jacksonville, it shows us that it was the 5th lowest year in violent crime that we have had in the last 30 years.
Please fact-check.
Quote
I don't have any problem with you writing an op-ed. I did it too. I do have a problem with Metro Jacksonville running a piece that contains so much problematic data and so many factual errors. It makes the site look bad. I assure you I'm not the only one who thinks that.
There was also a problem with tone and perspective in the front page pieces and the forum postings throughout the campaign season, which also make the site look bad, but that's a conversation for elsewhere.
You still haven't shown on piece of problematic data. The legitimate complain you have is that 2014 was not included. It wasn't included because it wasn't available to me. FDLE had not published it. As, well, I was (and am) more interested in crime rates than I am total numbers.
I appreciate the feedback on tone.
QuoteJacksonville Journey was established in 2007 but most programs kicked off in January 2009. I'm sure I can dig up something to that effect. It was launched because crime was rising in years leading up to it, particularly in some categories (murder was especially bad at that time). Crime went down for several years after JJ got going; murder plummeted. Now that the programs have been cut and officers are off the street (not entirely due to Brown, but the last four budgets were his), crime has risen again since 2011. Do you really not believe there's a connection there?
I don't know if there is a connection. It's certainly worth considering. I have a bias towards JJ.
Still, if JJ is the reason for the increase why did it feel like this became an issue about not having more cops on the street.
I said it previously, if JJ is responsible for the 33 percent decline in violent crime, that's a big deal.
Quote from: stephendare on June 12, 2015, 12:09:51 PM
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Politics/Mayoral-Race-2015/i-kg23CTt/0/O/JacksonvilleViolentCrimeTotal.jpg)
wait a minute.
you are comparing the percentage of violent crime compared to the total number of crimes committed? so basically looking at the velocity of increase on a year by year basis.
but you want everyone to pretend that crime hasn't been steadily going down since the eighties despite the population fluctuations?
Im sorry taca, but you've lost me in the thread here.
Curry was fear mongering, plain and simple.
And his only comeback was that Alvin Brown didn't seem to know he was bullshitting so how can Curry's campaign team be at fault for bullshitting?
Which by inductive reasoning kind of kills the argument that Curry's expert team is any better at understanding these numbers than Alvins.
I'm not shocked that you're lost ;)
I'm looking at the changes in violent crimes committed per year. Overall, the trend has been an overall decrease for many years. That's a national trend, and it's continued elsewhere in Florida outside Jax. That's why it's alarming when we see continued increases. And yes, we have seen increases in two of the three years we're looking at of Brown's term (2015 isn't over yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it beats even last year).
Quote from: TheCat on June 12, 2015, 12:23:51 PM
Even if you look at the crime rates by using population estimates from BEBR and the Census, the rates are similar.
This table shows that the violent crime rate dropped every year of Browns term except for 2014.
This is for DUVAL county as a whole. If I get a chance I'll look at the rates before 2010 and for Jacksonville.
The discrepancy in FDLE's 2010 pop. number in comparison to BEBR and the Census is curious.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Politics/Mayoral-Race-2015/i-cXvbKnq/0/O/ViolentCrimeRate_Duval.png)
Honestly, if you put together a table like that in your original article, I probably never would have raised this issue. Hell, if Brown's people had been savvy enough to put something like that together, he may not have suffered so badly on the crime issue. It leads one to wonder why they didn't do that.
It still does show a 10% increase in violent crime rate in 2014 as well as a numeric increase in total crimes in 2013 and 2014, over 2011. And when you look at the three categories Curry included in all his ads (murder, rape and assault) that's where the increases lie (as I said a while ago, robbery, the fourth violent crime category, has been down).
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 12, 2015, 11:48:21 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 11, 2015, 11:14:44 PM
Yes, blaming the Sheriff for everything was Brown's other tactic. It was even worse, as it just opened the door for the Sheriff to say, "well you set the budgets, you cut dozens of officers and Jacksonville Journey, you haven't solved the pension, and now violent crime is up." I imagine that's what led to the second claim, as articulated here, that our crime problem simply doesn't exist. But it creates a real mixed message: is crime a real problem that's the Sheriff's fault, or is it not really a problem after all?
you conveniently ignore that the Mayor (and Council) gave the Sheriff authorization to re-hire 80 officers...and he chose not to do it!
I "ignored" it because it was moonshine. First, it was
40 cops, and 40 CSOs, after he had cut 76 cops (being charitable here) and all 91 CSOs. They didn't end up doing it because the entire budget was based on borrowing even more and dipping into reserves to pay recurring expenses.
Going
that way just allowed Curry to hammer Brown on his budgets. Thinking about it, I guess this whole issue was just a no win situation for Brown.