Oakland...a violent dangerous city (San Francisco, Fremont: appointed, foreclosed, low crime)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
As I said in the first response, it's not just about looks, it's about increased ghettoization and increased marginalization. The reason why the crime rate in Oakland is so pronounced is because the drug game is much more lucrative thanks to the large amount of wealth throughout the Bay Area and the more care-free attitude towards (using) drugs. The crime rate doesn't say anything about how marginalized or segregated a neighborhood is, it only tells us about the crime. Knowing Oakland well, most of the "ghetto" neighborhoods in Oakland are not ghettos in the traditional sense of the word, they're strictly labeled ghettos based on the crime. The ghettos in cities like Baltimore and New Orleans have high crime on top of being highly segregated, depressed local economies, terrible services, etc... a neighborhood like Fruitvale for example is not segregated or depressed economically - its businesses are thriving right now - and it still gets the basic services the rich neighborhoods get (street cleaning, public transit, etc) but it has some of the worst gang violence in the Bay Area. That kind of neighborhood doesn't exist in Baltimore or in plenty of other cities for that matter.
You got to be kidding. So now Oakland's crime problem is a direct result of living in a wealthy areas where there is demand for drugs. I didn't realize that places like Marin County and Lamorinda were the root cause for Oakland's crime problem . What do you think a lot of the crime in places like New Orleans is caused by? The answer is DRUGS! NOLA is a major entry and distribution point for drugs. So are places like Miami, yet neither place is wealthy. I just don't get that argument at all and it's far too simplistic. Just sounds like more absurd excuses trying to paint Oakland as so different than all these other cities with high crime.
And then you try to suggest that the ghettos of places like New Orleans aren't served by transit or public services like street cleaning. Look at a bus map of NOLA, I don't see any areas lacking bus service. And look at the some of the streets in Oakland, I find it hard to believe street cleaning occurs there more than once every 6 months.
Then you talk about depressed local economies when the SF-Oak metro area has a higher unemployment rate than St Louis, New Orleans, Baltimore, etc.. Baltimore is located in one of the wealthiest and most educated areas of the nation and has one of the strongest economies. If you're talking about on the neighborhood level then you might have a point as there are few areas that are abandoned in CA since there is little land and healthy population growth, I guess a vibrant ghetto is better then a less vibrant one although I'm not sure in the end it makes much of a difference. Not saying the Bay Area doesn't have a strong economy but for people that live in these poor areas I'm not sure they are better off than people in poor areas of these other high crime cities.
It just amazes me how some people try to pretend Oakland's ghetto's aren't "traditional ghettos" and as bad as places elsewhere. Not saying it has the worst ghettos but its bad areas are traditional ghetto's imo. They have high crime and look and feel like dumps like nearly all ghetto's.
I understand some people on here are sensitive because of how outsiders stereotype Oakland but at the same time some of you have these rose colored glasses on when it comes to Oakland as well. As far as crime and bad neighborhoods, it isn't any better or worse than other places overall IMO.
Status:
"It's the first page of the 2nd chapter"
(set 9 days ago)
Location: Richmond, CA
8,424 posts, read 5,713,167 times
Reputation: 3546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Opinionated
Really. And just who are these folks who think it's noteworthy to point out crime in big cities, like New York, Chicago, L.A or even Oakland, as if they were RFD's?
You got to be kidding. So now Oakland's crime problem is a direct result of living in a wealthy areas where there is demand for drugs. I didn't realize that places like Marin County and Lamorinda were the root cause for Oakland's crime problem . What do you think a lot of the crime in places like New Orleans is caused by? The answer is DRUGS! NOLA is a major entry and distribution point for drugs. So are places like Miami, yet neither place is wealthy. I just don't get that argument at all and it's far too simplistic. Just sounds like more absurd excuses trying to paint Oakland as so different than all these other cities with high crime.
And then you try to suggest that the ghettos of places like New Orleans aren't served by transit or public services like street cleaning. Look at a bus map of NOLA, I don't see any areas lacking bus service. And look at the some of the streets in Oakland, I find it hard to believe street cleaning occurs there more than once every 6 months.
Then you talk about depressed local economies when the SF-Oak metro area has a higher unemployment rate than St Louis, New Orleans, Baltimore, etc.. Baltimore is located in one of the wealthiest and most educated areas of the nation and has one of the strongest economies. If you're talking about on the neighborhood level then you might have a point as there are few areas that are abandoned in CA since there is little land and healthy population growth, I guess a vibrant ghetto is better then a less vibrant one although I'm not sure in the end it makes much of a difference. Not saying the Bay Area doesn't have a strong economy but for people that live in these poor areas I'm not sure they are better off than people in poor areas of these other high crime cities.
It just amazes me how some people try to pretend Oakland's ghetto's aren't "traditional ghettos" and as bad as places elsewhere. Not saying it has the worst ghettos but its bad areas are traditional ghetto's imo. They have high crime and look and feel like dumps like nearly all ghetto's.
I understand some people on here are sensitive because of how outsiders stereotype Oakland but at the same time some of you have these rose colored glasses on when it comes to Oakland as well. As far as crime and bad neighborhoods, it isn't any better or worse than other places overall IMO.
