Way back when I started this blog (two days ago, but who's counting?), I made the following statement: "I'm of the belief that City living and Mommy-Hood don't necessarily go hand in hand, but I intend (and hope) to prove myself wrong..."
Well, it's time to start proving myself wrong. And one of my very best girlfriends is to thank (thanks Lauren!). To be honest, the main reason I've been so skeptical of City living for children is that I just don't feel like a City is all that safe. From buses barreling down "neighborhood" streets to the unstable drug addicts found in places like the Tenderloin, I'm not left with warm, fuzzy, and safe feelings...I feel more like I'm always on guard and acutely aware of my surroundings.
The more I think about it though, I'll probably feel even more on guard and aware of my surroundings when Squid joins the world...no matter where I live. But it does help that Men's Health magazine recently published The Safest Cities for Children and to my surprise, San Francisco has been ranked the 3rd Safest City for Children.
The ranking takes into account "accidental death rates for kids ages 5 to 14 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), number of car-seat inspection locations per child (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), sex offenders per capita (state and national registries), percentage of abused children protected from further abuse (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), and the strength of child-restraint laws and bike-helmet laws (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)."
It may not take into account the total number of buses and the speed at which they move, but it definitely makes me feel much better about Squid coming into this world...and into this City.
For a quick look at the rankings, here's a rundown of the top and bottom.
SAFEST:
- Madison, Wisc.
- Honolulu, Hawaii
- San Francisco, California!!!
- Virginia Beach, Virg.
- Spokane, Wash.
- Providence, R.I.
- Jersey City, N.J.
- Colorado Springs, Colo.
- Pittsburgh, Penn.
- Burlington, Vt.
- Jacksonville, Fl.
- New Orleans, La.
- Baltimore, Md.
- Bakersfield, Calif.
- Tulsa, Okla.
- Modesto, Calif.
- Grand Rapids, Mich.
- Fresno, Calif.
- Oklahoma City, Okla.
- Corpus Christi, Texas
Excellent!
ReplyDeleteWow, what a nice surprise... take a look at the least safest. I wonder why California holds three of the 10? Where was the study conducted... California? Is that where the bais lies or do we just have a really dangerous state? (except for SF of course)
ReplyDeleteIf you look at the locations of the three least safe: Bakersfield, Modesto, and Fresno, and then look at the demographics that live there, we have a large immigrant population. While the immigrant population does not necessarily mean "violence" in its own right, the children of immigrants have a high rate of following criminal pursuits, seeing the ease of gaining status through these means. To make matters worse, this area of California is near the dividing line of Norteno territory and Sureno territory, and the two Mexican gangs (originating from prison politics) have had the longest running gang war in California, since the late 60's. The further north we travel, the territory is predominately Norteno, and while the drug trafficking, auto theft, extortion, etc. is still prevalent, we don't have the rival violence. The same happens further south, but there are other gangs, (Bloods, Crips, etc) that are allies of the Nortenos that increase the violence down here.
ReplyDelete