Oakland is probably better than SF (San Francisco, Montclair: living in, to move, rankings)

[04kL4nD]

Malloric has obviously spent little time in Oakland, and as usual, jade, 90s, and 18Montclair are laying the smackdown of knowledge

[marilyn220]

Why do the majority of these threads always turn into something about race?

Somebody could be asking is the sky always blue (in whatever city, town, etc., here) and then somehow, someway it will deteriorate into a RACE thread.

Why??

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by marilyn220

Why do the majority of these threads always turn into something about race?

Somebody could be asking is the sky always blue (in whatever city, town, etc., here) and then somehow, someway it will deteriorate into a RACE thread.

Why??

Race is undeniably one of the central topics when comparing SF and Oakland, especially when talking about their presentation in the media vs. the reality.

[marilyn220]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

Race is undeniably one of the central topics when comparing SF and Oakland, especially when talking about their presentation in the media vs. the reality.

But WHY??

I notice this on the LA forums as well.

Is it because whites are afraid of blacks and hispanics, so they don't want to be anywhere near a huge concentration of them?

Or certain races just feel comfortable hanging out with EACH OTHER?

I'm a black female from NYC, but I never ask what the majority RACE/CULTURE of a certain city or town is because I don't care just as long as it is reasonably safe and something I can afford.

Here in Los Angeles, there is tons of DIVERSITY, but all of the various cultures tend to hangout with THEMSELVES.

Believe it or not this bothers me. I believe in ASSIMILATION. I always have, but I guess I'm ahead of my time in that regard.

[mayorhaggar]

Originally Posted by Malloric

Personally, I'd rather live in a neighborhood that's more balanced. That has some people in the trades, some students, some immigrants who aren't completely integrated in American culture... and not just a neighborhood that's predominantly high-level, well-compensated, well-educated, people who live a privileged lifestyle isolated from life the other 80-90% live. That's not really a race issue, it's a class issue.

Well that sure as hell doesn't describe the Mission (which you keep calling "Mission Dolores" like an out of towner) which is pretty much half illegal immigrants who work in taquerias and half yuppie lawyers and accountants who mostly live in the west side and make $80,000 and up. See unlike you I've actually lived in the Mission.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

Well that sure as hell doesn't describe the Mission (which you keep calling "Mission Dolores" like an out of towner) which is pretty much half illegal immigrants who work in taquerias and half yuppie lawyers and accountants who mostly live in the west side and make $80,000 and up. See unlike you I've actually lived in the Mission.

And now you live in Rockridge, which is 75% white and pretty much entirely yuppies for whom $80,000 would be considered borderline poverty-stricken. Most people think like you. They want Rockridge "diversity" and not "that" diversity (Hispanics, all of whom are, in their view, illegal Mexican beaners working in taquerias). See, unlike you, I've actually lived in the Mission and liked it as opposed to seeing some grit and running for Whiteopia. Maybe that's being a Central Valley native? But then again, I don't see a black person and figure they've escaped a cotton field either.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

False. I would go into detail about how wrong you are here, but then you'd probably just deny it.

It's pretty simple. You either agree with the Census data and analysis by SSDAN or you don't. It's not my opinion that San Francisco is more racially integrated than Oakland. That's SSDAN's empirical findings based on Census data. My opinion is that the empirical evidence is correct, and I lack the means to make any contradiction to it anyway. If you feel you are a similar authority on the subject and have something to present, by all means.

[mayorhaggar]

Originally Posted by Malloric

And now you live in Rockridge, which is 75% white and pretty much entirely yuppies for whom $80,000 would be considered borderline poverty-stricken. Most people think like you. They want Rockridge "diversity" and not "that" diversity (Hispanics, all of whom are, in their view, illegal Mexican beaners working in taquerias). See, unlike you, I've actually lived in the Mission and liked it as opposed to seeing some grit and running for Whiteopia. Maybe that's being a Central Valley native? But then again, I don't see a black person and figure they've escaped a cotton field either.

Unlike you I don't make dumb assumptions. Point out where anyone has said that Rockridge wasn't pretty white or that it was diverse. I'm pretty sure I said "Rockridge is really white" at some point.

But I do like it that in Rockridge, unlike the Mission, I don't have to worry about hearing gunshots at night, having crazy drunk or homeless people banging on my windows at night, or having to dodge puddles of urine or feces every time I leave the house.

[marilyn220]

Originally Posted by Malloric

And now you live in Rockridge, which is 75% white and pretty much entirely yuppies for whom $80,000 would be considered borderline poverty-stricken. Most people think like you. They want Rockridge "diversity" and not "that" diversity (Hispanics, all of whom are, in their view, illegal Mexican beaners working in taquerias). See, unlike you, I've actually lived in the Mission and liked it as opposed to seeing some grit and running for Whiteopia. Maybe that's being a Central Valley native? But then again, I don't see a black person and figure they've escaped a cotton field either.

I don't know why, but I literally cracked up at the highlighted!! LOL!

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Malloric

It's pretty simple. You either agree with the Census data and analysis by SSDAN or you don't. It's not my opinion that San Francisco is more racially integrated than Oakland. That's SSDAN's empirical findings based on Census data. My opinion is that the empirical evidence is correct, and I lack the means to make any contradiction to it anyway. If you feel you are a similar authority on the subject and have something to present, by all means.

Are you still trying to make us believe that where other races live with relation to whites is the definition of 'integration'?

Yawns.

Newsflash: Its not.

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

But I do like it that in Rockridge, unlike the Mission, I don't have to worry about hearing gunshots at night, having crazy drunk or homeless people banging on my windows at night, or having to dodge puddles of urine or feces every time I leave the house.

Isnt it grand that the very stereotypes about Oakland that makes them feel superior can be totally thrown back at them when we make it a neighborhood vs neighborhood comparison?

Its incredible that some would think a place like the Mission(LMAO) or area surrounding Mission Dolores(LMAO) is comparable to a posh area like Rockridge--just laughable.