Violent crime in the SCV decreased by 36% over a certain time period, which is certainly cause for celebration. Homicides dipped an amazing 76% last year too, compared again to another time period. Our good Captain Becker says this is the safest the City of Santa Clarita has been since it was founded back when women wore shoulder pads and kids listened to Robert Palmer’s “Addicted to Love” on their Walkmans:
County crime statistics released Monday show a steady drop in almost all crimes inside the Santa Clarita Valley over the last five years.
The latest figures released by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department show a 43.3 percent drop in violent crimes locally since 2006, and a 35.5 percent drop in property crimes for the same period.
The only crime showing an increase locally is arson.
With only one homicide happening in the Santa Clarita Valley in the past year, local law enforcement can report a 76.5 percent drop in homicides compared to five years ago.
Similarly, six reports of forcible rape means a 70.3 percent reduction in that crime since 2006.
Robbery and aggravated assault dropped by 46.6 percent and 37.6 percent, respectively, over the five-year period.
This is such good news I made a chart showing the homicide rate change. The first line is how many people got killed some time ago, and the second line is to show how many people were killed later:
Alas, even though this crime news is good, can we really feel safe while the pudding bandits are still at large? Flying chocolate attacks in the SCV are up like 200% this year compared to some point in the past.
Loading ...
Two Things:
Obviously the “huge” decline in violent crime does requires some mockery, since it was always rare and when it become rarer the percentages look amazing, but the rule of statistical significance needs to be applied which would demonstrate homicide was AND is still rare.
The large decline in property crimes, however, IS a big deal. Now of course this is also reflective of large drops across the country in these categories as well which is counterintuitive to the economic situation and behavior of property crime statistics in prior downturns. Some criminologists are even trying to determine how to quantify a possible “Nintendo” effect as video games keep unemployed young males, the primary committers of property crime, off the streets.
“The large decline in property crimes, however, IS a big deal. ”
Is it a decrease? Why did they select 2006? It feels arbitrary. Why not 2004? Or 2009? I could select 1993 and get a different result.
This was the point of my post.
I’ve been blogging here for five years and SCV crime has been on a double-digit downward trend the entire time. Think back. Do you ever recall a headline about the dire increase in crime rates? What does that tell you?
Look, I love the Sheriff’s Department and all they do for the SCV. They have been there for me and others in a pinch. But I resent it when numbers are manipulated.
I Heart back me up here. You pioneered this field.
The RATES of crime have been consistently decreasing since incorporation. Now violent crime was ALWAYS low and continues to be low, but things like burglary, car theft, etc. that ACTUALLY occur in a statistically significant way have truly significantly decreased in probability. (But again, that may just be due to the national trend.)
I was terrified until I saw your “graph” and realized you were joking, Mr. J-to-the-Wilson.
Ditto on everything you said. BTW, here’s the graph I made last year of crime rate controlled for population, running 10 year trends for a simple, linear test of statistical significance.
http://bit.ly/n5K3Bv
Weirdly, the one crime they said increased between 2006-11 (arson) shows a significant decline over the longer-term. And robbery, which they said is declining steadily, is on the rise over the long-term. Such are statistics…but at least I used 10 points to plot the patterns–I didn’t draw a line between two dots and call it a trend.
Give the guy a little credit would ya? He used Bars, not lines & dots.
hater… “The figures were calculated per 10,000 people in the population to allow for growth in the valley.”
Perhaps the state should subsidize video games? We already subsidize housing, child care, groceries, school lunches, medical and dental care.
It’s odd, I’m playing Word With Friends, and I just saw this:
“SCVpolice played JUKE for 18 points”
And The Signal played DUPE off the U. I’m waiting for a Y so I can play EYEROLL off the E.
With crime down, they deserve a break.
Petz rarely goes off topic-but he thought Kevin Buck’s piece in The Signal about his feelings towards the military and his son in the Marines was well written. While several points could be debated, it is a rare gem from Mr. Buck.
Sorry Petz but Mr. Buck was attempting to rewrite history.
While I have nothing but admiration for his Marine son and would welcome the opportunity to “Thank Him For His Service”, Kevin’s statements about the Viet Nam era are pure BS. When he said “The apocryphal stories of soldiers being assaulted and called baby-killers by the left are largely political myths, created by the right to denigrate opponents of an unpopular war” he really pissed me off.
While spending a 40 year career in Military Aerospace, I gained great admiration for those brave individuals who put their lives on the line and actually used the equipment we designed and built.
Upon retiring in 2006, I set off on a journey I had longed to take. Accompanied by two friends, who are military veterans, my wife and I participated in a Run To The Wall with RFTW.org (look them up). That very special 10 day trip, across our great country, opened my eyes even wider. Particularly in gaining a better understanding of the extremely poor way our service men and women were treated on their return from Nam and the effect it still has on many of them.
If Kevin thinks the assault and name calling of our returning military is a myth, let him take the trip to the wall with the Viet Nam vets and let him try to sell that story. If after woods he survives the journey, we can ask him that question again.
Don’t be a Kevin. Please be sure to thank every vet you meet for their service.
While Petz is correct that you can hate the war but appreciate our military (something every country should have and be proud of), Kevin was mistaken about a large group of civilians that DID call our servicemen during that era ‘baby killers’.
Why were they called this? Because, many villages were destroyed and innocent people were killed; not unlike many wars.
Whether it was our soldiers or others, I do know that many of our soldiers came home with many emotional problems due to what they saw and yes, participated in. Many of the soldiers were encouraged to partake in drug use while in Vietnam in order to cope with the carnage. There was a large increase in homelessness towards the end and after that particular war.
It was not a myth. I remember attending many demonstrations with my mother and we would have discussions about those that were yelling or calling our military baby killers. She did not subscribe to this and pulled away from that ‘fringe’. It was the war she objected to and the number of deaths and psychological damage that war was causing to our young men.
I’m glad that our mentality has changed regarding our military personnel and that our young men and women are more appreciated then they were then, however war is war and many innocent people are killed, even babies.
“Petz rarely goes off topic-but …”
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Sorry, I’m on vacation. Carry on.
At the ripe age of 53, Petz has learned to look for progress and not demand perfection. I am opposed to the illegal war in Libya and have sincere misgivings about continued involvement in Afghanistan. Thus, I have gained an appreciation for learning that you can oppose a war without being against the military.
Interesting series of articles in LA times re.Red light camera violations including today’s edition where Santa Clarita has found them to be “effective”. It appears that these tickets have no teeth, just scare tactics. I wonder if the collection percentage will change now that LA Superior Court is not enforcing the tickets.
This story on the fines being ‘voluntary’ is the most compelling:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0727-red-light-cameras-20110727,0,6509979,print.story
If the LA Superior Court says there is no teeth behind enforcing if a recipient simply ignores the ticket how can the City of Santa Clarita continue to issue these? In fact Gail Ortiz in the story says that if anything they will add more cameras. Incredible.
I dont recall the article saying that the LA Superior Court says there is no teeth in enforcing red light cameras. In fact, the article pointed out that under state law, court officials have discretion over how they pursue those who do not respond to camera-generated citations. Los Angeles County Superior Court has decided to go the collection agency route instead of notifying the DMV which could place holds on your registration or license. The article says that this policy has been in place for the last decade and nothing has changed recently regarding the policy.
Technically you can ignore it but you’ll then have a collection agency calling you multiple times a day. The article also points out that if your employer or other person runs a court background search it does show up on your record as being deliquent.
Its similar to running up credit cards. You don’t have to pay. They’ll close your account and it will go to collections. So if you dont mind harassing phone calls or screening every call, then I guess you’ll be okay.
Jeff, we’ll get crackin’ on the chocolate pudding attacks–I’m thinking task force..
This is about the same time frame as the shutdown of the SCVTalkers forum… coincidence?