LA Safer than San Francisco (crimes, how much, safe neighborhoods)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by LALady

SF is all city. You can live in the CITY of LA yet never venture into the city... living in suburbs.

this is a good point. Its much harder to be sheltered in San Francisco. Heck, I lived in Freaking Pacific Heights(possibly the richest neighborhood in America) for a while and I would see the occasional homeless person rummaging about in front of 50 Million Dollar Villas and there, rich people catch the bus a lot so your chances of seeing bad stuff occurring is not low...I doubt that would happen in Bel Air.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

this is a good point. Its much harder to be sheltered in San Francisco. Heck, I lived in Freaking Pacific Heights(possibly the richest neighborhood in America) for a while and I would see the occasional homeless person rummaging about in front of 50 Million Dollar Villas and there, rich people catch the bus a lot so your chances of seeing bad stuff occurring is not low...I doubt that would happen in Bel Air.

As far as seeing homeless people rummaging about in front of expensive houses in rich neighborhoods, it happens in Santa Monica, Brentwood, and Pacific Palisades, but I don't know if it happens in Bel Air.

[music7lover]

I find all of this analysis about which city to be safer rather annoying. I think a person needs to stay very aware of one's surrounding in both cities and in any large city for that matter. Feeling a smug sense of safety is not wise.

[mrfusion]

Look's like everyone from S.F. is scared of L.A... lol.

BOO! don't pee yourselves.

I think here in the greater L.A. area, if you don't address crime, you don't become a victim. lol.

I wouldn't worry about the crime in S.F. now, i'd worry about it in a couple decades when more So. Cal residents start moving north to escape the heat caused by global warming. Every summer and fall myself and many people I know always mention that if it gets any hotter they're going to move north in a few years. lol.

[GG74K]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Its not only that LA is seen negatively, but its also because San Francisco is universally praised. SF is one of those places where things such as crime are overlooked because visitors are hypnotized by the scenery. LA has a much harder time concealing its visible socio-economic problems. In SF, its more like, "oh what a sad homeless man, oh wait-that view is gorgeous, quick take a picture."

I think the high crime is because of SFs bleeding heart with regards to rounding up the homeless. I love The City but we need to finally put an end to that problem. I hate that the streets smell like **** sometimes.


And about Oakland,
I read in the Chronicle once that 90% of that city's homicides and violent crimes are bad people hurting/ killing bad people. Its sad and wrong, but innocent people in Oakland really are safe. I tend to agree.

... the homeless problem in sf i actually funny in the sense that years ago sf welcomed the homeless, offered all kinds of programs to help them get on their feet, housing that didnt force them to take ua's, all kinds of great liberal stuff, now its considered one of the meanest cities toward the homeless wtf? ...everything that is going wrong in cali it did to itself lol

[US-Traveller]

Los Angeles is way safer than San Francisco and the Bay area, who ever thought that LA was more dangerous? Although, Hollywood does paint a bad picture of LA in the movies and tv shows. Many people believe that Chicago is pretty safe, but actually it has a pretty high crime rate, Chicago has movies like Ferris Bueller and Mean Girls, which make it look fabulous and just a pristine place full of rich people, quite segregated and much of it is quite the opposite.

[jagIV]

Originally Posted by US-Traveller

Los Angeles is way safer than San Francisco and the Bay area

I agree with this after having lived in both places.

[westbaytycoon]

everything about sf is greater exept population

[vdy1985]

Originally Posted by Milliano

East Palo Alto isn't in SF, but it's true that the vast majority of crime in SF occurs (according to the SFPDs crime maps) in very specific areas with reputations. The Mission, Bayview, the micro areas with housing projects, the Tenderloin, and SOMA near the Tenderloin. Daly City, which is the one city basically meshed with SF, has a very low crime rate, and obviously isn't counted in SF's crime rates. The larger areas where most people live have low crime rates (like Noe Valley, Sunset, Richmond District, etc)

If you lop all these areas into the City of SF, and make it have outlandishly large city bounderies like LA, then SF would have a lower crime rate. Or chop off Hunter's point from SF like how Compton is chopped off of LA, and SF would also probably have a lower crime rate.

[ABQBound84]

First of all you have to remember the city of Los Angeles has 3.7 million residents making it the second largest city in the U.S. and 8th largest city in the world. So unless your averaging 1000 murders a year of course your homicide rate is going to be lower than a city like SF;(which has a respective population of about 750,000). Second of all, its not the city of LA itself that is immersed with high crime its the outlying suburbs, (Compton, Inglewood, Crenshaw, Watts, Hawthorne, Lynwood, South Gate, Gardena, Long Beach, Industry, Santa Ana, Van Nuys, San Bernardino, the IE, etc). After doing some research, the only cities in the Bay Area that compare with LA Metro crime where Richmond and Oakland, the other "high crime" areas in the Bay were not even close to the volume of violent crime in the LA metro areas that I listed. So my conclusion would come to the fact that even if SF had a higher violent crime rate compared to LA city proper. The LA Metro area has much more crime and is a much more dangerous place.