Worst Ghetto in California? (Los Angeles, San Diego: place to live, statistics, beach)

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Taboo2

Please provide links that it has better schools than BH, LCF, MDR, LN, LB, RSM and every other city I named.

I really don't think it does, so please hook us up with the links that it is safer AND has better schools than the cities I listed in previous post.

MDR's LAUSD, and it's not that hard to believe Irvine has better schools than Venice High and Marina Middle School.

However I doubt Irvine's schools are better than those of BH, LCF, LN, RSM, Laguna Beach, or for that matter Burbank...

[majoun]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

LOL...nor will Irvine ever have a restaurant actually awarded a star by Michelin(along with anywhere else in the whole of Orange County). Nor will Irvine have a large population of wealthy and highly educated blacks, nor will Irvine ever have the number of artists Oakland does.

And so on.

We are comparing two cities that attract totally different affluent and upscale demographics.

And yet Oakland definitely attracts a subset of the affluent demographic that Irvine probably never will.

In fact, Im willing to bet that it would be easier for Oakland to attract a borish Suburanite than it would be for Irvine to lure a yuppie who wants to live in a loft and take a subway to work...LOL

Definitely.
Not to mention that the BART doesn't run to Irvine, in fact Irvine has pretty poor public transport. It's even hard to get to Anaheim by public transport from Irvine
Oakland is one of the most culturally and historically rich cities in California, it was the 2nd largest city in the state for 30 years and the 3rd largest for 40 years after that, while Irvine has no history prior to the mid-'60s.
Irvine's bars are dull, dull, dull, and mostly chain restaurants, while Oakland has one of the widest number of drinking and eating choices in the state.
Oakland while certainly having many problems is coming up while Irvine stagnates.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by GrandviewGloria

Well....actually....people used to think of California in terms of Movie Stars and beaches. Now, most of us have met people who've fled the state.

You apparently don't realize SoCal isn't the whole state....

And funny you'd mention someone leaving L.A. for Atlanta due to crime when Atlanta is far more dangerous than L.A.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by majoun

Definitely.
Not to mention that the BART doesn't run to Irvine, in fact Irvine has pretty poor public transport. It's even hard to get to Anaheim by public transport from Irvine
Oakland is one of the most culturally and historically rich cities in California, it was the 2nd largest city in the state for 30 years and the 3rd largest for 40 years after that, while Irvine has no history prior to the mid-'60s.
Irvine's bars are dull, dull, dull, and mostly chain restaurants, while Oakland has one of the widest number of drinking and eating choices in the state.
Oakland while certainly having many problems is coming up while Irvine stagnates.

All the cheerleading in the world wont change the fact that oakland is ghetto

[majoun]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

All the cheerleading in the world wont change the fact that oakland is ghetto

Some Oakland neighborhoods are very ghetto, some Oakland neighborhoods are the farthest thing from ghetto, and many Oakland neighborhoods are in between.

The Acorn Projects don't represent all of Oakland.

I would guess Oakland actually has one of the larger middle classes of any CA big city.

[NorCal Dude]

Well than you guessed wrong. Compared to Sac or even Riverside, the percentage of stable middle class neighborhoods in Oakland are minimal. Unless you consider a shack, with terrible neighborhood schools, and sky high crime, a middle class area that is.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

All the cheerleading in the world wont change the fact that oakland is ghetto

But overall the most ghetto which is what this thread is asking? Well, Oakland has ghettos yes-even a large part of the city could be characterized as hood-but pound for pound? Not even close.

Oakland has way too many pluses compared to NICE CITIES let alone other supposedly 'ghetto' cities to possibly be the 'most' ghetto.

Furthermore, something Oakland does not have that many other cities do have is a veneer of trashiness that is far worse than ghetto imo.

At least in Oakland, there are plenty of areas that are not ghetto in the least. On the other hand, some cities are innundated with trashy people that really are clueless and just one window shy of a mobile home.

