Is it a brutal reality that San Francisco is NOT a safe city overall? (Los Angeles: condo, violent crime)

[Park Chung Hee]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Who are the people usually getting murdered in SF though? Homeless people or criminals (drug related)? Or are we talking about hard working, everyday tax paying people?

Statistically over half of the murder victims in the US are males age 14-30. As for the victims themselves, I do not know how many of them are involved in crime themselves or just people living in the wrong neighborhood.

I'm guessing if you aren't a young male involved in criminal activity and/or are not a victim of severe domestic violence (I think 10%-ish of murder victims are domestic violence situations) your chances of being murdered are low. Those kinds of murders probably make up 70%+ of all murder victims in the country.

Obviously, random people get murdered in the US. However the bulk of murders seem to be young male criminals (of all races) killing each other, or domestic violence killings.

[Park Chung Hee]

Originally Posted by Carrie2979

Park Chung Hee,
Where was the Rock Concert located in SD? Most of the venues in SD are pretty darn safe!! I don't know much about SF, but every visit there i've never felt unsafe. But then again I have gone traveling to Europe by myself.

It wasn't a concert so much as a bar that had bands playing. It was located in City Heights. I'd been told the area south of El Cajon and between 15 and 54th wasn't good at night. I wouldn't mind going through during the day. But I had only been in town about 2 weeks at that point.

I don't think its a bad thing to research what neighborhoods to stay out at at night in a large city. I am from a rural area, and am not used to the idea that there are bad parts of town.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

San Diego is safe. Portland is safe. Boston is safe. Denver is safe.

But San Francisco?

While it still might be one of the most expensive cities to live in here in the USA, there's a lot of evidence that shows that many crimes occurr right in some of the city's most chic and upscale neighborhoods. This includes tourist areas at night. In addition, many people in this forum seem to point out that San Francisco doesn't feel that safe a lot of the time.

So what do you guys think? Statistics and crime data aside, do you FEEL like San Francisco is a safe city overall? Could you live in SF for years in a nice district area without being assaulted or having your place broken into? Do you have many friends who have been victims of crimes? Or is all this talk blown out of proportion.

I personally have never felt truly unsafe in SF walking around at night in particular, other than the Tenderloin. The only scary incident I can recall was one at the Metreon in SOMA, where this heroin junkie high as a kite kept following me and my friends around, he was in a dream world but kept staring at us vigorously. We walked away and then he trailed behind us, track marks on the arms and all. Eventually we got into the movie theater, but when we came out (2 hours later!) he was standing downstairs claiming he missed us, and if we would please "help" him out so he could buy us some dope. At the point, we notified security. That was the only negative thing I've experienced, and unfortunately, there does seem to be a lot of unstable wierdos on the streets who are most likely harmless but definitely intimidating.

So overall, I've never felt afraid in SF, but I do get shocked by the crime data I see. Why, in such an affluent and overly-gentrified city, is there this much crime? And how bizarre is it that there could be several housing projects within city limits?

Well anyways, let's start a debate and hear your opinions.

I lived in the Outer Richmond District for ten years. The only thing I ever had taken was a disposable camera. Biggest threat was having my car towed by the city. I certainly felt safer than San Diego, Phoenix or Philadelphia

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

San Diego is safe. Portland is safe. Boston is safe. Denver is safe.

Actually, if you go just by the murder rate, Boston is only slightly safer than SF. Maybe Boston is also one of those cities that is perceived to be safer than it really is.

Table 8 (Massachusetts) - Crime in the United States 2008

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Two of three of my significant crime incidents in the Bay Area were on the Peninsula, one of them violent and involving an attack by a gang member I thwarted.

I lived in Oakland and nearby communities during the early 90s and had zero incidents.

I know, a sample size of one ... not very scientific.

I lived in the City for two stints of several years each. I had one crime incident, I actually busted a guy stealing a leather jacket from my car ... nailed him and got it back.

As you might surmise, I'm probably a bit too bold confronting criminals. Someone is watching over me ...

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Park Chung Hee

I'm a total newbie who is considering going to SF for a month to visit. I'm checking out the posts in the search function, but want to know what are the truly bad neighborhoods in the SF area? The tenderloin and parts of oakland are bad. what else should a person look out for? Keep in mind I'd be using public transit, so I might have to wait at bus stops for half an hour at times.

I was in San Diego a month ago and got invited to a rock concert at night. However after researching it I found out it was in the middle of the worst ghetto in the city. So I declined. But I want to make sure I don't end up in a situation like that.

May I ask which ghetto?

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Park Chung Hee

It wasn't a concert so much as a bar that had bands playing. It was located in City Heights. I'd been told the area south of El Cajon and between 15 and 54th wasn't good at night. I wouldn't mind going through during the day. But I had only been in town about 2 weeks at that point.

