Worst city in the Bay Area to live in? (San Francisco: buy, school)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by goonzy

But yeah, I think in general the ENTIRE East Bay sucks. Its the **** hole of the Bay Area. Its the side with all the heavy industry, oil refineries and ports. 70% of all the homicides in the Bay Area occur in Contra Costa Or Alemeda Counties(AKA the East Bay). All the cities there are hella ghetto and the crime rate is hight too. Even the nice parts of the East Bay like Concord and Walnut Creek and Livermoore suck and are very boring and subruban and still have high crime rates for a city of that wealth. The East Bay hills are plain and brown with rarley a single tree ever growing on its hillside. Oakland is a terrible regional hub city that has so many types of problems. The Raiders suck and all their fans are on drugs. The A's are a worthlesss team and the Warriors are the crappyest team in basketball for the last 2 decades. Yeah I think the entire east bay sucks, even Berkley(yeah i said it).
I aslo think San Jose and the south bay suck. I wont go into details but I feel the only place worth living in the Bay Area is on the Golden Gate AKA the West Bay AKA the Marin and San Francisco peninsulas AKA 415/650.
Did i mention that the SF Giants are world champions?

Cool story bro! Win it three more times then you'll have as many as the OAKLAND ATHLETICS!

Enjoy that bougie West Bay BS, at least the East Bay keeps it real!

Take away the South Bay and East Bay and you take away the economy and power of the Bay Area. Sf's largest industry is fricken tourism.

[durf]

San Jose is cool with a nice downtown and Santana Row. Heck, San Jose's downtown can really call New York City out and beat the crap out of it. San Jose is more fun than New York by far. If no one believes me, that their poragative. Seeing and experiencing San Jose is more credible than I can ever be. Eyes and senses don't lie. It is what is. Is San Jose the best city in the world, maybe or maybe not because the jury is still out. The worst city in the Bay Area is Vallejo or East Palo Alto. Choose your pick.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by rah

Your point about crimes per square mile is interesting too. SF may not have the highest violent crime rate when compared to plenty of other US cities (though it is up there), but SF's density means that crime is witnessed or heard about by more people...basically, more people are affected indirectly by the crime, and thus crime is perceived to be even higher.

This is true, and yet there's so many people in SF who refuse to believe that crime exists. I haven't encounted this anywhere else, at least not nearly to the degree in SF. It's so weird.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by sav858

Cool story bro! Win it three more times then you'll have as many as the OAKLAND ATHLETICS!

Seriously, how quickly he forgot the bigger picture. LOL

[goldenchild08]

Your point about crimes per square mile is interesting too. SF may not have the highest violent crime rate when compared to plenty of other US cities (though it is up there), but SF's density means that crime is witnessed or heard about by more people...basically, more people are affected indirectly by the crime, and thus crime is perceived to be even higher.

I've wrote about this on other posts in other threads but I've witnessed much violent crime in San Francisco. I live on the East Coast now outside of DC and I've never seen anyone getting beating up in DC or Baltimore and I've never seen bums and obvious gang members outside harassing innocent passerbys. However, I've seen all of this in SF.

Last time I was back home in SF over the summer, I saw a bunch of ghetto looking kids beat up an innocent White girl for no reason during the Gay Pride downtown festivities. And the crazy part about it was that they were filming themselves and taking pictures when they were beating the girl up! No one came to the girl's rescue. They knocked her to the ground and she suprised and scared crying started running for the quickly departing 47 bus on Van Ness. This random violent behavior is typical of thugs in SF:

Is it really a surprise that most the cities on the most dangerous list are heavily black? Look, it is the truth that black areas/cities have more crime then white areas/cities. It is not about racism. It is the truth.

And to the racists on this forum who will say there are nothing but Black perpetrators in this video, thugs come in all colors in the Bay Area. Some of the roughest hoods in SF, Oakland and all over the Bay have Asians, Pacific Islanders, Latinos and sometimes even Whites (yes) slanging and banging on the same turf side by side with Blacks. Color doesn't matter as much in many ghettos in the Bay as it does in uber racist L.A. where you have Mexicans killing Blacks and such. This is a given being that Oakland is only one of the most diverse big cities in the United States! I guess people from White Suburbia, USA aren't aware of this...

[goldenchild08]

however SF has a bad crime problem for some reason. maybe because of all the bums pooping and peeing everywhere.

