bay area vs LA crime (Oakland, Vallejo: condo, crime rate, home)

[luckygrlllll]

We recently moved to the bay area from LA and I wanted to point out the various crimes which have been committed to me living in both places and which neighborhoods

LA: lived here for 14 years
Echo Park: a sort of ghetto. I was strong armed mugged and my back pack was stolen. I was not hurt, just robbed
Westwood: car was keyed in parking lot

Bay Area: been here 1.5 years
SF: Noe Valley (nice, upscale, extremely left wing area) car keyed
SF: Noe Valley: car broken into
SF: downtown: gun pulled on taxi driver while stopped at a red light, and mini car chase ensues while I was in car
Walnut Creek: car broken into

So far, it appears that the bay area has been worse for crime based on my personal experience. It is also safe to say there are far more crimes committed in the bay area which are closer to home than LA.

I think the bay area is worse for crime than LA since most LA crime takes place in areas that are so far away from where anyone would actually live.

[ImRandy]

Bay Area vs LA crime.

Lived in the LA area 20 years, lived here 13.

LA - Bike stolen

SF - Car illegally towed by city

Seems pretty even to me.

[City Boy]

Originally Posted by ImRandy

Bay Area vs LA crime.

Lived in the LA area 20 years, lived here 13.

LA - Bike stolen

SF - Car illegally towed by city

Seems pretty even to me.

LOL , exactly. You can't compare this based on your personal experience. Too many other factors skew the results.

[luckygrlllll]

I agree with Cityboy, but I also think it is interesting to see peoples personal experiences while they live someplace. My point with this post is that I think there is sometimes an overgeneralization that one city is more crime ridden than another based on statistics and not citizens actual experiences.

My yoga instructor lives in the Mission and was followed home from Noe Valley 2X and mugged. I just never had anything like that happen or heard about anything like that happening in the better parts of LA.

[City Boy]

Originally Posted by luckygrlllll

I agree with Cityboy, but I also think it is interesting to see peoples personal experiences while they live someplace. My point with this post is that I think there is sometimes an overgeneralization that one city is more crime ridden than another based on statistics and not citizens actual experiences.

My yoga instructor lives in the Mission and was followed home from Noe Valley 2X and mugged. I just never had anything like that happen or heard about anything like that happening in the better parts of LA.

I have family in Camden NJ and they have never been mugged, robbed or shot at. Crime stats are based on police data.

[sav858]

well in the past few years SF crime rate has gone up and LA's has gone down to a point where LA actually has a lower crime rate than SF. At least in 2006 based on information this site gives.

[hsw]

Haven't encountered crime in yrs of living/working in LA/SF....

Really depends upon area of each region, esp where one lives/works...how one commutes....

Part of why I enjoy SF/LA much more than NYC is that one can easily live in a house/condo w/secure garage pkg; many office bldgs have secure undgd pkg; key restaurants have valet pkg in front; easy to drive around City of SF from fin dt to PacHts; can easily do the scenic drive down to Stanford area to run errands, w/spacious street pkg....

Common sense reduces one's exposure to rndm street crime to nr-zero in either SF/LA's Westside....driving everywhere also reduces one's exposure to SF's dirty sts/homeless....walking is highly over-rated

[City Boy]

Originally Posted by sav858

well in the past few years SF crime rate has gone up and LA's has gone down to a point where LA actually has a lower crime rate than SF. At least in 2006 based on information this site gives.

It's misleading because LA is enormous and those are just LA city stats. Not including most of the cities surrounding LA that make up most of the crime stats which makes the LA area so dangerous. (Compton, Watts, Inglewood etc etc)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by City Boy

It's misleading because LA is enormous and those are just LA city stats. Not including most of the cities surrounding LA that make up most of the crime stats which makes the LA area so dangerous. (Compton, Watts, Inglewood etc etc)

and I was just referring to the CITY of LA and the CITY of SF statistics. Yes and Richmond and Oakland are so much safer than Inglewood and Compton

[rah]

Originally Posted by City Boy

It's misleading because LA is enormous and those are just LA city stats. Not including most of the cities surrounding LA that make up most of the crime stats which makes the LA area so dangerous. (Compton, Watts, Inglewood etc etc)

SF has Oakland, Richmond, Vallejo, East Palo Alto, etc, etc...It's the same thing. (I know Oakland isn't a suburb of SF or anything, just using it for the comparison).

SF has a had a higher overall crime rate than LA since 2005. Murder, robbery, burglary, theft, and car theft rates are higher in SF, whereas rape, and assault rates are higher in LA.
As a whole, from what i remember, the Bay Area and the LA area are almost the same in terms of crime rate, with LA having maybe a little more.