Jackson Jambalaya

Poor Donna absolutely cannot get her facts straight. She shudders to think that we would rely on the Morgan Quitno rankings, instead of the actual FBI crime reports. She knows good and well that Morgan Quitno derives all of its rankings directly from the FBI crime reports. The methodology is explained in excrutiating detail here: http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/Methodology.pdf

And no, it has never been discredited and remains the most commonly cited indicia of crime rankings in the United States.

I can tell you from past experience, it doesn't take much to cause Donna to shudder.

Actually, it has taken some heat from the conference of mayors.

If any of the donors to Better Jackson PAC other than McGowan are "Two Lakes people," (whatever that means. Sounds like a variation of Village People.), I am unaware of it. She also seems to have mixed McGowan up with Pruet Oil, with which he has no connection. Oh well, just details.

It's obvious to any math idiot that the words called for were "Although the single largest contribution came from John McGowan, known as the developer of the Two Lakes project, etc. etc.".

Doesn't she preview before she hits publish? Geez.

You mean heat like this?...

In October 2007 The American Society of Criminology, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, and The Federal Bureau of Investigation requested that the publisher reconsider the promotion of the book — specifically, "their inaccurate and inflammatory press release labeling cities as 'safest' and 'most dangerous'" — because the rankings are "baseless and damaging."

Why would someone rely on data that the FBI calls baseless and damaging? Instead of FBI crime figures. Hmmmmm.

Kingfish, can you help us out and give the pros and cons of two lakes? I am a little confused about all of this. What does McGowan want to do with it and what does the JFP want to do with it? I only get my info from you!!

1. I simply put the info up there as given to me by Better Jackson PAC. It was put up here before any other website or media publication. I voted for Johnson so I don't think I can be accused of being pro-Crisler here.

2. As for sneaking in their paperwork right before closing as others have accused the PAC of doing, I was given the fax confirmation from 4/28/09 and its clear there is an error there. I was told Nice. My cavalier has decided to plop himself down on my chest while I write this. it was a mistake. Ok, might be. Problem is when you make mistakes like this and they are caught right before elections, they leave you open to charges that have been leveled against the PAC.

3. As for two lakes, I don't debate it because I don't know enough about it and I find on that project when you engage in debat on it, you run into more than a few people who are quite well versed on the subject. Before I get into it, I'm going to do my homework first. Having said that, I would like to see Jackson have a downtown that is San Antonio-like if possible. I just don't know enough about the nuts and bolts of this proposed project to discuss it.

HeavyB, please go to the link I provided and read how the analysis works. It doesn't "rely on data the FBI calls baseless . . . instead of FBI crime figures." It is based entirely on the FBI crime figures (known as Uniform Crime Reports, or "UCR"). Read the methodology. Donna and her buddies are constantly peddling the trope that this analysis uses some figures other than the FBI data, and there is simply no basis for that.

Starting with the FBI / UCR data, Morgan Quitno (it's actually a different company now) then performs a series of fairly straightforward calculations to derive a single number which reflects a given city's deviation from the norm or national average. The lower the number, the better the city performed that year compared to the national average, and the higher the number the worse it performed. (Note - I may have that backwards, but you get the idea.) Note that the norm gets re-calibrated annually, as new data is received, so the rankings always depict how well (or how poorly) a city has performed compared to other cities in the same time frame.

There are six different categories of crime included in the rankings (murder, rape, burglary, larceny/theft, etc.). One arguably "subjective" decision is the choice to apply equal weight to each of these six categories when the numbers are crunched. One person might think murder should have a much higher impact on the final number than auto theft, for example. I don't find MQ's approach to be all that flawed, though, as long as the data is crunched exactly the same way for every city, which it is.

Obviously, it's a shorthand method of looking at a complex problem, and it invariably pisses off the cities and metropolitan areas which get the worst scores. The FBI has no interest in pissing off elected officials, so it doesn't surprise me at all that they disclaim the MQ rankings. That in no way leads to the conclusion that the scores are "baseless." Again, anyone reading the methodology can clearly see they aren't "baseless." Damaging? Yeah, possibly, but then sometimes the truth hurts. Too damn bad.

