[hexis]

I would not ask normal people to start walking in dangerous neighborhoods in order to increase foot traffic and make it safer, those first folks are at great risk of just getting hurt.

I would, however, try to keep any safe area with good foot traffic that way, or even increase foot traffic.

[harmmonica]

I'm not sure downvotes are the right way for folks to disagree with you though I'm thinking some folks think you're trolling. But I'll assume you aren't trolling and since I asked you to reply to my question I thought I would just clarify: I wasn't suggesting that you stick people in harm's way in order to decrease crime (that would very much be the tail wagging the dog). What I was saying is that when increased numbers of people are on the street research has shown that crime decreases as a result. It's not that someone's holding a gun to the head of the new people who show up on the street. It's that those new people choose, of their own volition, to be on the street because something (investment, the government, other residents) made the street more desirable to be on and a byproduct of that increase of people is a decrease in crime (because there are literally more eyeballs watching the street (not watching for crime or to deter crime, but because criminals aren't as likely to commit crime when there are more witnesses)).

[hexis]

But, of course, you have a problem with the direction of causation in that case. Streets with many people on it are safe, but did the people make it safe, or did the safety bring the people?