And Im not even talking about Irvine or Mission Viejo, cause they are two perfect cities for someone looking for idyllic SoCal Suburbia.

No, Im definitely talking down market. LOL

[18Montclair]

Oakland doesnt do too badly in this comparison...

Percentage of People Below Poverty Level, 2009
Pop 65,000+(10 Largest Cities in Bold)
San Bernardino 29.9%
Merced 26.6%
East Los Angeles 25.0%
Indio 23.5%
El Monte 23.0%
Hesperia 22.8%
Fresno 22.7%
Victorville 22.6%
Salinas 22.5%
El Cajon 22.4%
Hemet 22.3%
Stockton 22.3%
Chico 21.9%
Lancaster 21.6%
South Gate 21.1%
Compton 20.8%
Lynwood 20.8%
Santa Maria 20.7%
Bakersfield 20.6%
Los Angeles 19.8%
Santa Ana 19.8%
Long Beach 19.3%
Palmdale 19.3%
Richmond 19.2%
Sacramento 19.2%
Modesto 18.3%
Apple Valley 18.2%
Pomona 17.7%
Turlock 17.6%
Oakland 17.2%
Oxnard 17.2%
Berkeley 17.1%
Rialto 17.0%
Baldwin Park 16.9%
Redding 16.9%
Inglewood 16.8%
Arden Arcade 16.0%
Garden Grove 15.8%
Ontario 15.8%
Moreno Valley 15.7%
Antioch 15.3%
Riverside 15.1%
Costa Mesa 14.9%
Glendale 14.9%
Visalia 14.7%
Anaheim 14.6%
Fontana 14.5%
San Diego 14.3%
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14.2%
Alhambra 14.1%
Pasadena 14.1%
Escondido 13.8%
West Covina 13.5%
Vallejo 13.3%
Westminster 13.3%
Santa Rosa 13.2%
Bellflower 12.6%
Redwood City 12.6%
Redlands 12.4%
Clovis 12.2%
Santa Barbara 12.1%
Hawthorne 11.7%
Norwalk 11.6%
San Francisco 11.6%
Chula Vista 11.5%
San Jose 11.5%
Fullerton 11.3%
Santa Monica 11.0%
Fairfield 10.9%
Concord 10.8%
San Buenaventura 10.7%
Downey 10.4%
Buena Park 10.2%
Hayward 10.0%

[Mr. Fantastic]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Meanwhile Orange County(Pop 3 MILLION) has ZERO.

OC is made up of suburban cities, the most populous of which is a lot smaller than Oakland. It's a different demographic. Oakland vs LA is a better comparison, and LA stomps Oakland 13 to 1. Set and match.

But this thread is about the Worst Ghetto in California, and it definitely is not Oakland-we've pretty much laid that possibility to rest.

Umm no we haven't. You posted some out of the way statistics about degrees, and pictures of luxury homes. That doesn't ignore the fact that Oakland has a state topping violent crime rate, high unemployment, and a notorious gang and drug problem.

Not only is it NOT Oakland, but data shows that people of considerable education and affluence really like Oakland and its also the city's fastest growing demographic.

Oakland is still dumber and poorer than both Irvine and Mission Viejo according to your own stats, that worked out well for you didn't it. Not to mention 1/5 of the cities population is under the poverty line. How about you give them some free coupons to Commis?

Actually it HAS to be brought up because you it remains something that is totally over your head and your blinders refuse to allow you space to see reality.

It only has to be brought up because you want to bring up a controversial and somewhat red herring topic to push the topic away from the original intent, the worst ghetto, of which Oakland is a big contender based on the facts discussed.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Originally Posted by majoun

I would guess Oakland actually has one of the larger middle classes of any CA big city.

Based on what? The average person in the city makes $30k, and the city is closing in on 15% real unemployment, and roughly 1/5 of the city is under the poverty line. Of course the "Hills" are doing okay, but that doesn't change the fact that Oakland is the antithesis of "middle class", more like bourgeoisie vs peasant.