Newest Safest/Most Dangerous City Rankings (Los Angeles, San Jose: insurance, crime rates, homes)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Once again, huge contrast and this is even more misleading than the city rankings.

Most of the crime in the East Bay is concentrated in Oakland, Richmond and the flatlands of Berkeley. There is some in Pittsburg too I suppose but other than that, the East Bay is safe. And 3rd behind only SF and SJ in average wealth and educational attainment.

How is that any different than crime being concentrated in certain neighborhoods in cities?? Instead of crime being concentrated in certain areas of a city its concentrated in certain cities of a region, same difference.

What does wealth and educational attainment have to do with the crime stats at hand?

You seem to be just getting defensive b/c you don't like your home region ranked so high. I grew up in the same region, albeit the safer part, but it is what it is and stats don't lie. I find it somewhat of a double standard how you use stats, studies, and reports to show off how wealthy or great the Bay Area is but then try to dismiss them when they show that is has the same problems as everywhere else, or even worse problems in some cases.

All the income stats you post can said to be misleading too b/c it doesn't say anything about how much disposable income actually have or how wealthy people really are, same difference.

I guess my point is crime stats only tell one side how a place is.

Yeah, that would be the crime side.

[JustJulia]

Originally Posted by sav858

How is that any different than crime being concentrated in certain neighborhoods in cities?? Instead of crime being concentrated in certain areas of a city its concentrated in certain cities of a region, same difference.

It seems like the further would-be criminals have to go the commit crimes, the less likely they will do so. I have no opionion once way or the other about Northern California, having never lived there, but it does seem that the larger the sample area, the more stats will vary by location. For instance, I know my MSA has crime problems, but my city itself ranks very well on the crime scale. It's not like crime stops when you get to my city limits, but we have a strong local police force.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by sav858

Yeah, that would be the crime side.

But many people base everything they know about a place on crime and so have preconceived notions about everything related to that place.

How many people would know that Oakland has a higher percentage of Graduate degrees than San Jose? Probably not many. Why? Because Oakland doesnt have a reputation for being a place people of high intelligence would want to live...its reputation as a city is one of poverty and crime. But that's not all there is.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by JustJulia

It seems like the further would-be criminals have to go the commit crimes, the less likely they will do so. I have no opionion once way or the other about Northern California, having never lived there, but it does seem that the larger the sample area, the more stats will vary by location. For instance, I know my MSA has crime problems, but my city itself ranks very well on the crime scale. It's not like crime stops when you get to my city limits, but we have a strong local police force.

Exactly.

Oakland-Fremont MSA is a perfect example. FresnoFact reports that this is the most 'dangerous' MSA but Fremont itself has a very low crime rate.

I have long hated this Morgan Quinto ranking because it doesnt really do anything but perpetuate stereotypes.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

But many people base everything they know about a place on crime and so have preconceived notions about everything related to that place.

That's fairly true, but it still is a reputation the city has earned for good reason. I can't stand seeing what people say about New Orleans b/c there is so much that city has to offer, like Oakland.

But it can work both ways. I think some people don't know how high SF's crime rate is b/c its such a wealthy city and is perceived as such desptie having some bad ghettos. Also very few people probably realize that Minneapolis has a VERY HIGH crime rate b/c it has some reputation of being highly educated, good health scores, and high quality of life. Or just like looking at the stats you post might cause someone to think everyone in the Bay Area is rich and there is little poverty.

But honestly if Walnut Creek was included in the MSA name, like it said Oakland-Walnut Creek MSA or something like that, I probably would get a little defensive too and point out how my side of the hill is very safe overall.

I have long hated this Morgan Quinto ranking because it doesnt really do anything but perpetuate stereotypes.

Yet you don't mind posting stats and studies that perpetuate the stereotype of the Bay Area being super wealthy, everyone has money, or that they're ahead of everyone else.

Stereotypes exist for a reason.

