U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-21-2011, 06:44 PM
 
Location: East Bay Area
1,994 posts, read 2,867,123 times
Reputation: 911

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KRISTINsf View Post
Oakland is the 6th most dangerous city in America.

1. Oakland is the most dangerous city in California.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/most-dangerous-cities-in-california_n_976548.html

2. Oakland has the 10th highest rate of rape, 9th highest rate of murder, and the 2nd highest rate of robbery.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Oakland-In-Top-10-Dangerous-List-122733239.html
This data is so limited.

What the data does not tell you, is that 90% of all violent crime, happens within 3 (8-15 square miles in size) districts, out of a total of 7.

So, if someone was to come to you, and say:

Person: I am planning to move to Rockridge, Oakland, CA. Is it safe?
KRISTENsf: Oakland is the 6th most dangerous city.
Person: Ok, but I considered Rockridge because I was told that it was a nice neighborhood. Is it really nice at all?
KRISTENsf: Oakland has the 9th highest rate of murder.

And this is how we educate people?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
All the many comments, discussions, suppositions, arguments, pros, cons, etc. aside, the burning question remains, is it safe in Oakland?

That being said/asked (with obvious evil intent), there's something people need to keep in mind when looking at and quoting crime statistics and especially crime indices. A single number, whether low or high, is relatively meaningless. One has to look at the population of the area being rated as well. The smaller the population, the higher on the crime scale a single crime will drive it. One violent crime out in a town of 25,000 will drive the index up far higher than that same crime will in a city of 500,000.

Secondly and perhaps more importantly, when determining the illusive quality of "safety," is the nature of the crimes being reported. In an index, a petty theft drives up the number equally as much as does a rape or an assault. Therefore, to get a real "feel" for the area in question you have to consider the differences and impacts between property crimes and truly violent crimes.

By way of example, a small city near where we live has a population of just under 8,000. It also has a very high crime index as reported on C-D. However, the number is misleading. It does not take into account the fact that the place is flooded with 8,000,000 tourists a year against whom many very minor property crimes are perpetuated - purse snatches, pick-pockets, articles being stolen from hotel rooms, over-charging, short-changing etc. Violent crimes are almost non-existent.

For the place in question, the bottom line is that in terms of personal safety, one can be quite comfortable and the element of risk is almost non-existent. You simply need to take reasonable precautions against losing some of your hard-earned dollars the same as you should in any tourist area. Yet to look at the crime index number you would think it awash with vicious criminals with violent intent.

I hope this helps put the numbers game in a proper perspective. Now then, when next we visit family in the Sacramento area, I think we'll take a spin through Oakland since there have been many references to lovely areas we've yet to see.
Now, this is how we educate people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!

 
Old 12-21-2011, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
9,197 posts, read 12,414,040 times
Reputation: 6261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen1110 View Post

Person: I am planning to move to Rockridge, Oakland, CA. Is it safe?
KRISTENsf: Oakland is the 6th most dangerous city.
Person: Ok, but I considered Rockridge because I was told that it was a nice neighborhood. Is it really nice at all?
KRISTENsf: Oakland has the 9th highest rate of murder.

And this is how we educate people?
This is how we homeschool people.
 
Old 12-22-2011, 08:28 PM
 
1,241 posts, read 2,191,984 times
Reputation: 874
i think the reponse to the question from people who know oakland is remarkably consistant :
most of the the serious crime in oakland is localized to specific dangerous areas of east and west oakland and generally has no impact on the lives of oakland residents who do not live in those areas.
oakland is a geographically a large city. it is 33% larger in square miles than san francisco with half the population and that is NOT including the square miles of the seperate city locarted entirely inside oakland. so generally the nice areas of oakland are far away from the crappy parts.

compare that to san francisco were nob hill next to the tenderloin,hayes valley next to the western addition and noe valley adjacent to the mission these are nice areas next to neighborhoods with housing projects and violent gangbangers blocks away.it's hard for me to understand the logic that these areas are safer than nice areas of oakland that are 5 to 9 miles away from the violent areas oakland
Western Addition top S.F. murder spot in 2007 | Joshua Sabatini | Local | San Francisco Examiner

SF Mayor Frustrated By Mission District Violence - KTVU News Story - KTVU San Francisco
 
Old 12-26-2011, 03:00 PM
 
23,461 posts, read 44,833,720 times
Reputation: 16116
Yes... because everyone has a different definition of Safe...

If anything happens to someone while in Oakland... a dozen people would instantly say what did you expect?

