Help me avoid the bad areas of Oakland/Berkeley please!! (Los Angeles: salon, foreclosures)

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Forker

The first rule of real estate is location, location, location and the East Bay is a bad location.

Their are lots of stellar East Bay Locations...

Piedmont is in the center of the East Bay and surrounded by Oakland.

Kensington is very nice too.

Then you have the other side of the hill... Orinda, Lafayette, etc...

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

well currently in oakland when cops are shot they are cheering so jogging on lake merritt would not top my list of must do.

fyi not everything in bagdad is bad.

Iraq study: Executions are leading cause of death

Eastmont is a long way from Lake Merrit

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Forker

If you live in Piedmont but live only 3 or 4 blocks away from a grimey area, Piedmont becomes a bad area in my mind. Piedmont is surrounded by a ghetto. Oakland is bad.

Are you serious? Montclair is very desirable and is not Ghetto!

[E14]

Originally Posted by Forker

You have obviously misunderstood me.

1. I lived in Berkeley for a few years, that is near Oakland, is it not? I never claimed anything other than that.
2. I have never claimed that I am currently living anywhere other than Burbank. Just because you misunderstood me, that is not my fault.
3. There is no proof that I am this other person that you say I am other than that we have similar opinions.

The topic was about helping the poster avoid the bad areas of Oakland and Berkeley. My opinion was that the entire regions of both Oakland and Berekeley are bad areas. That is on the subject of the topic.

I mentioned issues of public drug use as one of the factors in what made the areas bad. Certain posters came back with the idea that public drug use is no big deal. I disagreed and gave my opinions on the subject. Then another poster posted very selective photos of "nice" houses in Oakland. I then pointed out the fault of those photos was that there was no context to the neighborhood. There are many bad areas of Berkeley that you could take a "nice photo" of a house in, but that doesn't make it a nice neighborhood.

My opinions are not irrational, they are well thought out and I have provided evidence to back them up. It is not my fault that certain people here have a problem comprehending what I have written. I am writing from experience, I have not lied about living in the East Bay. My specific stories about instances in specific areas are proof positive of that.

If you wish to say Burbank is an area "to move on from", suggesting that Walnut Creek is a better a "destination". I would wholeheartedly disagree with you. Walnut Creek is a mere shadow of a town compared to most places here in the valley. That's the hard truth.
Warner Bros., Disney, The Tonight Show, Elektra Records, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon are all located in Burbank., with Universal and DreamWorks Animation located close by in Studio City and Glendale respectively. Burbank is a destination city, especially for those interested in the entertainment industry. Walnut Creek is a miniscule suburb compared to it, with nothing going on other than a strip mall.

Oakland/Berkeley is not a nice place.
Check out Ashby avenue, or San Pablo Ave. and you will see that those streets speak for themselves.

First off, there are no "bad" areas of berkeley
there are some areas that are not 100% rich and white; that does not make them dangerous
San pablo and ashby are fine streets
ive biked/walked hundreds of times down san pablo, never had any problems
you are a racist, sheltered, snobby, SCARED troll who is continually spreading misinformation

[BayDude]

Originally Posted by E14

First off, there are no "bad" areas of berkeley
there are some areas that are not 100% rich and white; that does not make them dangerous
San pablo and ashby are fine streets
ive biked/walked hundreds of times down san pablo, never had any problems
you are a racist, sheltered, snobby, SCARED troll who is continually spreading misinformation

The fact that you've biked hundreds of times an area does'nt make it less crime ridden. Try walking there late at night hundreds of time and see if you get different results.

Pointing out facts (i.e. oakland is a "bad" area in general) does not make one racist. It makes one factual. Everything else is your (misguided) opinion.

I like how people are "racist" now if they don't agree with people like you.

No argument or facts, he's just a "racist". You level childish ad hominem attacks simply because you have no other answers.

[Forker]

Originally Posted by E14

First off, there are no "bad" areas of berkeley
there are some areas that are not 100% rich and white; that does not make them dangerous
San pablo and ashby are fine streets
ive biked/walked hundreds of times down san pablo, never had any problems
you are a racist, sheltered, snobby, SCARED troll who is continually spreading misinformation

There are very bad areas of Berkeley in my opinion, especially on the west side. Try walking from Ashby Ave. down San Pablo Ave. to Gilman St. after 10 pm.

I mentioned nothing about race, most of the homeless that roam the streets in that area are actually caucasian, and who are you to assume what my race is?? I could be asian, black, latino, white or any number of ethnicities.
Who here is making the prejudiced assumptions?

Just because you accept the grime and bad vibes of the area, and I don't accept them, doesn't make me snobby, it makes me a realist. I am scared of nothing, but I will not tolerate a sub par nieghborhood and I am not afraid to point out what is bad about an area. If you feel like more of man/woman by tolerating this east bay nonsense, feel free. But it is not wrong or cowardly to expect a community to be safe for children, and be a good environment for people to live in, and you obviously have much lower standards. There is nothing weak or cowardly about the expectation to have a decent community. In fact it's actually easier and more cowardly to accept these horrible problems than it is to have the courage to change them, which nobody in the East Bay seems to be making an effort to be doing.