I call it like I see it... I get the feeling you have spent less time in Oakland than the other cities mentioned. I'm in high crime neighborhoods in Oakland every day, and quite a few of them simply do not fit the mold of "slums" or "ghettos". They're vibrant, fully-realized neighborhoods that have high-crime. As I've said before, the true ghettos in Oakland are Deep East Oakland and sections of West Oakland. Areas like Fruitvale, New Chinatown, etc. have high crime but are not ghettos. A ghetto is an economically depressed, marginalized neighborhood occupied by a socially oppressed group of people (i.e. they would not choose to live there if they had a choice). They are not real neighborhoods, they are slums that exist solely for the purpose of housing the maligned segment of the population. I don't get what makes it so difficult for you to grasp the difference... high crime does not = ghetto
It's amusing on here on how some of the homers always try to down play the level and types of crime in Oakland that other cities simply don't see nearly as often. Considering how wealthy and educated the Bay Area is, it has quite a lot of crime.
It's not that people downplay violent crime in Oakland, its just that people try to understand violent crime in Oakland.
Knowing a crime rate within a city reveals next to nothing of how safe someone is. Knowing the factors that affect individual crime risk is a step torwards a complete analysis of crime statistics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
It's amusing how sensitive you are to criticism of Oakland yet are so quick to bash and stereotype other cities for their flaws.
I do not think anyone is trying to cause harm.
Maybe it has something to do with the age of cities. The Eastern and Southern US was established long before the West. Cities there are older, thus much more susceptible to urban blight. "Ghettos" in the West are not ghetto's by Eastern or Southern standards.
For example, a New Orleans man, that I know, came to live in West Oakland. He said, " The Acorns are not projects. You got maintanence, green grass, low vacancy, pools, etc."
It definitely has improved over the last 20 years or so... I think 1992 was a record for homicides at 165.
It would be nice to record less than 100 homicides every year but I'll take any improvement and agree that things are better as a technicality.
But I remember reading something Jerry Brown said when he was mayor, that Oakland is a dumping ground for parolees who come out of prison/jail(at any given time there are 3-4 thousand in town at once) and they can't find work or they don't want to work and if I recall correctly, he said they are responsible for the brunt of our crimes and homicides.
There are also some incredibly brazen and lawless folks out there who are unapologetic in their utter disrespect for the rule of law. I recently e recounted the story of something I experienced when leaving Target one night. I feel like I was at the right place at the right time in order to help a stranger but I think of all those who didnt have someone there just when they needed them.
Even more unacceptable is the fact that they even need some sort of special protection against people trying to rob, rape or kill them.
You got to be kidding. So now Oakland's crime problem is a direct result of living in a wealthy areas where there is demand for drugs. I didn't realize that places like Marin County and Lamorinda were the root cause for Oakland's crime problem . What do you think a lot of the crime in places like New Orleans is caused by? The answer is DRUGS! NOLA is a major entry and distribution point for drugs. So are places like Miami, yet neither place is wealthy. I just don't get that argument at all and it's far too simplistic. Just sounds like more absurd excuses trying to paint Oakland as so different than all these other cities with high crime.
And then you try to suggest that the ghettos of places like New Orleans aren't served by transit or public services like street cleaning. Look at a bus map of NOLA, I don't see any areas lacking bus service. And look at the some of the streets in Oakland, I find it hard to believe street cleaning occurs there more than once every 6 months.
Then you talk about depressed local economies when the SF-Oak metro area has a higher unemployment rate than St Louis, New Orleans, Baltimore, etc.. Baltimore is located in one of the wealthiest and most educated areas of the nation and has one of the strongest economies. If you're talking about on the neighborhood level then you might have a point as there are few areas that are abandoned in CA since there is little land and healthy population growth, I guess a vibrant ghetto is better then a less vibrant one although I'm not sure in the end it makes much of a difference. Not saying the Bay Area doesn't have a strong economy but for people that live in these poor areas I'm not sure they are better off than people in poor areas of these other high crime cities.
It just amazes me how some people try to pretend Oakland's ghetto's aren't "traditional ghettos" and as bad as places elsewhere. Not saying it has the worst ghettos but its bad areas are traditional ghetto's imo. They have high crime and look and feel like dumps like nearly all ghetto's.
I understand some people on here are sensitive because of how outsiders stereotype Oakland but at the same time some of you have these rose colored glasses on when it comes to Oakland as well. As far as crime and bad neighborhoods, it isn't any better or worse than other places overall IMO.
1. You've obviously never gotten a parking ticket for street sweeping then. I live in the 'ghetto' and they ticket like clockwork if you don't move your car.
2. Just because you state your opinion like it's a fact, it doesn't mean it's reality. Believe whatever you want, but don't come into a thread about Oakland, talking about how violent and dangerous it is, and not expect people who actually live here to call you out.
Most of that was ignored by the SF Chronicle, naturally. They were probably too busy with lame negative articles about Occupy Oakland, or something. As well as real estate advertisements half-ass-edly disguised as news articles...they love those at the Chronicle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 1.5 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.
. What do you think a lot of the crime in places like New Orleans is caused by? The answer is DRUGS! NOLA is a major entry and distribution point for drugs. So are places like Miami, yet neither place is wealthy. I just don't get that argument at all and it's far too simplistic. Just sounds like more absurd excuses trying to paint Oakland as so different than all these other cities with high crime. 