For some, I just smile and say the Concertina Wire and the Dobermans do a good job keeping the rif-raf at bay
 
Old 12-26-2011, 04:30 PM
 
Location: East Bay
178 posts, read 338,289 times
Reputation: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmaster View Post
i think the reponse to the question from people who know oakland is remarkably consistant :
most of the the serious crime in oakland is localized to specific dangerous areas of east and west oakland and generally has no impact on the lives of oakland residents who do not live in those areas.
oakland is a geographically a large city. it is 33% larger in square miles than san francisco with half the population and that is NOT including the square miles of the seperate city locarted entirely inside oakland. so generally the nice areas of oakland are far away from the crappy parts.

compare that to san francisco were nob hill next to the tenderloin,hayes valley next to the western addition and noe valley adjacent to the mission these are nice areas next to neighborhoods with housing projects and violent gangbangers blocks away.it's hard for me to understand the logic that these areas are safer than nice areas of oakland that are 5 to 9 miles away from the violent areas oakland
Western Addition top S.F. murder spot in 2007 | Joshua Sabatini | Local | San Francisco Examiner

SF Mayor Frustrated By Mission District Violence - KTVU News Story - KTVU San Francisco
I happen to live IN west Oakland. In the Acorns. Since April. And have yet to even witness any crimes. Except on the news of course. Have not heard any gun shots etc. Which is pretty much identical to the experience I had on Iowa city's west side. What I seem to be observing. Looks fairly random. With incidents hitting here and there over the bay area. Seems east oakland is in the news more. But then there also seems to be a little more activity about five or six blocks west of me. Along 7th street. And that it seems to shift from one part of the city to another part. Frankly. I am more worryed about careless drivers armed with cell phones running me over on my way to the corner store. Than I am about being shot in a drive by.
 
Old 12-28-2011, 11:22 AM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,315 posts, read 7,439,677 times
Reputation: 2458
And the SF Chronicle is at it again, shamelessly slandering Oakland. They actually have an article up today with a headline that reads:

"Oakland worse than Iraq?"

Refugees find Oakland can be worse than Iraq

It's completely ridiculous...and based off of the experiences of some Iraqi refugees who are quoted in the article as claiming that PARTS of Oakland rival Iraq for violence (same as PARTS of many other US cities)...but SFgate of course then labels the entire city of Oakland as worse than Iraq, in the headline. Meanwhile, there have been a few shootings in SF lately that have been completely ignored.

Furthermore, one of the people featured in the story left east Oakland (Fruitvale), and now lives in the Tenderloin, as if that's some kind of improvement...I'm sure the Chronicle would like everyone to believe it is

Oakland should start up their own Newspaper that talks sh** about SF on the daily, to even things out a bit.

Last edited by rah; 12-28-2011 at 12:24 PM..
 
Old 12-28-2011, 12:11 PM
 
Location: yeah
5,718 posts, read 13,525,528 times
Reputation: 2784
I actually came here to post that. Newspapers are pretty **** these days.
 
Old 12-28-2011, 05:12 PM
 
Location: East Bay Area
1,994 posts, read 2,867,123 times
Reputation: 911
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
And the SF Chronicle is at it again, shamelessly slandering Oakland. They actually have an article up today with a headline that reads:

"Oakland worse than Iraq?"

Refugees find Oakland can be worse than Iraq

It's completely ridiculous...and based off of the experiences of some Iraqi refugees who are quoted in the article as claiming that PARTS of Oakland rival Iraq for violence (same as PARTS of many other US cities)...but SFgate of course then labels the entire city of Oakland as worse than Iraq, in the headline. Meanwhile, there have been a few shootings in SF lately that have been completely ignored.

Furthermore, one of the people featured in the story left east Oakland (Fruitvale), and now lives in the Tenderloin, as if that's some kind of improvement...I'm sure the Chronicle would like everyone to believe it is

Oakland should start up their own Newspaper that talks sh** about SF on the daily, to even things out a bit.
Oakland is a humble city and SF Chronicle takes advantage of that. If Oakland was to tout itself in the manner San Francisco does, the SF Chronicle will feauture 10 articles slandering Oakland, everyday.
 
Old 12-28-2011, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
9,197 posts, read 12,414,040 times
Reputation: 6261
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
I actually came here to post that. Newspapers are pretty **** these days.
Chronicle pretty much takes the prize for provincialism.
 
Old 12-28-2011, 06:30 PM
 
Location: The Bay
6,920 posts, read 10,891,518 times
Reputation: 3017
At this point I treat the Chronicle pretty much like a tabloid...


EDIT: And smh at that article.
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.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2013 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top