Rant: Tired of people asking if it's safe in Oakland (Los Angeles: school, where to live)

[|Incognito|]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

No, you don't get it. Even within the so-called "killing fields", Oakland remains a city of individual and defined neighborhoods where crossing a street from one to the other literally changes the socioeconomics of where you're standing. That you use a map that clearly shows the murders are centralized in certain neighborhoods (with the exception of Downtown) to make the claim that "70% of Oakland's entire area is considered unsafe" demonstrates that you don't get Oakland at all. Your subsequent statement that 4 to five years back "almost every block and every corner would have a crime scene" is not only false but makes it obvious that you've never actually been here.

Problem with your argument is that it is not backed up with any data whatsoever. Crime can be easily tracked. What is safe to you, may not be safe to someone else. A person living in Tijuana's slums might find Oakland refreshing. This is why raw data speaks quite clearly. When you quantify Oakland's crime statistics is when you get to see a bigger picture.

Attached are robberies in last the 6 months (I did not plot assaults, gun charges, narcotics, car theft, car break ins, fraud, sex offenses, larceny and few others because map would not be visible at all). I also included the official zipped city limits of Oakland, so that we are exact about neighborhoods. Maps speaks for itself.

[ZhugeLiang]

Originally Posted by |Incognito|

Problem with your argument is that it is not backed up with any data whatsoever. Crime can be easily tracked. What is safe to you, may not be safe to someone else. A person living in Tijuana's slums might find Oakland refreshing. This is why raw data speaks quite clearly. When you quantify Oakland's crime statistics is when you get to see a bigger picture.

Attached are robberies in last the 6 months. I also included the official zipped city limits of Oakland, so that we are exact about neighborhoods. Maps speaks for itself.

Nice work lumping Alameda in there.
Look beyond the numbers. The concentration of violent crime in Oakland is mostly in three districts. You can easily avoid those neighborhoods.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by |Incognito|

i think it is time to stop BS. yeah we get it ...there are good and bad parts of any city. however, it is not exactly that 5 blocks are bad. more like 70% of oakland's entire area is considered unsafe. go plot robberies and murders on crimemapping.com and see what you get. their software can plot 800 crimes and if you just go back 1 month the software can't keep up.

here is a map of oakland's murders in just last 6 months. now visualize how would map look like just 4-5 years back. almost every block and every corner would have a crime scene.

Not going to even attempt to change your perception.

Point of fact is:

Among Oakland's 35 police patrol beats, violent crime remains a serious problem in specific East and West Oakland neighborhoods. In 2008, homicides were disproportionately concentrated: 72% occurred in three City Council districts, District 3 in West Oakland and Districts 6 and 7 in East Oakland, even though these districts represent only 44% of Oakland's residents.

No where even close to 70% or even 50%...

Remember, Oakland is almost 80 Square miles in size and to say 56 square miles is a crime ridden and more than an exaggeration... it is misleading, at best.

[|Incognito|]

Originally Posted by ZhugeLiang

Nice work lumping Alameda in there.
Look beyond the numbers. The concentration of violent crime in Oakland is mostly in three districts. You can easily avoid those neighborhoods.

Software shows what is on the screen, so Alameda was included not by choice, but the way software displays. Use it first, then talk $hit.

Remember, Oakland is almost 80 Square miles in size and to say 56 square miles is a crime ridden and more than an exaggeration... it is misleading, at best.

Oakland is 78 sq miles, out of which 22 is WATER. That leaves 56 sq miles. If you want to be exact...

Violent crime is not murders only. Again, I am not disputing that Oakland has good neighborhoods. There are some that i would LOVE to afford! What I am saying is that areas that are violent are LARGE MAJORITY.

Please look at the data. Your personal experience is of very little value (no offense). Somebody might be living on 73th ave for their entire life without ever being assaulted or ever experiencing any crime. That doesn't mean area is considered safe. Sample size is what is relevant, something that stats reveal quite clearly.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by |Incognito|

Problem with your argument is that it is not backed up with any data whatsoever. Crime can be easily tracked. What is safe to you, may not be safe to someone else. A person living in Tijuana's slums might find Oakland refreshing. This is why raw data speaks quite clearly. When you quantify Oakland's crime statistics is when you get to see a bigger picture.

Attached are robberies in last the 6 months (I did not plot assaults, gun charges, narcotics, car theft, car break ins, fraud, sex offenses, larceny and few others because map would not be visible at all). I also included the official zipped city limits of Oakland, so that we are exact about neighborhoods. Maps speaks for itself.

There's no argument, there's a statement of fact. Oakland is a city of neighborhoods, and they're all different from one another. You don't understand that because you've never been here. It only takes spending a day here to get that concept.

[Natural510]

I would like to see six-month robbery maps on other cities for comparison, including Berkeley & San Francisco, for balance.

[jsba]

I too would like to see maps of other cities to support Ingonito's claims.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by |Incognito|

Oakland is 78 sq miles, out of which 22 is WATER. That leaves 56 sq miles. If you want to be exact...

Some of that water is home to several friends... their residences are boats... mostly sail with a cabin cruiser or two in the mix...

Violent crime is not murders only. Again, I am not disputing that Oakland has good neighborhoods. There are some that i would LOVE to afford! What I am saying is that areas that are violent are LARGE MAJORITY.

It may come to semantics... I don't think anyone is saying Oakland doesn't have problems or room for improvement... what caught my attention is saying the majority or 70% of the city is bad.

Please look at the data. Your personal experience is of very little value (no offense). Somebody might be living on 73th ave for their entire life without ever being assaulted or ever experiencing any crime. That doesn't mean area is considered safe. Sample size is what is relevant, something that stats reveal quite clearly.

If your comfort level is questionable... no need to explain.

As a nearly life long Oakland resident and third generation... I can say that there are places in San Francisco, Richmond and parts of Sacramento where I feel uncomfortable too.

I bought my first house on Havenscourt, totally against conventional wisdom... the reason I bought is because I could afford it and saw room for improvement... later I bought my next home on 92nd Ave and later in Brookfield Village... none were meant to be forever... and if I had it all to do over again... I would.

[etoile_filante]

I tried to do the same for SF, but going back 6 months only plots a small area of SF before hitting the 800+ barrier. So I went back to Jan 1, 2012, which still has 800+, but gives a better idea of the spread, though it still excluded some areas. This is violent crime only.

[ssmaster]

icognito oakland shares zip codes with alameda ,berkeley,piedmont and san leandro.you are including data from four other cities.

your city limits map excludes the southeast hills areas such as crestmont, skyline-hillcrest estates and sequoyah hts while including bay farm island which is not part of oakland.

i also would like to see a map of sf at the same resolution