2009: Oakland crime decreased twice as fast as nat'l average (Montclair: taxation, air pollution)

[Mr. Fantastic]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

Do you ever have a decent comeback? Your last spiel about rap (which you obviously don't know jack **** about) was equally misinformed, and FOX News agreed with me (that the vast majority of people who buy rap are white teenagers), as did the RAP BILLBOARDS.


THE FORMER HEAD OF THE DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) ADMITTED THAT GARY WEBB WAS RIGHT.


YouTube - Ex-DEA Head Admits CIA Imported Cocaine


Seriously... what good is that PHD doing you when you can't accept the facts that are in front of you? This goes for all of your rants...

You're officially on ignore.

First off, Gary Webb has always been under a web of scrutiny for his work at the LA Times. There were so many questions about his journalistic career that he was unable to find work as a journalist anywhere in the country after he stopped working in LA, and eventually committed suicide. That's not a smoking gun, it's one guys attempt at investigative reporting. Now, it's true that the CIA was involved with drug smuggling in Haiti, and other countries, but it's never been proven that the CIA smuggled drugs into the US, that's simply false.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

Thank you for that evidence. Whenever I think about the crack epidemic, I think about anything that could have been. What if the crack epidemic had never happened? Would Oakland had such high rates of violence as it has had through these last few decades? Or would Oakland been able to come back from the industrial demise that afflicted other cities. Better yet, what about those cities as well?

Okay, say Gary Webb was right, why did the drug epidemic disproportionately affect black communities?

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

Thank you for that evidence. Whenever I think about the crack epidemic, I think about anything that could have been. What if the crack epidemic had never happened? Would Oakland had such high rates of violence as it has had through these last few decades? Or would Oakland been able to come back from the industrial demise that afflicted other cities. Better yet, what about those cities as well?

All cities, even safe one like San Diego would be miles ahead of where they are now had this never happened. Oakland could have been big on a scale that we can only imagine as it had, and still has, the potential to be a major player. Several internationally known companies already know this and have corporate or regional headquarters there.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

All cities, even safe one like San Diego would be miles ahead of where they are now had this never happened. Oakland could have been big on a scale that we can only imagine as it had, and still has, the potential to be a major player. Several internationally known companies already know this and have corporate or regional headquarters there.

Oakland is in a rather good place right now as far as I'm concerned. The city needs to be more aggressive in pursuing projects that will continue to enhance its Downtown area.

What I really dislike to be honest, is the NIMBYism by so many misguided residents who complain about potential new buildings being too tall(how strange is that?) and how they think not enough access to the public is give to potential waterfront projects -which is totally ridiculous.

Oakland has a lot of interest from developers, but there is so much opposition so much of the time from people interested in maintaing Oakland's 'heritage' that they wind up shooting themselve in the foot-and developers spend their money elsewhere.

There is too much weight placed on reaching 'consensus' and too much weight given to the voices of opposition and NOT enough weight given to common sense.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Oakland is in a rather good place right now as far as I'm concerned. The city needs to be more aggressive in pursuing projects that will continue to enhance its Downtown area.

What I really dislike to be honest, is the NIMBYism by so many misguided residents who complain about potential new buildings being too tall(how strange is that?) and how they think not enough access to the public is give to potential waterfront projects -which is totally ridiculous.

Oakland has a lot of interest from developers, but there is so much opposition so much of the time from people interested in maintaing Oakland's 'heritage' that they wind up shooting themselve in the foot-and developers spend their money elsewhere.

There is too much weight placed on reaching 'consensus' and too much weight given to the voices of opposition and NOT enough weight given to common sense.

Yeah that typical Oakland/Berkeley mentality is still hard at work I see. If there was one thing that bothered me was that.

Another problem Oakland, and all Ca. coastal cities face is the California Coastal commission. This is an issue when it comes to developing the waterfront. You're not allowed to build anything new within 75 feet of the water. This really sucks because Oakland has the potential to have a really substantial and awesome waterfront which could easily rival SF's or Seattle's. The coastal commission along with the attitude of it's residents will ensure that this will never happen.

This is a double edged sword, while this attitude will stifle development, it will also keep Oakland's unique charm. This is hard to do in the Bay Area these days. Even Berkeley has lost a lot of it's original character to some extent but Oakland is still Oakland and this is what I love about it. However I think the city is big enough to allow both the old and the new to co-exist.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

However I think the city is big enough to allow both the old and the new to co-exist.

+1

If only others could feel this way. It is entirely possible to retain Oakland's charm while still keeping up with the times.

One example ,the Oak to 9th project($3 Billion) is an example of a potentially major addition to the city, being mired in legal challenges for far too long.


People were complaining that there wouldnt be enough public access to the waterfront-even though there is ample public access in the plan-and there are several waterfront locations accessible to the public nearby.

They prefer to keep that parcel of land a dilapidated, neglected lot. Its ridiculous.

[Oakland Uptown]

It's the dumb environmentalist idiots who have nothing better to do with their pathetic lives than to try to block anything growth wise in the city.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Oakland Uptown

It's the dumb environmentalist idiots who have nothing better to do with their pathetic lives than to try to block anything growth wise in the city.

Hey I'm an environmentalist too.

Looking at that picture, the Ca. Coastal Commission would never allow that either as it's right on the water. Let me explain this a bit:

At Seaworld here in San Diego, they tore down a restaurant which was right by Mission Bay because it was condemned. It was going to be rebuilt but wasn't allowed because it was within 75 feet of the water. Had they left just one wall standing, they could have gotten away with it because they could have called it a remodel

Oakland likely will unfortunately never be able to develop it's waterfront because of the coastal commission. They could possibly put parks there but real development is unlikely.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Oakland likely will unfortunately never be able to develop it's waterfront because of the coastal commission. They could possibly put parks there but real development is unlikely.

There are already parks along the Oakland estuary that are almost completely unused by citizens, except for the occasional dog walker. Its more of a meeting place for secret lovers. LOL

Anyway, people interested in preserving heritage would be better off working against blight in the neighborhoods imo. There is plenty for them to complain about there.

[Oakland Uptown]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Hey I'm an environmentalist too.

Looking at that picture, the Ca. Coastal Commission would never allow that either as it's right on the water. Let me explain this a bit:

At Seaworld here in San Diego, they tore down a restaurant which was right by Mission Bay because it was condemned. It was going to be rebuilt but wasn't allowed because it was within 75 feet of the water. Had they left just one wall standing, they could have gotten away with it because they could have called it a remodel

Oakland likely will unfortunately never be able to develop it's waterfront because of the coastal commission. They could possibly put parks there but real development is unlikely.

I should have said extremists. It's the extremists.