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.
First, I know there are great and not-so-great parts of Oakland. Reading through some of the threads and flame wars on here, it seems like some folks confuse the developing cultural greatness of Oakland (I don't think there's much question that really interesting stuff is happening here) and the quality of life of actually living in some parts of Oakland: this seems to get most controversial when discussing areas like West Oakland.
So, I've been looking at some places in West Oakland, mostly around the Dogtown/Clawson areas. One place I am checking out is right across from Poplar Park, on Union Street. Doing some research, it seems that a woman was shot to death there last year. I drove around the area and talked to some folks and the area around the park was described to me as a "hotspot" of sorts.
Now, I have some tolerance for grit, but I don't want to move to a place and have a "this is my fortress" or "under siege" mentality, though I understand that reasonable steps should be taken. I also think there's a difference btw. an element attracting unsavory activity being located a block or two away vs. being right next door, which is why I'm asking if folks on here have any specific wisdom to offer.
Oakland does have a lot of great potential, but certain parts definitely have more momentum than others. Uptown seems fairly hot and has the business momentum and foot traffic. Jack London has cooled and West Oakland is like the underdog that everybody wants to win but just isn't there yet.
I know that a wide range of young people are moving into West Oakland, you see them walking and riding bicycles around. I can't speak to that specific location. I've lived in the East Bay for over 30 years, and change in West Oakland has constantly been predicted. In the last few years it's actually been happening. The newcomers are not all White either. West Oakland is clearly changing, it has terrific access to San Francisco as well as to the East Bay. At the same time, the overall crime rate remains high. I'd only think about moving there if you're willing to deal with some stuff.
If you don't have children, there are some new loft developments there that are nice, but you'll have a fortress feeling especially at night. I always recommend people to drive around during the day and night if the area is known as a crime hotspot. You can even park and just observe. I think Uptown and Downtown still have awhile left until they become developed and West Oakland won't start really developing until these areas are fully developed first. If your time frame is 10+ years, then maybe, otherwise I'd look into Emeryville or if you really want Oakland, Uptown or Downtown.
Poplar Park is a well known drug trafficking area. At night, you definitely don't want to encounter people there as a new comer. These drug dealers are well armed, and dangerous.
The thing about West Oakland is that it's been the way it is for decades. We're talking the 70s here, ever since organized drug trade invaded Oakland. People have claimed since the 90s that West Oakland is gentrifying, yet violent crime is up year-over-year again. It sometimes goes down, then it suddenly spikes. But for the most part, West Oakland is dangerous as it ever was.
If you MUST live in West Oakland, I'd highly recommend you be prepared for some crime, and at least get a concealed weapons permit. Take some small arms fire lessons, and learn how to defend yourself. Avoid Poplar Park like the plague. Even if you do own a gun, it would be you against half a dozen well armed drug dealers. The odds aren't in your favor.
@DocGoldstein: I get where you are coming from because I've read enough of your posts. Sometimes I can't tell if you're being serious or have just watched too many crime reality shows. And yes, while I do have a gun, I'm not trying to get in a shoot out with anybody, unless challenged to a traditional duel for personal honor -- kidding.
I don't have to live in West Oakland. There are many cultural and culinary delights in Oakland that I can enjoy without living there.
Based on what I've observed and in my research, I'd have to say that West Oakland "gentrification" -- however one defines it -- is crawling along very, very slowly. One thing I will say is that the people who have made the move are very involved in trying to improve the conditions there, though some wear their "West Oakland resident red badge of courage" a little too prominently, which I find more than a little annoying. Somebody told me that (paraphrasing) one gets to know the local drug dealer and crack addict as people. I think she meant well but it's really a little bit self-righteous to imply that this is some sort of earth shattering revelation. Sure, I see these folks as people, with a history and story of how they became what they are today, but that doesn't necessarily mean I think they bring anything positive to the community.
There is also a general distrust of the police, especially in the worst neighborhoods -- at a time when more police presence is really needed. One person I spoke with told me at the same time that 1) there was a shooting the night before on some corner; and 2) how we "don't need more police" and we "can take care of ourselves": it's exactly the kind of insular, "I wish it would get better as long as it doesn't change" mentality that's holding places like this back. It's like when Giuliani cleaned up Times Square, there were folks who complained about the loss of "character" because the hustlers and strip clubs were shut down. Maybe it's some strange cultural phenomenon that "edgy", "underground", "poor", "violence" have to be bundled in order to feel like an authentic revolution.
In any case, idealism seems to win over pragmatism too often with the peculiar flavor of Bay Area progressives. There's a fear of certain big business that I sometimes find a bit irrational (and yes, I understand predatory business practices), even though these are the types of businesses who would have the money to really change an area and attract sales tax revenue from outside the city. There's a certain impatience and righteous sense of social justice overshadowing every development deal. I can understand it to a certain extent, but Oakland needs money. If there's anything to negotiate, it should be about making sure Oakland makes as much money as possible with each development deal.
