Cambridge, MA Vs Oakland Ca (safe, districts, parks, living)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

Yes mansions can found in many cities but I would not suggest they by any means personify the city itself.

No one made that suggestion. At all.

What percentage of Oakland residents live in the mansions on the hills is the point. Is it 1, 2, maybe 3%.

39.1% of all families in the city of Oakland earn $75,000 or more annually, maybe they cant buy a mansion, but they can still buy in the Hills. Hence 138,000 people live there.

Far less relevant than those who live poverty on the whole one would think.

There is a danger in just thinking things without looking them up:

Families Earning $100,000+, 2010 Census
Oakland 27.4%

Families Living in Poverty, 2010 Census
Oakland 18.0%

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

No one made that suggestion. At all.


39.1% of all families in the city of Oakland earn $75,000 or more annually, maybe they cant buy a mansion, but they can still buy in the Hills. Hence 138,000 people live there.


There is a danger in just thinking things without looking them up:

Families Earning $100,000+, 2010 Census
Oakland 27.4%

Families Living in Poverty, 2010 Census
Oakland 18.0%

I asked about the mansions on the hills, not people living in those zips (it is VERY clear read back), you know as well as I do 100K (and honestly 100K while for means and medians looks nice really is not that much money) surely does not buy one of those mansions in the pics you posted which again was my point on the 1, 2, 3% etc. not 100K+ nor the 39.1% that live in those zips. Dont try and use a crafty post to make that allusion

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

I asked about the mansions on the hills, not people living in those zips

In a failed attempt to insinuate that I was suggesting that mansions are the normal order of the day in the entire city of Oakland.

Which I have not suggested in the least--in fact those pictures are meant to show that a significant portion of the city is nothing like the stereotypes that would lead you to assume that there are more families living in poverty than those who make a better than decent living and now you know that notion is FALSE.

Families Earning $100,000+, 2010 Census
Oakland 27.4%

Families Living in Poverty, 2010 Census
Oakland 18.0%

Its a statement of fact that more families in Oakland earn $100,000 a year than there are families living in poverty.

Spread the word.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

In a failed attempt to insinuate that I was suggesting that mansions are the normal order of the day in the entire city of Oakland.

Which I have not suggested in the least--in fact those pictures are meant to show that a significant portion of the city is nothing like the stereotypes that would lead you to assume that there are more families living in poverty than those who make a better than decent living and now you know that notion is FALSE.

Families Earning $100,000+, 2010 Census
Oakland 27.4%

Families Living in Poverty, 2010 Census
Oakland 18.0%

Its a statement of fact that more families in Oakland earn $100,000 a year than there are families living in poverty.

Spread the word.

No but you did post stats on neighborhoods that are a significant minority even in the broader hill area which was my original point and you have ventured away from that point with some new spin as per usual. And yes you absolutely did insuate this earlier

And AGAIN my POINT was on the mansions on the hills, dont even try and spin this, I suggested your points on wealth were related to a very small portion of Oakland, and yes smaller Those on your original list or those living in those mansion on the hills) as a percentage than those living below poverty, AGAIN my point originally based on your chest pumping list of superiority.

On lower poverty, great, its always good to see cities rising from their bottom

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

And AGAIN my POINT was on the mansions on the hills, dont even try and spin this, I suggested your points on wealth were related to a very small portion of Oakland.

And it has been stated now 3 times that 27% of Oakland families earn $100,000+ and that is NOT a 'small portion'.

Anything else?

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

And it has been stated now 3 times that 27% of Oakland families earn $100,000+ and that is NOT a 'small portion'.

Anything else?

And again that was not my point but spin as you like and you always do

WTF does this 27% have to do with the mansions you posted, do 27% of Oakland residents live in these mansions? Or in those nabes you posted in your links? Not the zips which you changed mid stream when called on the original BS posted.

Spin spin spin spin as you may


what is a small portion is the 0.2% of Oakland residents that live in the Hiller nabe, that is small and the ORIGINAL point but again you continue to post other points not related and then have the audacity to suggest I am not understanding your point, well maybe not because you spin and change constantantly and never address the originals as per usual.

So again Montclair, do more people live in these mansion than do in Poverty? Do more people live in these 150+K mean nabes than live below poverty. Are they a better reflection of the city of Oakland. That is my original point which you have spun and strayed to make some pontifical proclamation that somehow always ignores those original posts. That is the point


here is your original list, you tell me if this some personification of Oakland as a whole?
//www.city-data.com/forum/22277207-post254.html

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

And again that was not my point but spin as you like and you always do

This is what you said:
Yes mansions can found in many cities but I would not suggest they by any means personify the city itself.

Where did I disagree with this?

Then you said this:
What percentage of Oakland residents live in the mansions on the hills is the point. Is it 1, 2, maybe 3%.

Dont really disagree with this either because this is the case for most major cities.

Then you sad this:
Far less relevant than those who live poverty on the whole one would think.

And this is wrong. While they might not be living in mansions per se, Oakland has more families earning $100,000+ than we have families that are poor.

Im glad that has been clarified.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

This is what you said:
Yes mansions can found in many cities but I would not suggest they by any means personify the city itself.

Where did I disagree with this?

Then you said this:
What percentage of Oakland residents live in the mansions on the hills is the point. Is it 1, 2, maybe 3%.

Dont really disagree with this either because this is the case for most major cities.

Then you sad this:
Far less relevant than those who live poverty on the whole one would think.

And this is wrong. While they might not be living in mansions per se, Oakland has more families earning $100,000+ than we have families that are poor.

Im glad that has been clarified.

So now you are saying the 1-3% is more a representation within Oakland than is those living in poverty? That is precisely what my point was.


Great on 100K folks, but they had ZERO to do with my point and question, what and who with the rhetoric Montclair

but again believe and spin as you may, you always do

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

So now you are saying the 1-3% is more a representation within Oakland than is those living in poverty? That is precisely what my point was.


Great on 100K folks, but they had ZERO to do with my point and question, what and who with the rhetoric Montclair

but again believe and spin as you may, you always do

What he is saying Oakland has a Huge Income Disparity, compared to cambridge where almost all nabes are between 40-80K besides a couple over 100K

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

What he is saying Oakland has a Huge Income Disparity, compared to cambridge where almost all nabes are between 40-80K besides a couple over 100K

Yes, most definitely that too.