Oakland in the media and Real Estate values (Bayview: tenants, living)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by jade408

Many of those neighborhoods are within 3 miles of downtown. Not "sheltered in the hills" like you assume.

Being so far away, all he can do is make false assumptions.

Lakeshore is on the other side of Lake Merritt from Downtown. Temescal, Lakeside, Rockridge and Downtown itself are all flat areas that are desirable to many demographics and are all sought after areas.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

That argument makes no sense and is sort of hypocritical since you regularly claim West Oakland crime doesn't spill over into places like Uptown even though they are 1-2 miles apart, and that it's "concentrated" in one area.

Yet, when someone makes the claim that rich areas in Oakland are not really integrated into the Oakland flats, you take the exact opposite platform.

So crime doesn't spill over, but wealthy areas are integrated completely, how convenient.

Well dont worry "doc", one day LA will be as integrated as Oakland.

Oakland just happens to be very ahead of its time.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

That argument makes no sense and is sort of hypocritical since you regularly claim West Oakland crime doesn't spill over into places like Uptown even though they are 1-2 miles apart, and that it's "concentrated" in one area.

Yet, when someone makes the claim that rich areas in Oakland are not really integrated into the Oakland flats, you take the exact opposite platform.

So crime doesn't spill over, but wealthy areas are integrated completely, how convenient.

So neither of you are going to address the fact that your position on "integration" changes depending on whether we're talking about crime/poverty or wealth?

I didn't think so.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

I didn't think.

Clearly.

[DocGoldstein]

Well it looks like Alameda County is going to spend $67,000,000 to try and curb crime in Oakland over the next two years.

A $67 million solution to violent crime in Oakland, East Bay | Chip Johnson | an SFGate.com blog

Then again, it could just be the media sensationalizing things because the crime problem doesn't really exist, right?

[dragontales]

It's from sfgate. There is an agenda.

[Stephen1110]

Originally Posted by dragontales

It's from sfgate. There is an agenda.

good eye

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by dragontales

It's from sfgate. There is an agenda.

Except when it's talking about a brand new Oakland restaurant that serves $22 appetizers:
Oakland's District restaurant, Cina's latest - SFGate

Then SFGate is a-okay.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

That argument makes no sense and is sort of hypocritical since you regularly claim West Oakland crime doesn't spill over into places like Uptown even though they are 1-2 miles apart, and that it's "concentrated" in one area.

Yet, when someone makes the claim that rich areas in Oakland are not really integrated into the Oakland flats, you take the exact opposite platform.

So crime doesn't spill over, but wealthy areas are integrated completely, how convenient.

Your statement is inaccurate in a couple of ways. But we'll start at the begining.

West Oakland crime rarely spills over. Looking at crime maps, it is readily apparent serious crime is pretty concentrated. Although criminals could easily travel if they wanted to, they rarely do. This is true everywhere in the country. I think it is some sort of psychological barrier. But this is a common occurence. Kinda like how poorer people don't go to the ritzy mall. There is no law that says you can't but people don't for whatever reason as they don't feel like that particular area isn't available to them.

Uptown is close to West Oakland. Uptown is also in the middle of downtown. In the vast majority of cities in the US, downtown has more crime and issues than other parts. Uptown is a pretty safe area, and very safe when compared to most "downtown" and "center city" areas. That doesn't mean nothing ever happens there. This would be an area "generally regarded as safe." But there are plenty of blocks that are still solidly in transition.

As for "rich areas" and integration in the flatlands. I think you are not very clear on how things work in Oakland. In general there wealthiest areas in Oakland are at the top of the hill. And as you travel up the hill, things get wealthier. What you (and people who don't know much about Oakland) fail to take into account, is that wealth gradually increases as you head up the hill. So next to the uber wealthy area is a place with moderate wealth. And next to the moderately wealthy place is a more middle class place and so on. There isn't this steep drop in income or dividing line as you head up the hill. For example, let's look at the lead up to Montclair and Piedmont (since they are adjacent to each other). The wealth gradually increases. Cleveland Heights is a middle income area. Trestle Glen and Crocker Highlands are more affluent. And below Cleveland Heights, I believe is called Ivy Hill, is a bit less affluent than Cleveland Heights....

And as for integration? Most places in the US are class segregated. And Oakland is no exception. The difference between Oakalnd and other places is that it is not super race/ethnicity segregated. You can find neighborhoods at all income levels with no majority in terms of ethnic group. Especially when you look at middle class areas. This is exceedingly rare in the US.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Except when it's talking about a brand new Oakland restaurant that serves $22 appetizers:
Oakland's District restaurant, Cina's latest - SFGate

Then SFGate is a-okay.

SFGate has an urban slant when covering entertainment. It mostly covers dining/theater/nightlife in SF, Oakland and Berkeley only. Ignoring the Peninsula and suburban parts of the east bay.

SFGate is also biased in crime reporting as well. Covering less crime in SF and more crime in Oakland (when we are talking about apples to apples crimes). SFGate is also more likely to use a neighborhood name when describing crime in SF, and use a city name when describing crime outside of SF. Overall, the bay area news media is likely to say something like "There was a crime in the East Bay!" Instead of naming the city. Which portrays the larger region as dangerous, instead of an individual neighborhood or section of the city.

For example, the other week there was a deadly shooting at Richmond BART. The news media saud "East Bay BART station has a shooting!" in all the promos. I actually had to go look at a newspaper to figure out where it happened. When there is a crime in the Peninsula, it is always clearly designated as the city......(and or neighborhood when applicable)

All media has some sort of bias. And the Chron has a bias in crime reporting and entertainment reporting.