With money, the city can work on systemic issues like improving its schools, have a properly staffed/trained police force, etc.; but it doesn't necessarily have to happen in conjunction with every single deal on the table. In the absence of a substantial influx of cash, the city will continue down the path of more half-ass under-funded bandages, like more city-sponsored community centers/activities, etc -- just more of the typical bleeding heart BS that has me disillusioned with the left. Yes, it may help in spots, but it doesn't solve the core school quality, infrastructure, and public safety issues that will bring about real, long-lasting change. Get the basic needs fulfilled first: fill up those city coffers, re-up the police back to proper numbers to maintain a credible level of public safety, and we should see an even larger bloom of small business and jobs.
Oakland should be too promising and too big to fail, just like California, but gridlock on the left continues to seize the day.
You can move there, but don't expect anything, or anyone around you, to change. Both for your own sake (you will be frustrated) and theirs (outsiders always want to change things when they move in).
Based on what I've observed and in my research, I'd have to say that West Oakland "gentrification" -- however one defines it -- is crawling along very, very slowly.
I agree with a lot of what you said in your post. But I think the biggest thing to remember is that, you have a limited life span as a human being. Sure, West Oakland could become a middle-class hood by 2060. Will you be around to enjoy the benefits? Or should you pick your battles and live somewhere else that is closer to what you want?
Kaesone is partially right. A huge amount of the crime in a neighborhood like West Oakland is directed at a very small number of people--typically fellow participants in the drug trade. That's a small percentage of the Black men as well. The problem comes with robberies to support drug habits, street muggings, the rare but sometimes deadly misfire/crossfire situations.
None of this has to do with "the liberal Bay Area" or even Oakland specifically, these are nationwide patterns. So is attitude of "We can take care of it" because we don't trust police seen to be racist. David Kennedy's book "Don't Shoot" talks a lot about the tragic misperceptions of the police nationally by the Black community, and of the Black community by the police. He also talks about how to bring people like drug dealers back into the community and help them rebuild positive lives.
One West Coast specific thing is that West Coast cities tend to have far fewer cops per capita than East Coast cities. Again, not specific to Oakland, Los Angeles has struggled with the same problem. In both cities overall crime rates have been falling, so while the Police are important to crime, they're not the only story.
One specific concern I'd have with West Oakland is that the population isn't very dense, largely because of misguided thinning out during urban renewal. So you don't seem to get the safety in numbers effect that you would elsewhere. It is a question of what kind of neighborhood you want to live in--West Oakland is different from Uptown is different from Temescal.
One thing that confuses me about West Oakland is that the change is either happening very slow, or not happening at all. Since the 70s, the area has been home to a very well known drug trade. But so have other areas. Compare West Oakland to areas like Echo Park and Silverlake in LA.
Over the course of 30 years, both areas have transformed themselves from drug riddled hoods, into desirable middle-class hoods (upper-middle-class for Silverlake IMO). The change was perceptible too. In the 80s, Silverlake was blue collar, still with high crime. By the 90s, crime was down drastically, and property values were skyrocketing. By the 2000s, Silverlake was fully gentrified, and hipsters with money were flocking to the area.
West Oakland by comparison is still as dangerous and undesirable as a place to live as it was in the 80s. What's so different about the two areas? West Oakland is literally 8 miles away from one of the most expensive cities in all of California, in a prime location for commuting, yet property values in West Oakland are still depressed, and no one wants to really move in (unless they have to). Totally opposite progression to Silverlake.
For clarification, the person who told me that they didn't need more police was a white man living with his partner (female) who was late forties or early fifties. I think he said he had been there about 6 years. He also told me that when friends come to visit him, he tells them to use a specific route to get to his house, avoiding the block that I am asking about.
The few African Americans that I did approach seemed downright surprised that I would try to speak with them and were very guarded in what they said. One actually told me to look elsewhere, not in an unfriendly way, just as a piece of advice.
Again, many people I spoke with told me that it was fine as long as you were okay with dealing with some crap. I'm just trying to get a sense of how much crap I would have to deal with and whether or not that is something I would want to come home to every night. I am starting to get a sense that it is probably more than I'd want to deal with, esp. since I have options. It does frustrate me though, because it really does have so much potential and at least from my outsider point of view, the original community is holding itself back and/or the city is being held back by the original community. But it is a very difficult issue, if these folks were displaced because of accelerated gentrification, where would they go? I suppose the home owners could cash out if they didn't want to stay but the renters would have to move. Would be interesting to see what the mix of renters vs. homeowners is in that community.
Also, I disagree with "no one wants to move in"... I think there are plenty of people who are willing to make the leap, but I think there is some frustration at the slow or running in place rate of change and there isn't a critical mass of newcomers to truly effect that change yet. One of the things that does appeal to me about it is the level of community involvement that one has to have in order to live in a place like that, but at the same time I think it will ultimately frustrate me.
As for black community/police, I realize there is a long history to this and can understand it from both sides, but it doesn't take deep social analysis to see how this mutual mistrust, combined with the unwritten rules/street justice of "no snitching" is incredibly destructive -- does it really take an outsider to see that? By the way, I love how anarchists have adopted "no snitching" as well; I came across this while doing some research on a "snitch" killing in Oakland: http://snitchwire.blogspot.com -- Animal Farm, anyone? Misguided idiots.
Last edited by safefromharm; 11-26-2012 at 10:41 AM..
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.
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.
