Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are you so concerned with having people believe SF is so "gangsta"? No offense, but SF has a reputation for being a city of drugged-out Deadheads, flamboyant homosexuals, and chardonnay sipping, snobby liberal types. Oh yeah, and Chinese people. Whether or not this is the reality of SF is another story, but its hard to overcome deep-seated stereotypes perpetuated in the media. Trust me I know, I live in Milwaukee after all where people still think its like Happy Days and Laverne & Shirley.
Why do people keep misunderstanding like this? We aren't trying to convince anyone that its all thugged out. We're just showing the other side of things that people like Cle don't seem to think exists. As you can see, it does exist and that's all we're saying. This is coming in response to a claim that its one of the 10 safest cities in the nation, which it definitely is not.
We're all well aware of the stereotypes of our city, and all that stuff does exist here to a certain degree. I'm fine with it; if the misconceptions keep closed-minded people away, I'm all for it. I'm just not going to be told by an outsider that that's all there is to this place. I will speak up and correct any fool that wants to tell me that the stereotypes are the only reality here.
I thought the nickname for plaza east is OC(out of control)? I know MEss from KO, but I had thought KO's block was the OC???
My bad, I worded that kinda weird. The nickname for Plaza East is OC, you were right on that. But KO and OC are two different buildings. OC used to be the "12-story 'jects" GLP used to always mention before it got rebuilt into those homes they got now. KO's the one between Steiner and Pierce, and Eddy and Turk. 1600 block of Eddy.
You can see what KO looks like in the background of Mess's video and that Piranhas one I posted earlier. OC looks like this now that its been rebuilt:
SF Gate: Jannie Starks stands outside her apartment in the rebuilt... (Michael Macor / SFC) Multimedia (image) (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2005/03/28/MNG4GBVLDG1.DTL&o=0 - broken link)
I'm sure you know 'em if you pass thru that area at all. You can't miss em if you go to J-Town going up Laguna or Safeway over on Webster.
What do I not "seem to think exists"? Ive explained this to you several times already. I am more than aware that San Francisco has ghetto areas, I have never denied that once, dont put words in my mouth. Ive also never said it was one of the "10 safest cities in the nation", ever. Your putting more words in my mouth that I never said. I simply said that In my opinion San Francisco is one of the "top 10 LEAST ghetto large cities in the US (250k+).
Your the same person that didnt know what I was talking about with crime per square mile. I never contradicted myself. San Francisco is about 3 times more dense than Cleveland, thus for them to have anywhere near equal crime, Cleveland would have to have 1/3 of the crime per square mile, so unless its crime rate is 3 times higher than San Franciscos, its going to have less crime per square mile. Do you get it now? And being as the numbers provided (by rah) werent even that less in Cleveland than San Francisco (actually higher in rapes), that proves how much more dangerous it is.
Accept the reality, and just let it go already. I was done, but you decide to mention my name again.
Last edited by BelieveInCleve; 04-09-2009 at 07:56 AM..
Your the same person that didnt know what I was talking about with crime per square mile. I never contradicted myself.
Now who's putting words in whose mouth? I don't know why you're even trying to draw attention to this, but you said RAH didn't know what he was talking about when he said SF had more crime per square mile, and then you contradicted yourself by saying, "of course its going to have more crime per square mile." You were like Rick James when he was talking about grinding his dirty boots into Charlie Murphy's couch. LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cle440
San Francisco is about 3 times more dense than Cleveland, thus for them to have anywhere near equal crime, Cleveland would have to have 1/3 of the crime per square mile, so unless its crime rate is 3 times higher than San Franciscos, its going to have less crime per square mile. Do you get it now? And being as the numbers provided (by rah) werent even that less in Cleveland than San Francisco (actually higher in rapes), that proves how much more dangerous it is.
Speaking of dense! I'm amazed you're still unable to grasp what was said earlier! I don't think you're actually this slow; I think you're just being difficult b/c you're stubborn.
The whole mention of crimes per square mile was a side anecdote to point out how much crime here can have relevance to much more of SF than Cleveland, BECAUSE it is so compact. It was one point you decided to fixate on among many others that you had sidestepped in order to try and find a hole in Rah's argument.
