I agree with you. But with many people, I would classify the safety premium with the other things that those people "need".
When I first arrived in Austin a few years ago, so many yuppies told me to NOT go east of I35. They were paying outrageous sums of money (actually quite tame by San Francisco standards) to live far from the side of town they perceived as dangerous.
However, once I became acclimated to the city, I realized that they were blowing a lot of smoke due to irrational fears. The east side was certainly more diverse. It wasn't as white-washed as the west side of Austin. It has more graffiti and was generally poorer. But, it was not dangerous.
Again I'm making some pretty broad brush strokes. I realize that other places have dangerous neighborhoods and many cities have a legitimate need for a safety premium. My main point is that for many people, the necessity of the safety premium is perceived unjustly.
I share the same sentiment regarding prejudice and snobbery. But safety and cleanliness are certainly needs. I think they are taken for granted by rural folks who don't really have neighborhoods as such so they they can (for the most part) trivially avoid crime (don't hang out with meth heads and drunks).
In urban areas, price and crime rate are inversely correlated. See also commute times and school quality. Usually the heads of households have to make significant trade-offs to save money on housing (usually the single biggest budget item). Not that they don't in rural areas, but the tradeoffs are of a completely different kind (access to high speed internet, paved roads, cell phone reception, downwind from a hog farm, etc.).
When I first arrived in Austin a few years ago, so many yuppies told me to NOT go east of I35. They were paying outrageous sums of money (actually quite tame by San Francisco standards) to live far from the side of town they perceived as dangerous.
However, once I became acclimated to the city, I realized that they were blowing a lot of smoke due to irrational fears. The east side was certainly more diverse. It wasn't as white-washed as the west side of Austin. It has more graffiti and was generally poorer. But, it was not dangerous.
Again I'm making some pretty broad brush strokes. I realize that other places have dangerous neighborhoods and many cities have a legitimate need for a safety premium. My main point is that for many people, the necessity of the safety premium is perceived unjustly.