But does it also make good economic sense?
That’s the argument laid out in a new
report by the Office of the City Controller, as reported by WHYY-FM. It found that a single
homicide in Philadelphia reduces the value of homes sold within 0.75 miles of
the murder by an average of 2.3%, compared to homes purchased slightly farther
away.
“Our results suggest homeowners who sold in the
immediate aftermath of a homicide received a price about $3,400 lower than they
otherwise would have if the homicide [had] not occurred,” the Controller’s
Office concluded.
By looking at more than 4,000 homicides and 220,000
home sales in Philadelphia between 2006 and 2018, the Controller’s Office says
it can now put a number behind the accepted wisdom that “when a homicide
occurs, it negatively impacts the perception of safety in a neighborhood.”
The new analysis — which was conducted independently
by the City Controller’s Office and reviewed by three academic researchers —
uses that mathematical assertion to argue that targeted violence-reduction
efforts could pay for themselves through increased tax revenue.
“There is a return on investment from a financial
standpoint,” said City Controller Rebecca Rhynhart. “That return on investment
is great and could allow us to invest in this city and bring the whole city up.
I know that sounds idealistic, but it’s possible.”
If the city could reduce homicides by 10%, the report
says, the resulting increase in property values would generate an extra $13 million
in property tax revenue. And if Philadelphia maintains that pace for five years
straight, an extra $114 million would flow to city coffers.
With a problem as intractable and generational as gun
violence, it’s hard to know if Philadelphia could achieve that kind of
reduction in homicide. But Rhynhart’s office recommends a trio of
“evidence-based” strategies that it believes could lead to a dramatic drop in
violent deaths.
Those strategies — which have been tested in other
cities, the report says — include targeted “hot spot”
policing, group counseling, and the deployment of community activists to
intervene in neighborhood disputes.
The City Controller’s Office says faithful implementation
of these approaches would cost $43 million over the next five years.
“A properly funded and implemented multi-pronged
strategy could lead to a 35% reduction in homicides over five years, saving 318
lives,” according to the office’s analysis. “It would reduce the homicide count
to 230, a historic low for Philadelphia.”
But is an economic case for gun-violence reduction
even necessary? Shouldn’t the untimely death of 350 Philadelphians each year be
enough to prompt action? Who cares about the return on investment?
Rhynhart hopes the new numbers will help people
understand the citywide toll of Philadelphia’s homicide rate. She believes this
analysis can reach people who don’t feel the everyday scourge of gun violence,
which is highly concentrated in a handful of disadvantaged neighborhoods.
“If people aren’t convinced enough from a moral
argument, from a humanity argument, well then here’s a financial argument,”
Rhynhart said.
Caterina Roman, a Temple University professor who
reviewed the report before its release, said that unfortunately too many people
don’t feel the urgency of Philadelphia’s violence epidemic. Some of those
people, she said, think “these are young black men shooting young black men,
not educated, they’re just fighting amongst themselves. Why should it be our
problem?”
By arguing that homicides hurt home values — and thus
depress the city’s tax base — this latest research gives “the public in general
a broader lens that it does affect everybody,” Roman said.
More broadly, she added, it’s important for people to
understand that homicide has financial and societal costs beyond those imposed
by the criminal justice system.
Harvard researcher Thomas Abt — who is cited in the
study, but did not review it — believes policy makers need to use whatever
arguments they can to prompt anti-violence action. “I’m a pragmatist. And
whatever convinces and motivates people to action is what I’m in favor of,” he
said.
Philadelphia’s homicide rate has gone up 41% since
2013, and Philly now has the highest murder rate among the nation’s 10 largest
cities. In 2018 alone, 351 Philadelphians were murdered. Of those 351
homicides, 83% involved guns.
Rhynhart suggested that Philadelphia model its
anti-violence initiatives on an effort in Oakland called “Operation Ceasefire”
and another in New Orleans named “NOLA for Life.” The New Orleans program
earned plaudits for
driving down murder rates, but there have been more recent
questions about the long-term sustainability of the strategies.
Among the stickier points in Rhynhart’s plan could be
its use of “focused deterrence,” a carrot-and-stick approach that targets the
“small group of people” considered most likely to commit future homicides. When
implemented well, Rhynhart said, the strategy gives those people a “way out” of
criminal circles through social services and jobs. If they refuse that help,
law enforcement is supposed to take swift legal action.
District Attorney Larry Krasner has expressed some
skepticism of the approach, saying that too often the crackdown side of the
equation gets more heft than the uplift side. But he has indicated an
openness to the idea in recent months.
Rhynhart said that she spoke with Krasner about the
plan for roughly an hour and that the DA “reaffirmed his commitment to wanting
to do these three programs.”
The new data from the Office of the City Controller
updates a 2012
study from the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think
tank. The 2012 analysis studied the economics of homicide in eight cities,
including Philadelphia.
To read more CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment