MLB Playoffs

St. Louis named most dangerous U.S. city
By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD, Associated Press Writer
Mon Oct 30, 9:53 AM ET

ST. LOUIS - A surge in violence made St. Louis the most dangerous city in the country, leading a trend of violent crimes rising much faster in the Midwest than in the rest of nation, according to an annual list.

The city has long fared poorly in the rankings of the safest and most dangerous American cities compiled by Morgan Quitno Press. Violent crime surged nearly 20 percent in St. Louis from 2004 to last year, when the rate of such crimes rose most dramatically in the Midwest, according to FBI figures released in June.

"It's just sad the way this city is," resident Sam Dawson said. "On the news you hear killings, someone's been shot."

The ranking, being released Monday, came as the city was still celebrating Friday's World Series victory at the new Busch Stadium. St. Louis has been spending millions of dollars on urban renewal even as the crime rate climbs.

Mayor Francis Slay did not return calls to his office seeking comment Sunday.

Scott Morgan, president of Morgan Quitno Press, a private research and publishing company specializing in state and city reference books, said he was not surprised to see St. Louis top the list, since it has been among the 10 most dangerous cities for years.

The study looks at crime only within St. Louis city limits, with a population of about 330,000, Morgan said. It doesn't take into account the suburbs in St. Louis County, which has roughly 980,000 residents.

Visiting St. Louis on Thursday, FBI director Robert Mueller said it was too early to tell why some types of crime were rising faster in the Midwest.

Mueller said the FBI is working harder to form partnerships with police departments to launch programs like St. Louis' Safe Streets task force, which focuses police efforts on problematic neighborhoods.

The safest city in 2005 was Brick, N.J., with a population about 78,000, followed by Amherst, N.Y., and Mission Viejo, Calif. The second most dangerous city was Detroit, followed by Flint, Mich., and Compton, Calif.

The bad news for St. Louis was good for Camden, N.J., which in 2005 was named the most dangerous city for the second year in a row.

Camden Mayor Gwendolyn Faison said Sunday she was thrilled to learn that her city no longer topped the most-dangerous list.

"You made my day!" said Faison, who has served since 2000. "There's a new hope and a new spirit."

Cities are ranked based on more than just their crime rate, Morgan said. Individual crimes such as rape or burglary are measured separately, compared to national averages and then compiled to give a city its ranking. Crimes are weighted based on their level of danger.

The national FBI figures released in June showed the murder rate in St. Louis jumped 16 percent from 2004 to 2005, compared with 4.8 percent nationally. The overall violent crime rate increased nearly 20 percent, compared with 2.5 percent nationally.

While crime increased in all regions last year, the 5.7 percent rise in the 12 Midwestern states was at least three times higher than any other region, according to the FBI.

___

Associated Press writer Rebecca Santana in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
St. Louis named most dangerous U.S. city

…The second most dangerous city was Detroit…
Hmmm…conspiracy or coincidence? I have no idea where I'm going with this thought but interesting timing none-the-less.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Congratulations Pollard!
Thanks, I knew if I played hard we could do it!
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Thanks, I knew if I prayed hard we could do it!
Never pegged you as a God man…
Originally posted by vansmack:
Never pegged you as a God man…
speaking of prayer, little davey eckstein, your favorite jesus lovin shortstop, will be on Leno tonight, may be the only time I ever watch Leno
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
speaking of prayer, little davey eckstein, your favorite jesus lovin shortstop, will be on Leno tonight, may be the only time I ever watch Leno
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy - I'm really happy for him. Borat is on Letterman tonight so I'll have to tape Leno.
Alfonso Soriano 132 mill for 8 years
Juan Pierre 45 mill for 5
GARRY MATTHEWS JR? 50 mill for 5
50 mill for the rights to Matsuzaka

what the fuck is going on? the cubs are going to have a $125 millon payroll

this is the beginning of the end
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
GARRY MATTHEWS JR? 50 mill for 5
man, how are angel fans gonna justify that pricetag for gary mathews, jr???
Gary Matthews signing=absurd
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
GARRY MATTHEWS JR? 50 mill for 5
Guess that means we're out of the running for Carlos Lee…
Originally posted by vansmack:
Guess that means we're out of the running for Carlos Lee…
at this rate he will get 70 mill for 5 or so, and i would not want carlos lee on my team when he is a couple years older
Matthews: .313 avg. with 19 homers, 79 RBI, 102 runs, 44 doubles, and had a .371 on-base percentage last season. 10 SBs and a Gold Glove.

Drew: .283 avg. with 20 HRs, 100 RBI, 84 Runs, 34, doubles and had a .393 OBP. Only 2 SB and no gold glove.

One of them just opted out a $10 Million deal to seek more money - the other one just signed for $10 Million. Which would you rather have?
Originally posted by vansmack:
Matthews: .313 avg. with 19 homers, 79 RBI, 102 runs, 44 doubles, and had a .371 on-base percentage last season. 10 SBs and a Gold Glove.

Drew: .283 avg. with 20 HRs, 100 RBI, 84 Runs, 34, doubles and had a .393 OBP. Only 2 SB and no gold glove.

One of them just opted out a $10 Million deal to seek more money - the other one just signed for $10 Million. Which would you rather have?
Matthews career high before last year

Matthews: .275 avg. with 17 homers, 55 RBI, 72 runs, 31 doubles, and had a .354 on-base percentage

and he has been around 8 years, not like last year was his first shot
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Guess that means we're out of the running for Carlos Lee…
at this rate he will get 70 mill for 5 or so, and i would not want carlos lee on my team when he is a couple years older
Edmonds is a much better option. Hehe.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Edmonds is a much better option. Hehe.
signed for 2 years at $9 million per i would say he is
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Matthews career high before last year

Matthews: .275 avg. with 17 homers, 55 RBI, 72 runs, 31 doubles, and had a .354 on-base percentage

and he has been around 8 years, not like last year was his first shot
It was his first shot at a full time starting job. He platooned before that in Texas. He'll play in Anaheim.

I'd still rather have him than Drew or Edmonds.
Originally posted by vansmack:


I'd still rather have him than Drew or Edmonds.
We'll discuss again in a year, I feel pretty strongly that you wont feel the same way
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
We'll discuss again in a year, I feel pretty strongly that you wont feel the same way
Agreed.

Slap bet?