I think these stats show how despite people in the Bay Area bragging constantly about their social progressiveness and being "ahead of the curve" that they have the same problems with regards to quality of life issues, such as crime, as everywhere else.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by sav858

Yet you don't mind posting stats and studies that perpetuate the stereotype of the Bay Area being super wealthy, everyone has money, or that they're ahead of everyone else.

Obviously, Im a HOMER.

Stereotypes exist for a reason.

Yet its perfectly reasonable to point out that negative stats dont tell the whole story.

I think these stats show how despite people in the Bay Area bragging constantly about their social progressiveness and being "ahead of the curve" that they have the same problems with regards to quality of life issues, such as crime, as everywhere else.

Actually I could flip it around and say that it speaks to our diversity that we are at the same time fabulous and er dangerous. Please note my tongue in cheek.

[FresnoFacts]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

But many people base everything they know about a place on crime and so have preconceived notions about everything related to that place.

How many people would know that Oakland has a higher percentage of Graduate degrees than San Jose? Probably not many. Why? Because Oakland doesnt have a reputation for being a place people of high intelligence would want to live...its reputation as a city is one of poverty and crime. But that's not all there is.

I completely agree with you. How many times do people here say for example that Fresno has a lot of crime. Yet the city rankings have Fresno's crime lower than many other cities in California including those considered "safe" by many people.

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Oakland-Fremont MSA is a perfect example. FresnoFact reports that this is the most 'dangerous' MSA but Fremont itself has a very low crime rate.

Another example is the Fresno MSA. That consists of 900,000 people in Fresno County, 472,000 of that in Fresno proper and 93,000 in Clovis with the rest (about 335,000 people or 1/3 of the MSA population) in the outlying farm towns.

Clovis was 58th lowest crime in the US and the city of Fresno was middle of the pack among the safest 385 cities in the US. Clovis was ranked safer than Fremont, Roseville, Santa Clara, San Marcos, Santa Barbara, and others in California that people consider "nice".

But the much higher crime in the outlying areas representing 1/3 of the county population brings the entire Fresno MSA ranking down (or up in crime depending upon your view).

I'll make you a deal, I'll help you point out the good sides of the East Bay if you'll help me change some of the bad misconceptions people have of Fresno/Clovis.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by FresnoFacts

Another example is the Fresno MSA. That consists of 900,000 people in Fresno County, 472,000 of that in Fresno proper and 93,000 in Clovis with the rest (about 335,000 people or 1/3 of the MSA population) in the outlying farm towns.

Clovis was 58th lowest crime in the US and the city of Fresno was middle of the pack among the safest 385 cities in the US. Clovis was ranked safer than Fremont, Roseville, Santa Clara, San Marcos, Santa Barbara, and others in California that people consider "nice".

But the much higher crime in the outlying areas representing 1/3 of the county population brings the entire Fresno MSA ranking down (or up in crime depending upon your view).

I'll make you a deal, I'll help you point out the good sides of the East Bay if you'll help me change some of the bad misconceptions people have of Fresno/Clovis.

As a northern Californian, I don't have the misconception that Fresno has a lot of crime. I do know that it has a staggering poverty level, though, and there are statistics to back that up. Fresno's Concentration of Poor Tops in U.S., Study Says - Los Angeles Times

[sav858]

I'm not gonna lie, I always had the misconception that Fresno was full of crime. For all the things you hear about poverty, unemployment, and METH it just causes one to automatically assume it was crime ridden. But the stats show it is not.

I've been surprised by some cities crime stats; how many people realize that El Paso, TX, a poor city across the border from one of the most violent cities in North America, would have one of the lowest crime rates of any major US city? And who new Minneapolis had such a high crime rate too?

[elousv]

I am wondering where the data comes from too, as in my case the sheriff station covers 50 sq. miles of city of Santa Clarita and 600 sq. miles of unincorporated L.A. County. So depending on how you compile this, the crime pockets could be many miles from where you are.