Rudy and company like to talk about how Rudy came in and cleaned up New York, but looking at the numbers it is obvious that the trend started before he came into office in 1994.  The trend started in 1990 under David Dinkins and has continued past the Guiliani administration into the Bloomberg administration, so who, actually should be taking credit for all this?



www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

Well, it certainly wasn't Dinkins.  He didn't do much at all.

As far as crime, the stats don't bear that out.

I'm not sure what to make of those statistics; I'm no statistician. 

These are also crime rates for the entire state.  Of course, greater New York City is home to about half of the state's inhabitants and the statewide crime statistics would be significantly influenced by what goes on in that metropolitan area. 

Of course, crime rates did go down nationwide in the '90s.  Rudy likes to take credit for the whole kit and kaboodle, which is probably not accurate as dimished crime was part of a national trend. 

Rudy did indeed push a lot of the ugliness out of high profile areas, such as Time Square. 

Starting in the '80s there urban renaissance without economic justice: Gentrification.  This was and is prevalent in cities sich as Boston and New York.  It's really accelerating in Chicago as the notorious housing projects are demolished.  Here again the propaganda is "integration" and "mixed income," however, a cursory look at the Housing Authority is implementing the reforms, you get the same answer: Gentrification.  What we will see over the next 20 years is more akin to a country like France.  Shining cities and ghetto-ized suburbs. Crimes that would have occurred in the city will occur in the suburbs and the cities can still claim lower crime rates via gentrification.

The bigger problem with Rudy is he's running on a platform of 9/11 and cult of the personality.  He's not running for prosecuter, he's not running for mayor; he's running for president, an office I don't see him winning no matter what Roger Ailes and Sean Hannity do!
::)

As far as crime, the stats don't bear that out.
You used the word "trend" and I'll go with that.  Let's say that neither Dinkins nor Rudy did much for crime in a general sense, although Guiliani did make organized crime his pet project.  Many people here credit him for the clean sweep that was done of the "Families"

You used the word "trend" and I'll go with that.  Let's say that neither Dinkins nor Rudy did much for crime in a general sense, although Guiliani did make organized crime his pet project.  Many people here credit him for the clean sweep that was done of the "Families"


The kind of organized crime in Martin Scorsese movies started disintegrating in the 1970s and was seriously falling apart in the 1980s.  Internecine fighting and a changing world took a greater toll on the Italian and Irish mob families than did any law enforcement effort.  Giuliani certainly deserves credit, but his success would have been much more limited if he'd been mayor in the 1950s. 

It's similar with Reagan and the fall of the Soviet Union.  That old bear was sick and dying by the time Brezhnev took it over.  Brutal oppression and terror via the Kremlin and the KGB was propping up an essentially dead state by the time Andropov got in there.  If Andropov hadn't croaked, the facade of the USSR might have survived until the turn of the century.  Gorbachev was a realist.  He was willing to admit the game was up.  Reagan deserves some credit for his hardline stance, but his position would have been much less impressive dealing with an old school gangsta like Andropov!

Speaking of Russia, what is on the rise is Russian and Chinese organized crime, which makes the mafia look like Sunday school teachers.
:P

Agreed on all points, Maxwell.  As I said, "many" people believe that of Guiliani, I however, am not a fan.