LA Safer than San Francisco (Los Angeles, Oakland: crime, felony, living in)

[majoun]

Originally Posted by JackSparrow

No word back on opposing stats huh?

I guess it's just easier to believe what people want to believe.

Having just spent a great deal of time in SF looking for places, I can vouch that the study is correct. The Castro Halloween parade was cancelled because of all the gang violence going on in the Mission right next door. While the areas of the Mission closest to the Castro and Noe Valley have been gentrified, the area east of Valencia St. is as dangerous as ever and the drug dealing around the BART stations on Mission is no different than it ever was. SF just issued its first gang injunctions not long ago due to Latino gang activity in the Mission and Potrero Hill. Bayview and Hunters Point are as bad as ever. Even the Chronicle which hardly ever prints anything complementary about LA admits SF has a higher crime rate now. Although it would be even higher if the same factors that are driving gang bangers out of LA weren't at work in SF - i.e. high housing costs driving them to the outer suburbs. Why pay large amounts of money for a place in the Mission or Tenderloin (considering what you get for it) when you can get much more for your cash in Fairfield or Brentwood (the NorCal Brentwood - don't worry, the SoCal Brentwood isn't seeing a big influx of Norteno gang members like the other Brentwood!) Compare the situation to LA and how so many of its gang members have moved to the AV and IE.

As for Oakland - it does have the highest percentage of ex-cons in California. Per capita, Alameda County sends 5 times as many of its residents to prison as LA County. The Oakland crime rate is out of sight even in some of the nicer parts of Oakland like Rockridge (by the Berkeley border). Alameda County also has the fastest increasing crime rate of any California county.

I don't buy the part about LA crime being underreported due to illegals not trusting the police or fear of retaliation, because the areas where those factors are the greatest are the areas with the highest reported crime rates as it is. If this were the case than areas like Van Nuys or Boyle Heights would have crime rates comparable with Mar Vista or Pacific Palisades where those factors don't exist to the same extent.

Much of SF is perfectly safe, just as much of LA is perfectly safe - but only a fool would deny the obvious truth.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by JackSparrow

Great positive post!

I think it's due to hippies and homeless.

A lot of people don't realize the extent of gang activity in SF, not only Nortenos but there are actually Surenos in the Tenderloin and parts of the Mission now and there's been a lot of shooting going on around 20th and Mission over control of the drug trade.

Also forgot to mention the Western Addition still has some bad parts and although the Haight is generally a very safe area I would think twice about walking through Buena Vista Park at night

[THASPECIAL]

Originally Posted by AVMan

The FBI "tweaks" crime stats? Don't be ridiculous.

I'm sorry it doesn't meet your pre-conceived notions. But it would be difficult to "tweak" a stat that shows LA has 40% fewer property crimes per capita than San Francisco does.

Now if only you could get some of the New Yorkers to believe this statement about the stats regarding thier city.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by THASPECIAL

Now if only you could get some of the New Yorkers to believe this statement about the stats regarding thier city.

Well therein lies the other part of the issue of being desirable despite crime.

Its one thing to have stats say one city is safer than another, but if you compare Downtown LA to Downtown SF, LAs central business district just seems much more dangerous and pretty seedy compared to SFs polished and far more sophisticated downtown area-there really isnt much comparison btwn the 2.

I think this plays a major role in people not really associating SF with crime-because crime doesnt define The City unlike LA which to many people, is defined among other things, by crime, or criminal elements lurking everywhere-true or not, that's a huge perception people have of LA.

[matt345]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

The City unlike LA which to many people, is defined among other things, by crime, or criminal elements lurking everywhere-true or not, that's a huge perception people have of LA.

I really think the events of the early 90's, particularly the riots, have permanently ingrained a negative image of LA in the minds of many people. I'm not saying that having this preconception is justified, but a few people have expressed fears for my safety when I tell them I am moving to LA. They worry about all the gangs and I believe they still run images of 1992 through their minds when it comes to LA.

[Milliano]

I think SF is a violent city, but personally if I had to guess I'd guess that LA has more violent crime per capita.

