Sugar Land has been named the 11th safest city in America and Missouri City has come in at number 78, based on an analysis of FBI crime statistics. The national ranking is included in CQ Press’ City Crime Rankings 2009-2010: Crime in Metropolitan America, a publication that annually compares crime in U.S. cities and metropolitan areas.
Sugar Land had 383 violent crimes per 100,000 population in 2008, compared with a national average of 454.5.
The crime rate rankings of the cities and metropolitan areas are calculated using six crime categories: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft. These categories have been used for determining city crime rate ratings since 1999.
The rankings include all cities of at least 75,000 residents that reported crime data to the FBI in the categories noted for calendar year 2008.
“We place an emphasis on quality law enforcement, crime prevention and community policing,” said Sugar Land Police Chief Doug Brinkley. “The overall goal of our organization is to develop partnerships and joint problem-solving techniques with the community that will increase the quality of life for residents and visitors of the City of Sugar Land.”
30. November 2009 at 6:34 pm
Go ahead, contact the agency. This is the contact information for reporting problems like these ucrstat@leo.gov .
30. November 2009 at 5:50 pm
way to go MC, another reason MC is one of the top 100 places to live in the US
30. November 2009 at 5:32 pm
Way to go MC another reason MC is one of the top 100 places to live in the USA
30. November 2009 at 5:08 pm
Be sure to keep us updated on the email correspondence.
30. November 2009 at 5:03 pm
Admit you are assuming and guessing and making unproven allegations. Give it a rest, internet detective.
30. November 2009 at 5:03 pm
Oh, so you are going by signs on the side of the road that are a year old? now THAT’S some hard evidence. *rolling eyes*
30. November 2009 at 4:44 pm
I think the problem comes with adding an area with a rather dense population that is not covered by your police force to your data set. Sugar Land did not use their ETJ (as the UCR policy directs), which the sheriffs office provides coverage for, but MC, I guess, thought they could add an area they don’t provide coverage to. This makes it look like the city has a lower crime rate than it actually does, when officials engage in such subterfuge. Further, sense there is only two cities in the county of this size it makes them look like they have less crime, when in fact they have more actual crime than the rest of the county. Much of that do to the proximity to Houston. They should only report accurate population data and not areas they do not service, after-all we are paying federal taxes for this. It should at least be correct.
You are right though, going from #22 to #78 isn’t a very good position to be in. Please e-mail the agency and let them know you would like this reviewed by them at ucrstat@leo.gov . After-all, it is your money they are using to do this with.
30. November 2009 at 3:38 pm
I’m not sure what the big deal is. Even if they are fudging the report it doesn’t make them look good. It looks like they dropped in the ratings from last year anyway.
30. November 2009 at 3:38 pm
I’m not defending anything, I just like to see solid proof before posting like it’s hard evidence. have you seen the actual report submitted?
ETJ IN MC? Was that a mistype?
30. November 2009 at 3:30 pm
I went ahead and e-mailed that address asking what is going on. I hope it helps.
30. November 2009 at 3:28 pm
The ETJ area in MC uses the sheriffs office, not the city police and yes, you can call and verify that too.
30. November 2009 at 3:19 pm
You’re claiming census data? You mean the census conducted 9 years ago?
30. November 2009 at 3:17 pm
Have you seen the actual report submitted?
30. November 2009 at 3:07 pm
Are you saying the claims you make here are bogus too mega? It is simple to verify the census data and the areas they are claiming in the report. Why is that so hard for you? We’re supposed to take your word on the video claims you made earlier. At least these claims can be checked and verified, yours depend on the word of a politician.
30. November 2009 at 3:03 pm
Some anonymous poster on an internet messageboard said it so it MUST be true.
30. November 2009 at 2:56 pm
Ask them to look into it. E-mail the agency at ucrstat@leo.gov . Tell them to stop false reporting and that you demand it as a taxpayer.
30. November 2009 at 2:55 pm
Start believing then because this is the second year they have done this (not reported their census data accurately and included areas outside the city limits not serviced by their police force). Sugar Land has used their city limits and their census population. It doesn’t get any plainer than that.
30. November 2009 at 2:50 pm
I just find it hard to believe that anyone would do something like this intentionally.
30. November 2009 at 2:13 pm
If it turns out they have been in fct manipulating the data I will admit you were right. I assure you. I expect you to do the same if it’s the opposite.
30. November 2009 at 2:12 pm
Be sure to update us on their response to your allegations.
30. November 2009 at 2:08 pm
Thanks Patriot!
