Imagine needing a study to find that an active, trusting community has less “crime”.
Lol, this is like all those health articles that attribute some miraculous life-extending property to a certain food when in reality its because only rich people eat it and rich people have higher life expectancies.
So walkable communities and lots of foot traffic lower crime rates as urbanists have been saying for 50 years? Why do they have to push dog owners into it? Do americans only walk with dogs?
Yes to that last part. You only get to walk if you have a dog and you only get breaks if you’re a smoker.
It’s my own damn fault for starting smoking but damn if retail work didn’t hammer it in and make those daily breaks part of my routine.
Why do they have to push dog owners into it?
Feels like a… uh… dog whistle, suggesting that large scary dogs patrolling the neighborhood are frightening off Super predators
Or maybe they just don’t want to consider that maybe people shouldn’t live in suburbs and drive everywhere lol
The suburbs are where the housing is cheapest, rofl. But pay outside the business centers isn’t great, lmao.
this has been known since like, the 30’s.
active community that knows each other = high rates of informal surveillance = reduced crime; this is basic social disorganization theory. atomization makes this pretty hard to achieve unless you’re in a wealthy area, unfortunately.
I remember people being mad on twitter over an academic article that said that dogs where a sign of white supremacy or something.
It was about how white people in US are more likely to have dogs and they use dog related activities to socialize in a way that excludes POC, I think.
It’s true, I don’t really like being around dogs if I can help it