I'm guessing LA gets a huge influx of people during the day - I don't know. This is the case with SF though. A *lot* of violent and drug crimes that occur in SF are done by people that don't even live in the city. For instance a big drug bust in the Tenderloin recently -- most of the dealers weren't even living in SF. It's like how downtowns and main streets have a lot of crime per capita - because so many people tend to spend time there, but don't live there.

If I had to guess the main reasons why crime is such a problem in SF, I'd guess the police force (which I keep hearing/reading over and over about how it seems like they literally ignore serious crimes happening right in front of them), the amount of subsidized housing, the residential hotels in general, and the tolerance of the homeless. If you want to deal drugs, or be a drug addict, the best place to be in the country seems to be SF. You get welfare handouts even if you're not disabled or elderly, even if you're a criminal, and it's a dense city (don't need a car to get around, commit crime, buy/sell drugs, larger population around to pray on, etc) where the cops let you do whatever you want - including rob innocent people for drug money. But I don't know... these are just my guesses of main reasons.

With LA and SF both I have to wonder about illegal immigrant crime -- if I had to guess, nationwide, maybe illegal immigrants have low crime rates -- but in California it seems like they get many criminals from places like Mexico and Central America, who move to California because they CAN and join gangs, sometimes as a way to avoid prison time in Mexico (outstanding warrants).

Also the areas of SF black population in and out of the projects, seems to be really bad because so many of the law abiding working and middle class black families have left the city ("black flight") - leaving, per capita, more crime. Similar happens in places like the poorest neighborhoods of Chicago - more and more black people leave the areas, mostly the educated and law abiding ones, leaving behind relatively more and more criminals. With LA, is this the case so much? There has been such a huge demographic change there. IIRC the Mexican population in some areas has replaced poor black populations, which move to other areas... leaving the working and middle class blacks there, which have lower crime rates? I dunno, I could be totally wrong.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by matt345

I really think the events of the early 90's, particularly the riots, have permanently ingrained a negative image of LA in the minds of many people. I'm not saying that having this preconception is justified, but a few people have expressed fears for my safety when I tell them I am moving to LA. They worry about all the gangs and I believe they still run images of 1992 through their minds when it comes to LA.

That is very true. Perception does outweigh reality. SF is a prettier city, with better public transportation, and better bars than L.A. so people automatically think it's safer. (And in the past they would have been correct, but this is not true anymore. Some San Franciscan friends of mine have actually stated they feel safer in L.A. than in S.F.)

And, there are some posting in these forums who do have some racial prejudices, and who think that SF having a larger percentage of non-Latino whites than L.A. (or any other urban area in the state) makes it "feel" safer than L.A.

The Attorney General's report actually did credit Bratton's reforms of the LAPD for decreasing LA's violent crime rate, although imagine what he could do with proper funding and a proper number of officers, whereas Heather Fong's SFPD seems to be increasingly inept. What a change this represents from the old days, when the SFPD was universally considered a better police department than the LAPD and the only thing that Daryl Gates' LAPD was good at was busting heads.

[18Montclair]

^Ive never felt safer in LA than in SF-definitely the other way around in my experience. And it has nothing to do with hispanics at all.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

^Ive never felt safer in LA than in SF-definitely the other way around in my experience. And it has nothing to do with hispanics at all.

I can relate to what you're saying, I was just repeating what some friends of mine living in SF told me.

I don't think someone who wasn't from SF would say such a thing, as SF certainly feels safer than LA does to a non-native, mainly because it feels friendlier than LA as I stated. There's more human interaction and that gives one a feeling of safety even if it is illusory. However, to people who live in SF, the rise in crime is causing a certain sense of fear in the resident population.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by majoun

I can relate to what you're saying, I was just repeating what some friends of mine living in SF told me.

I don't think someone who wasn't from SF would say such a thing, as SF certainly feels safer than LA does to a non-native, mainly because it feels friendlier than LA as I stated. There's more human interaction and that gives one a feeling of safety even if it is illusory. However, to people who live in SF, the rise in crime is causing a certain sense of fear in the resident population.

Pretty much agree.