30. November 2009 at 2:07 pm
It’s funny you would ask me such a question. You really should be encouraging the UCR people to look into it. They have used false data now for 2 years from the media reports I have pulled. They are not using US census data which is required by the UCR agency. Sugar Land is, but MC is not. As a taxpayer that should concern you. Now send that e-mail requesting they look into this matter:
ucrstat@leo.gov
And no using areas outside the city limits policed by the sherriffs office is not using accurate information. We do have that much and it is in front of you.
30. November 2009 at 2:05 pm
I too have just filed the complaint, Tabor. Thank you for the link. These cancers to our community must be stopped.
30. November 2009 at 1:52 pm
Congratulations to Sugar Land for improving over last year and apparently using accurate information to do it.
30. November 2009 at 1:31 pm
Oh please do!!
30. November 2009 at 1:29 pm
I think I will e-mail the UCR directors and ask them if this type of false reporting by cities is tolerated, since we do pay federal taxes for this misinformation. Don’t you think that would be more effective? Why don’t you contact them too since you claim to be a taxpayer too? Aren’t you concerned about how our taxes get wasted for marketing spin?
30. November 2009 at 1:25 pm
Taber- Email the city council members with your questions and allegations and post up the replies.
30. November 2009 at 1:23 pm
It’s ok tabor, they did all this last year just to make the list. Remember about 2 years ago they hired the former Sugar Land communications director who used to work for the GFBCEDC.
It really is all about selling the new neighborhoods, while neglecting the old ones.
30. November 2009 at 1:17 pm
I’ve also noticed that when you look at the actual FBI-UCR report you find that SL beats MC in 7 out of 10 of the property and violent crime categories. I wonder why? When I check the size of the police forces it looks like you get a trend.
SL has twice as many patrolling officers as MC. I wonder why MC doesn’t get more patrols on the streets? Didn’t they say they were recently raising taxes to do this?
30. November 2009 at 1:15 pm
Why do you think everything is a complex conspiracy mega? It’s really pretty simple. If your crime is going down, as reported in the SL then more people will buy and move, but if they are increasing, as seems to be the case in MC over last year, then it would tend to detract new home buyers. What I can’t understand though is the reported population numbers as posted above. I’ve seen MCs census data and they should be reporting 66,000 within the city limits. It isn’t right to report you are servicing areas that you aren’t. It looks like falsified reporting if they are claiming to have people outside the city limits in there report to the FBI-UCR.
Do you approve of false reporting too?
30. November 2009 at 1:13 pm
In addition, economic development councils should not be so powerful that they “own” a city’s statistics. They should also not be so powerful as to own the state representative who they literally keep in their broom closet at Flour Daniel.
30. November 2009 at 12:51 pm
I like the question. I would also welcome the answer.
Statistics can be very valuable planning tools for communities, but not when they are hijacked by developers to serve their own needs.
30. November 2009 at 12:50 pm
Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out either crime has gone slightly up in MC, or the other city’s crime has gone slightly down.
30. November 2009 at 12:29 pm
I noticed after searching last years report that Sugar Land improved over last year from #17 to #11, but Missouri City dropped from #22 to #78. Quite a change over last year. Does anyone have the crime breakdown to see what happened?
30. November 2009 at 12:27 pm
Honesty is the best policy.
The most viable part of “developing partnerships and joint problem-solving techniques with the community that will increase the quality of life for residents and visitors of the City of Sugar Land,” is being honest with crime statistics in the first place.
When these statistics are massaged (and flat out manipulated) to make an area look so appealing for new home buyers, I assume, then the time will come when these same EDC members will massage similar statistics to destroy Sugar Land, in order to sell their next community.
These numbers need to be accurate and reliable. Use the City census and the crime rate within the city, or use the ETJ area WITH the ETJ crime rate! Any other use of these statistics to manipulate sales is indeed “criminal.”
30. November 2009 at 11:53 am
“The rankings include all cities of at least 75,000 residents that reported crime data to the FBI in the categories noted for calendar year 2008.”
SL can be proud of those numbers. I do wonder what ‘09 is going to look like with the economy though. Looks like MC dropped quite a bit this year over last and I still wonder how they got into the 75,000 range in population category when their census reported population is over 10,000 less. They must still be including those ETJ areas they self report on and don’t police. That would tend to skew the data if they are using a higher population than the area they actually include in their patrols It must be that 13,000+ community in the ETJ that is patrolled by the sheriffs office.
…”Lies, damned lies, and statistics” is the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments… Disraeli
Well as long as it sells homes…
30. November 2009 at 11:11 am
The gloom-n-doomers aren’t going to like this one bit.
30. November 2009 at 10:37 am
more good news gor MC, doncha just love it?