Comments on: Sugar Land, MoCity In Top 100 Safest Cities

By: b_tabor

b_tabor — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:34:30 +0000

Go ahead, contact the agency. This is the contact information for reporting problems like these ucrstat@leo.gov .

By: FtBendConservative

FtBendConservative — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:50:53 +0000

way to go MC, another reason MC is one of the top 100 places to live in the US

By: FtBendConservative

FtBendConservative — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:32:30 +0000

Way to go MC another reason MC is one of the top 100 places to live in the USA

By: MEGABITE

MEGABITE — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:08:18 +0000

Be sure to keep us updated on the email correspondence.

By: MEGABITE

MEGABITE — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:03:56 +0000

Admit you are assuming and guessing and making unproven allegations. Give it a rest, internet detective.

By: MEGABITE

MEGABITE — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:03:08 +0000

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*

By: b_tabor

b_tabor — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:44:42 +0000

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.

By: cult_of_one

cult_of_one — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:38:41 +0000

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.

By: MEGABITE

MEGABITE — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:38:25 +0000

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?

By: jaghund

jaghund — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:30:07 +0000

I went ahead and e-mailed that address asking what is going on. I hope it helps.

By: b_tabor

b_tabor — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:28:01 +0000

The ETJ area in MC uses the sheriffs office, not the city police and yes, you can call and verify that too.

By: MEGABITE

MEGABITE — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:19:12 +0000

You’re claiming census data? You mean the census conducted 9 years ago?

By: MEGABITE

MEGABITE — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:17:54 +0000

Have you seen the actual report submitted?

By: b_tabor

b_tabor — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:07:56 +0000

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.

By: MEGABITE

MEGABITE — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:03:42 +0000

Some anonymous poster on an internet messageboard said it so it MUST be true.

By: b_tabor

b_tabor — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:56:33 +0000

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.

By: b_tabor

b_tabor — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:55:13 +0000

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.

By: jaghund

jaghund — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:50:44 +0000

I just find it hard to believe that anyone would do something like this intentionally.

By: MEGABITE

MEGABITE — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:13:37 +0000

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.

By: MEGABITE

MEGABITE — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:12:39 +0000

Be sure to update us on their response to your allegations.