The whole reason for pointing out how SF matched up against Cleveland was not to say that SF was worse than Cleveland overall; it was to point out that SF's crime was high enough to exclude it from the top ten LEAST ghetto cities. Yes, Cleveland IS more dangerous than SF. Duh! That's why Rah chose it as an example to highlight his point. Do you get it now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cle440
What do I not "seem to think exists"? Ive explained this to you several times already. I am more than aware that San Francisco has ghetto areas, I have never denied that once, dont put words in my mouth. Ive also never said it was one of the "10 safest cities in the nation", ever. Your putting more words in my mouth that I never said.
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth; I was referring to how you don't seem to believe in the existence of the conditions that would make a city -- not even considered ghetto overall -- but just more in that direction than these other cities you claim are somehow all more "ghetto" than SF (by refusing to remove SF from your little list lol), but yet offer no proof by showing any knowledge of your criteria in regards to the other cities that we've listed as being less ghetto than SF.
Again, we are not saying SF is a bad place. We all love it. We are just saying its not the ultra-safe, pristine fairyland that people who have never been here seem to think from buying into the stereotypes. Why is this so hard for you to accept? San Jose is one of the "least ghetto cities," and we all are able to compare SF to it up close and personal. If you ever take a tour through SF, Oakland and San Jose, you can see how much closer much of SF is to Oakland than it is to San Jose. Again, not saying its ghetto, but it is far moreso than San Jose. And it is far moreso than many of those cities listed.
And when I said "safest cities," I misspoke. I meant to say "least ghetto." You did not use the term "safest," and I was not trying to say that you used that word. But your argument does seem to imply that even though you said you were using all the criteria you listed. Again, that criteria should all be applied to the cities listed such as Virginia Beach and San Diego if you're going to try and convince us otherwise.
So let me get this straight, you think SF is possibly more dangerous and has higher crime than some of these cities (assuming I was putting words in your mouth), but is somehow less ghetto? Because crime is the main thing being used in this argument to draw comparisons. Are you only speaking on aesthetics then? Do you think that SF just has a higher ratio of pretty neighborhoods to depressed neighborhoods than these other cities, yet you could consider SF's bad neighborhoods worse than the bad neighborhoods in those cities? I would still disagree with you, but this is getting very old fast. But explain your entire stance if you insist on carrying this on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cle440
Accept the reality, and just let it go already. I was done, but you decide to mention my name again.
I've been comfortable with the reality, its you that can't seem to accept it. Its you that doesn't even know it! You've never even been here so how are you gonna tell me what the reality is??!! That's the whole reason we're arguing with you! B/c you DON"T KNOW THE REALITY!! Get it through your thick head.
My bad, I worded that kinda weird. The nickname for Plaza East is OC, you were right on that. But KO and OC are two different buildings. OC used to be the "12-story 'jects" GLP used to always mention before it got rebuilt into those homes they got now. KO's the one between Steiner and Pierce, and Eddy and Turk. 1600 block of Eddy.
You can see what KO looks like in the background of Mess's video and that Piranhas one I posted earlier. OC looks like this now that its been rebuilt:
SF Gate: Jannie Starks stands outside her apartment in the rebuilt... (Michael Macor / SFC) Multimedia (image) (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2005/03/28/MNG4GBVLDG1.DTL&o=0 - broken link)
I'm sure you know 'em if you pass thru that area at all. You can't miss em if you go to J-Town going up Laguna or Safeway over on Webster.
The reason Eddy Gang is listed on google maps probaly has something to do with gang injunctions inflicted on much of the high crime area's of SF. And Thanks for clearing that up Jman, yes I am familiar with those PJ's on buchanan.
Neither you nor rah know what your talking about with that. I just explained that to you. You made a post on page 16 about that, and thats what I was referring to.
Ive yet to provide any proof? Im guessing you missed my post where I explained exactly why San Francisco was in my "top 10 least ghetto large cities" list with stats included (Page 15). Go and reread that then. I included my criteria and explained it all and then said if you can find 10 cities in the US 250k+ that are less ghetto than that based on my criteria, than I would take it off the list. I provided more than enough proof for why San Francisco is on my list. Ive went through that list of 15 cities you mentioned, and only about 3 of them are "more ghetto" than Frisco based on my criteria, so it remains.
