Suffolk 83 said: There are homeless, drug addicts and shady people in the area, I think I'd agree with the neighborhood association on this. But these people DO live in the very middle of a sizable city and metro area you can't ask for quiet and bucolic streets all the time its just not realistic. Also the answer isn't to roll up the sidewalks the answer is to keep things open to attract normal people to a critical mass. I don't feel in danger when I'm out at 1am on Boylston st, I feel in danger when I'm walking thru the financial district at 1am and I havent seen another human in 5 minutes. Click to expand...

I 100% agree with the sentiment that more people = more safety and it seems like the "concerned neighbors" (who are lying through their teeth about being concerned; they simply don't want this because it doesn't benefit them) lack that basic understanding.When I lived in São Paulo, I made a pretty big error when choosing my first apartment...I quickly learned that my apartment was located in/next to an area nicknamed "Crackolândia" which directly translates to "The Land of Crack". As you can imagine from the name, it wasn't the nicest place and it could be downright horrifying at times. But even in an area with a strong criminal presence (far worse than anything near Emerson, or 99.9% of the US for that matter), I still felt pretty safe if there were a bunch of people out and about on the street. Of course there's always the chance of crime no matter the situation, but you're far less likely to run into trouble on a lively, bustling street.