The bigger problem is that clever mayors can game the system, once they understand how it works. When Jackson's MQ rankings were going down the tank Harvey blew off a question about crime stats by saying, "those number have never been reported correctly." Get that? Harvey had already figured out there was a right way, and another way, to "report" the data. It was shortly after that that we started seeing dramatic improvement in the stats. And if you lived in Jackson at the time you were surrounded by anecdotal evidence suggesting the stats had become nothing but lies. Crime was everywhere but none of it seemed to be reflected in Harvey's numbers. And when people complained about the discrepancy Harvey sent his main moron, Chief Moore, out to tell us it was all just our perception.

Is the Morgan Quitno approach perfect? Of course not - anyone can provide different weights to different crime categories, for example, and possible generate different results. But as far as I know no one has come up with a better ranking system. If I'm wrong on that and you know of a better system, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

I could have saved you a lot of typing if I had explained I was already familiar with how the rankings are calculated. But I appreciate your take on them.

The baseless charge arises not from the raw data but from using shorthand methodology to assess an extremely complex situation and then jump to the precise and sensational conclusion of "Most Dangerous" or "Safest".

As far as damaging, How damaging would it be for someone to print baseless rankings based on a few facts about someone's character, their business or their city? And if it has the ability to be damaging shouldn't it at least have gone through the due diligence of a rigorous study and not just some shorthand version for public consumption.

Do I know of a better method? Well, I'm not an expert or anything like the folks at the American Society of Criminology or the FBI. But, maybe there is a reason that there are no other outlets offering a simplistic and sensational pseudo-science ranking system.

Be careful Wilson. You are so worked up you are on the verge of a 'near stroke'.

HeavyB, businesses get ranked all the time. Check out Morningstar Ratings. We rank our kids everyday using a whole variety of tests, and then at the end of the school year we recognize the best ones.

Again, one can certainly question certain aspects of the methodology, and one can even question the wisdom or efficacy of trying to rank cities at all, but to say MQ's approach is "baseless" or "discredited" is just wishful thinking.

Nice debate you guys have going here. Friendly, respectful, and making your points.

I don't pay attention to the rankings myself. I remember when I was a kid back in the 70's I could walk down Terry Road by JSU by myself to DQ or Mr. Quick and not worry about anything. Until it returns to that level of safety, the crime is too high. Crime may have gone down under Harvey but if you have five feet of water in your house but it used to be 8 feet, you are still flooded.

Unfortunately under the Melton-Anderson-Mac regimes, crime went back up again.

Not to worry. It'll drop like a rock once Harvey gets sworn in. Statistically speaking, that is.

Here's the job interview for the new JPD Chief:

Harvey: Hi. Do you know how to make my crime stats look good?

Mr. X: Uh, sure.

Harvey: Great. You're hired.

Maybe instead of Mr. X, Mr. T would be better.

I pity the fool who commits crimes in Jackson with Mr. T as police chief.

I suspect the Clinton era COPS money had a lot to do with the dip in crime during the first Harvey administration. After that funding ran out, the rates started climbing again.

Violent crime looks like an issue of race but it's really an issue of class. Violent crime among middle class black people happens at about the same rate as violent crime among middle class white people.

ABC, can you show me a link that supports that claim? I don't think that's correct.

about the COPS money? there were several articles about it at the time, I'll see if I can't find a reference online. There was also a couple of interviews with James Carville about how the program lowered crime statistics all over the country.

It was a great program, but there's an inherent problem with taking federal money for recurring municipal needs because when regimes change in Washington, the funding can go away like it did with COPS.

actually since the democrats are pushing for a new COPS program, there's lots about it online.

here's what Nancy Pelosi says about the current bill and the old bill

http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/legislation?id=0300

The original program ran from just before Johnson was elected mayor for the first time until just before the end of his second term.