Your main comebacks are always..."you're scared, sheltered, ect...." Well you don't know anything about me. I lived in NYC, and I've visited other countries and have actually seen how other people live. I'm far from sheltered, and excuse me for making a judgement on people smoking dope in the street. They don't even do that in London. Have you ever been abroad, and expanded your limited little East Bay world view to see how other societies and cities actually operate???? Seen what things people consider as normal, acceptable behavior in public???

The "snobby" rich in the east bay stay in their sheltered neighborhoods, while the poor and middle class walllow in the filth. And you some how find that okay? Well it's not okay in my book. It's bad. It's a class system. Why not spread some of that Lafayette poshness to Oakland? They never will, because any way you look at it the rich have holed themselves up their castles to avoid the massive poverty. The problem for them is that those impoverished people sneak up into their neighborhoods and break int their homes and cars. Thus making their little slice of heaven a huge slice of hell.

[E14]

Originally Posted by Forker

There are very bad areas of Berkeley in my opinion, especially on the west side. Try walking from Ashby Ave. down San Pablo Ave. to Gilman St. after 10 pm.

I mentioned nothing about race, most of the homeless that roam the streets in that area are actually caucasian, and who are you to assume what my race is?? I could be asian, black, latino, white or any number of ethnicities.
Who here is making the prejudiced assumptions?

Just because you accept the grime and bad vibes of the area, and I don't accept them, doesn't make me snobby, it makes me a realist. I am scared of nothing, but I will not tolerate a sub par nieghborhood and I am not afraid to point out what is bad about an area. If you feel like more of man/woman by tolerating this east bay nonsense, feel free. But it is not wrong or cowardly to expect a community to be safe for children, and be a good environment for people to live in, and you obviously have much lower standards. There is nothing weak or cowardly about the expectation to have a decent community. In fact it's actually easier and more cowardly to accept these horrible problems than it is to have the courage to change them, which nobody in the East Bay seems to be making an effort to be doing.

Your main comebacks are always..."you're scared, sheltered, ect...." Well you don't know anything about me. I lived in NYC, and I've visited other countries and have actually seen how other people live. I'm far from sheltered, and excuse me for making a judgement on people smoking dope in the street. They don't even do that in London. Have you ever been abroad, and expanded your limited little East Bay world view to see how other societies and cities actually operate???? Seen what things people consider as normal, acceptable behavior in public???

The "snobby" rich in the east bay stay in their sheltered neighborhoods, while the poor and middle class walllow in the filth. And you some how find that okay? Well it's not okay in my book. It's bad. It's a class system. Why not spread some of that Lafayette poshness to Oakland? They never will, because any way you look at it the rich have holed themselves up their castles to avoid the massive poverty. The problem for them is that those impoverished people sneak up into their neighborhoods and break int their homes and cars. Thus making their little slice of heaven a huge slice of hell.

You do know that the east bay has less poverty than most of the country, right?

[Forker]

Originally Posted by E14

You do know that the east bay has less poverty than most of the country, right?

"The popularity of the region, owing both to its mild weather and its cultural and economic diversity, combined with strong anti-growth sentiment (both local and statewide), has led to high housing costs, especially for ownership and for commercial property leases. Owing to the relatively lower costs of outlying housing and limited public transportation, long, expensive, and often unpleasant automobile commutes are common in the region, and these costs tend to trickle down throughout various activities, making many other activities such as dining out, theater tickets, etc., more expensive than in other areas of the country. Wages of only a limited portion of the population have kept pace with the increased expenses, and many minimum wage earners, even those holding multiple jobs, (and many families with multiple members employed) are classified as "working poor," while the higher incomes necessary for a satisfactory lifestyle in the region lead to higher taxes, especially at the federal level for persons not qualifying for high mortgage or self-employment related deductions.

Although most working-class households in the United States earn between $20,000–$30,000 a year, working-class households in the Bay Area earn over $50,000 a year performing the same jobs (such as in the service industry), which would be considered middle-class in other parts of the country. Nevertheless, because of extremely expensive housing costs, disposable income of working-class Bay Area households is only equivalent to the amount of disposable income in other parts of the country because the rest of the income increase goes to pay for an increased cost of living. Therefore, although the great majority of the population is much more affluent (without taking into account the increased costs of living) compared to the rest of the country, the disposable income is nearly identical. This enables low cost goods shops, such as variety stores, to maintain a presence in the Bay Area."


"As with many inner urban areas, the Inner East Bay also features a high incidence of crime as well as other socio-economic problems. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, more than 50% of all homicides in the Bay Area in 2002 occurred within the city limits of Oakland and Richmond. The homicide rates have steadily increased, as 2005 had the highest homicide rates for both Richmond and Oakland in many years."

[E14]

That quote in no way refuted my statement

[Forker]

Originally Posted by E14

That quote in no way refuted my statement

I think the term "working poor" defines poverty rather nicely.