San Francisco's homeless problem has been labeled as the worst in the country by many for years and years. There is no question that San Francisco is a mecca for homeless people. The moderate weather, beautiful scenery, liberal attitudes, dirty Hippie history and abundance of super dank pot attract homeless people from all over the country. Areas like the Tenderloin and Golden Gate Park are obvious examples. When I was a kid in the 80's, the Civic Center was home to a tent city which is no longer there. DC does not have half as many homeless people cluttering their streets as SF. SF also has a high percentage of residents and homeless people with severe mental illness. SF isn't affectionately nicknamed "San Franpsycho" for no reason! If you've ever been in SF and rode public transportation or walked the streets anywhere you know that certain streets and buses are like public psych wards. Some of these people are obviously dangerous. I've witnessed many mentally ill homeless people yell racial epithets and fistfight passerbys in SF. However, their insane mentally disturbed racist rants aren't as half as offensive and racist as some of the things I've read in this thread.

http://www.sfgate.com/homeless/

Severe mental illness robbing years from lives - SFGate

This type of scene is common in SF:

[BacktoBlue]

Originally Posted by jade408

Um have you ever looked at class being a factor in crime. Poorer urban neighborhoods typically more crime, because there are no job options. White flight happened in te 50s-60s and then the black middle class people left the city in the 60s, 70s, 80s. It is hard to have a thriving community without diversity of incomes and economic class.

The safest cities in America happen to have less amounts of poor and less blacks. They are safe because of this.

I mean look at the most dangerous cities.

Oakland(blacks)
Detroit(blacks)
St Louis(blacks)
Baltimore(blacks)

Then look at the safest cities. It is obvious race DOES play a roll. It's not about racism, it is about the facts. The facts clearly support the theory about black cities having higher crime then cities with whites and other races (latino, asian)

[goldenchild08]

SF's murder rate is much less than Baltimore for example...

That is because there is much more poverty in Baltimore. What makes San Francisco "nice" to most Americans is the fact that is has rich White people. Baltimore does not. Maryland is the richest state in the country but most of the ugly poverty is all concentrated in Baltimore City. The median income in Baltimore is barely $30,000 a year while the median income in San Francisco is over $73,000.

However, the ghetto areas of SF are just as bad, if not worse than anywhere else. I know being a former Lakeview resident. To this day, there are no brand name commercial businesses in that neighborhood. Thats right, no Walgreens, no Safeway, no McDonald's. The vast majority of businesses in that neighborhood are ghetto corner stores and liquor stores and all of them sell alcohol. There might be a locally owned tiny restaurant in there or two but most businesses there sell liquor to poor people. Hunter's Point and Sunnydale are the same way. Try to find a commercial name brand business in the map of my old neighborhood. It is technically bordered off by Ocean Avenue to the north, Junipero Serra Blvd to the west, Brotherhood Way to the south and San Jose Ave to the east. However, the subset of the hood where I lived specifically, which is the poorest, was technically bordered off by Sargent Street to the north, Junipero Serra Blvd to the west, Orizaba Ave to the east and Brotherhood Way to the south. There are three liquor stores in the few blocks in my old neck of the wood. Liquor stores on every corner? And people think SF is not ghetto.

ramsell st san francisco - Google Maps

[goldenchild08]

Then look at the safest cities. It is obvious race DOES play a roll. It's not about racism, it is about the facts. The facts clearly support the theory about black cities having higher crime then cities with whites and other races (latino, asian)

Actually some of the statistically most dangerous cities in the country are primarily White. For example, I live in Maryland and the vacation town of Ocean City, which is 94.4% White, is one of the most statistically dangerous cities of any size in the country. According to neighborhoodscout.com, Ocean City, Maryland earned the lowest possible safety rating of a ZERO. That means 0% of all American cities are safer than good old OC, MD. If you live in Ocean City, you have a 1 in 4 chance of becoming a victim of property crime and 1 in 30 chance of becoming a victim of violent crime. Sounds like a nice place to live because it is mostly White according to your logic. I'm not being racist, numbers don't lie. You really should stop watching the racist news and believing media lies.

Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed

Many big cities that are predominantly White are also much more statistically dangerous for the average person than any of those cities you listed. For instance, Seattle, which is 70% White, earned a 3 on the safety index. Also, Las Vegas which is 50% White earned a 0 on the safety index.

Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed

Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed

[goldenchild08]

The difference between crime in Black majority cities is that most violent crime is usually strictly between drug dealers, gang members and criminals who know each other. It is not random. To the average person, a place like Baltimore is actually quite safe, while the overwhelmingly White vacation town of Ocean City is very dangerous for an innocent law abiding citizen.

Ezra Klein - How dangerous is Baltimore?