I don't think its a bad thing to research what neighborhoods to stay out at at night in a large city. I am from a rural area, and am not used to the idea that there are bad parts of town.

Ignore my above post. City Heights is not as bad as it once was but you should still be vigilant. Most crimes involve people of the same type, not normally on innocents.

As far as safety in SF. I feel pretty safe there during the day. It gets a little crazy at night. Granted, I live in SD now and overall it's safer than SF. So is Seattle IMO. Hell for that matter I think Oakland is safer except in the bad areas. As someone else has said, just stay alert but don't let it stop you from enjoying the city.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Who are the people usually getting murdered in SF though? Homeless people or criminals (drug related)? Or are we talking about hard working, everyday tax paying people?

Ok, this is the type of question that bugs me. (And it's the exact same question I get when people become defensive that I'm disagreeing with their image of SF being a complete safe haven!) Because this question (even though it doesn't say it outright) implies that the crime rate is skewed because for some reason there's a different type of person getting murdered in SF than anywere else. That's just not the case. It's true that criminals are way more likely to get murdered, but as I wrote in my previous post, that's the case everywhere. So it does not skew the crime rate.

Because in the case of SF, just like everywhere, there are homeless people, criminals, and hard working everyday tax paying people getting murdered. I do not go up to the murder victims right before they are murdered to ask them if they are a druggie, a thug, or a hard working tax-payer. But since SF has a much higher overall murder rate than, for instance, San Diego, I would think a higher percentage of druggies, thugs, and hard working tax-payers -- all of the above -- get murdered in SF, than in SD. It doesn't seem to make sense to think the increase in murder rate is due to thugs alone.

When comparing crime rates, and just talking about how safe or dangerous a city is overall, I compare city to city. (I.e. San Francisco is more dangerous than Denver. San Francisco is safer than Detroit.) I do not compare the good areas of a city to the bad areas of a city. Because in any city, there will be good areas and there will be bad areas. The good areas of the city will be safer than the bad areas of the city. That's not unique to San Francisco.

[Huckleberry3911948]

its not the city-- its a feature of many cities, its called urban renewal. very deadly, they took away all the warning signs and encouraged visitors to stroll extremely dangerous areas. in SF one of the worst aside from tenderloin is the new sunken sidewalk near seal rock, not far from the old skate rink, very pretty & very very dangerous at sunset.
what vexes me is that many CDF posters from these urban renewal areas e.g. SF, detroit, NO, memphis, cleveland, get on the forums and try to censor warning posts from folks that know these areas well.

[rah]

Originally Posted by Radical347

I was surprised when I saw the crime rate too, considering everything I've heard about it. Everyone talks about SF being safe and the mayor and police dept. like to play down the crime as they don't want to scare the tourists away.

However - it's not that dangerous. For a big city, its crime rate is about average. Which means you have to do have to watch your back as you do with any big city (except for San Diego, Portland, Denver, San Jose and Seattle) but you're not likely to run into trouble unless you're looking for it...or lost in the Western Addition or the SE part of SF.

However -- many people, who live here or not, are even unwilling to believe that the crime rate is average. Quite a few people I've talked to have the illusion that SF is one of the safest big cities in America! And that is just not the case. Then they follow it up by saying, "well, most crimes happen to people who are looking for trouble" which is true -- but that's also true everywhere. And then when they hear about somebody who got murdered who wasn't looking for trouble -- I have heard on more than one occasion stupid comments like "they must have been a secret gang member" or "they f***ed up."

That being said -- SF, overall, is not really more dangerous (or safer) than most big cities. But there is a groupthink of SF being one of the safest cities around, and due to this, I wil say SF more dangerous than most people seem to think it is.

well said. Out of the 71 largest cities in the US, SF had the 31st highest violent crime rate, the 21st highest murder rate, and the 19th highest robbery rate, in 2007. Not horrible, but definitely not low either.

Originally Posted by Boompa

I lived in the Outer Richmond District for ten years. The only thing I ever had taken was a disposable camera. Biggest threat was having my car towed by the city. I certainly felt safer than San Diego, Phoenix or Philadelphia

I grew up in SF and have tons of stories i could tell you of crime affecting me, friends, and family.

A far as SF vs. Phoenix and Philly, SF has a murder rate on par with Phoenix's as of 2007(14 murders per 100k residents, which is also tied with Indianapolis and Tulsa), and had a violent crime rate significantly higher than Philly's from 1985 through 1996 (for example, SF had over 1,800 violent incidents per 100k residents in 1992 and 1993, while Philly at the same time was around 1200 incidents per 100k). SF is definitely more violent than most people realize...but no, it's also not insanely dangerous or anything like that...it has many nice parts, and a few bad parts that really are bad, which for some reason is hard to believe for certain people. It's violent crime rate in 2007 was on par with Newark, St. Paul, Columbus and Oklahoma City, and was much higher than SD's was.