As I explained before, what makes a place "ghetto" to me is a combination of things, not just crime. That should be obvious. What else do you want to focus on then? poverty? education level? There isnt many large cities better than San Francisco in those categories either.
Neither you nor rah know what your talking about with that. I just explained that to you. You made a post on page 16 about that, and thats what I was referring to.
Ive yet to provide any proof? Im guessing you missed my post where I explained exactly why San Francisco was in my "top 10 least ghetto large cities" list with stats included (Page 15). Go and reread that then. I included my criteria and explained it all and then said if you can find 10 cities in the US 250k+ that are less ghetto than that based on my criteria, than I would take it off the list. I provided more than enough proof for why San Francisco is on my list. Ive went through that list of 15 cities you mentioned, and only about 3 of them are "more ghetto" than Frisco based on my criteria, so it remains.
As I explained before, what makes a place "ghetto" to me is a combination of things, not just crime. That should be obvious. What else do you want to focus on then? poverty? education level? There isnt many large cities better than San Francisco in those categories either.
But wait...there are 40 cities with populations over 250k with a lower crime rate than San Francisco. Not 15. Did you somehow forget about them? Apply your personal criteria for "ghetto" to those 40 cities, than get back to us.
Neither you nor rah know what your talking about with that. I just explained that to you. You made a post on page 16 about that, and thats what I was referring to.
Lol! So I don't know what I'm talking about b/c I said that you don't know what YOU'RE talking about??? LMAO what a cop out. Whatever man, if you wanna be immature about this, go for it. I called you out twice and explained in detail how what you said was a contradiction. And I let it go, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. That only made YOU look bad, not us. And it really has nothing to do with this entire argument; it's just nitpicking what words were used to make a point. Seriously man, let that one go. Its not helping your cause at all. LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cle440
Ive yet to provide any proof? Im guessing you missed my post where I explained exactly why San Francisco was in my "top 10 least ghetto large cities" list with stats included (Page 15). Go and reread that then. I included my criteria and explained it all and then said if you can find 10 cities in the US 250k+ that are less ghetto than that based on my criteria, than I would take it off the list. I provided more than enough proof for why San Francisco is on my list. Ive went through that list of 15 cities you mentioned, and only about 3 of them are "more ghetto" than Frisco based on my criteria, so it remains.
As I explained before, what makes a place "ghetto" to me is a combination of things, not just crime. That should be obvious. What else do you want to focus on then? poverty? education level? There isnt many large cities better than San Francisco in those categories either.
Yes, you have yet to provide any proof, in regards to the other cities listed. You only showed your criteria (I guess you missed my posts where I've repeatedly referenced this), and gave SF's stats. No need for me to reread it now, b/c I've been referencing this from the jump. Maybe you're truly not understanding what I am saying to you. I understand what SF's standing is in your criteria from the stats that you gave (sources would be nice too btw - don't know how accurate that may have been, but I'll take your word for it), and I think that all is good criteria for what you are trying to prove. But what are the figures you are using for all those other cities? You would have posted them earlier if you had them at the time, rather than just jumped to the conclusion that SF is "less ghetto."
Now if only 3 of them are MORE ghetto, wouldn't that mean that 12 of them are LESS ghetto and instantly bump SF out of your top ten list? Wtf are you on? And regardless, what about all the other cities Rah listed? how about their stats to compare before you make your claim? Whatever man, believe what you wanna believe. But don't expect anyone else to agree with you for all the reasons previously mentioned in this thread. I don't know why this retarded argument is still carrying on. SF's not "ghetto," bottom line. But it is more than many other cities in the US. More than 10 are less ghetto than SF, plain and simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
But wait...there are 40 cities with populations over 250k with a lower crime rate than San Francisco. Not 15. Did you somehow forget about them? Apply your personal criteria for "ghetto" to those 40 cities, than get back to us.
Exactly, I second that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
