How similar or different (in feel) is Sacramento from San Jose, CA? (San Francisco: crime rates, living)

[Majin]

Sigh, I keep almost taking the bait and replying to posts like the one above but I need to keep reminding myself it's a waste of time.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Majin

Sigh, I keep almost taking the bait and replying to posts like the one above but I need to keep reminding myself it's a waste of time.

Actually, but for the observation about more "professionals" in San Jose than in Sacto (government is filled with "professionals") I think the poster is, for the most part, quite correct.

[Majin]

As far as being "ghetto", Sacramento is a city, every city has ran down/high crime/poverty areas. San Jose is a suburb, so the low income people don't live there. Just like the low income people don't live in Folsom (another suburb). LA has ghetto areas, San Francisco has ghetto areas, the whole city of Oakland is ghetto, you get my point. If you want to live in a city, you are going to have ghetto areas.

There is no hillbilly/redneck culture inside the city of Sacramento. I don't even know what to say about that, it's just false.

Most of the other stuff is just generic that applies to any city. I could of copy and pasted his post and put in *insert city here* in place of Sacramento and *insert suburb here* in place of San Jose and it could apply to 90% of combination.

On a national scale Sacramento is low to mild as far as crime goes. Random anecdotal evidence that one post wonders state here doesn't make Sacramento a high crime place.

United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Majin

As far as being "ghetto", Sacramento is a city, every city has ran down/high crime/poverty areas. San Jose is a suburb, so the low income people don't live there. Just like the low income people don't live in Folsom (another suburb). LA has ghetto areas, San Francisco has ghetto areas, the whole city of Oakland is ghetto, you get my point. If you want to live in a city, you are going to have ghetto areas.

There is no hillbilly/redneck culture inside the city of Sacramento. I don't even know what to say about that, it's just false.

Most of the other stuff is just generic that applies to any city. I could of copy and pasted his post and put in *insert city here* in place of Sacramento and *insert suburb here* in place of San Jose and it could apply to 90% of combination.

On a national scale Sacramento is low to mild as far as crime goes. Random anecdotal evidence that one post wonders state here doesn't make Sacramento a high crime place.

United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know what you mean about actually ignoring some of these posters, but I am pretty bad about it as well. If we don't defend our views and give our opinions the "other side" will always look like it is right.

Some have ideas that almost make no sense.

Anyone who thinks Sacramento is trailer trash, low income, redneck has seen a part of Sacramento many of us never have. Actually the downtown part of San Jose isn't all that swift either, but you are right, most of it is suburb so of course it is a little different.

If I were to move back to Ca I have always said, Sac or certainly the Sac area would be our first choice.

Nita

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Majin

As far as being "ghetto", Sacramento is a city, every city has ran down/high crime/poverty areas. San Jose is a suburb, so the low income people don't live there. Just like the low income people don't live in Folsom (another suburb). LA has ghetto areas, San Francisco has ghetto areas, the whole city of Oakland is ghetto, you get my point. If you want to live in a city, you are going to have ghetto areas.

There is no hillbilly/redneck culture inside the city of Sacramento. I don't even know what to say about that, it's just false.

Most of the other stuff is just generic that applies to any city. I could of copy and pasted his post and put in *insert city here* in place of Sacramento and *insert suburb here* in place of San Jose and it could apply to 90% of combination.

On a national scale Sacramento is low to mild as far as crime goes. Random anecdotal evidence that one post wonders state here doesn't make Sacramento a high crime place.

United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So much for the adage, "Figures lie and liars figure."

Out of just about 72 cities listed, only about 21 had higher violent crimes than Sacto and about 31 had higher property crimes.

I guess "low to mild" is in the eye of the beholder.

Might I recommend a good optometrist?

[Ludachris]

Originally Posted by Majin

As far as being "ghetto", Sacramento is a city, every city has ran down/high crime/poverty areas. San Jose is a suburb, so the low income people don't live there.

I'd have to disagree - San Jose has plenty of low income people living there. Hell, I was one of them for a number of years when I was younger. I know plenty of low income people who still live there.

And though San Jose is very suburban, it still is a large city - a bigger city than Sacramento, at least statistically. It's one of the largest cities in the U.S. in terms of population. Whether it's got a suburban feel to it or not can be debated. Saying it's not a city is just inaccurate.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

So much for the adage, "Figures lie and liars figure."

Out of just about 72 cities listed, only about 21 had higher violent crimes than Sacto and about 31 had higher property crimes.

I guess "low to mild" is in the eye of the beholder.

Might I recommend a good optometrist?

Only 21? On a national scale 21 cities having a higher violent crime than us is a lot, same as 31 cities having higher property crimes.

Besides, if you actually looking at the list, the actual difference between us and 5 cities lower than us for violent crime is in double digits (out of 1113 for us). The difference between Sacramento Detroit and St Louis is over 100%. Hardly the crime capital of the US and yes, very mild. Yes mild in my opinion, but I am using facts and figures to form my opinion.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by Ludachris

I'd have to disagree - San Jose has plenty of low income people living there. Hell, I was one of them for a number of years when I was younger. I know plenty of low income people who still live there.

And though San Jose is very suburban, it still is a large city - a bigger city than Sacramento, at least statistically. It's one of the largest cities in the U.S. in terms of population. Whether it's got a suburban feel to it or not can be debated. Saying it's not a city is just inaccurate.

I'm sure low income people live there, but as with all suburbs it has a much higher percentage of upper middle class than cities too and low income housing is far and few between.

As for San Jose being a large city both in population and area. So what? It functions as a suburb, has the characteristics of a suburb, and looks like a suburb. It doesn't serve as a cultural center for the bay area, it serves as a place to live (since SJ loses population during the day to other suburbs).

Despite Sacramento being smaller in population and land area, it serves as the cultural and job center for the metro and also serves as the nightlife center for the metro.

[Ludachris]

Originally Posted by Majin

I'm sure low income people live there, but as with all suburbs it has a much higher percentage of upper middle class than cities too and low income housing is far and few between.

As for San Jose being a large city both in population and area. So what? It functions as a suburb, has the characteristics of a suburb, and looks like a suburb. It doesn't serve as a cultural center for the bay area, it serves as a place to live (since SJ loses population during the day to other suburbs).

Despite Sacramento being smaller in population and land area, it serves as the cultural and job center for the metro and also serves as the nightlife center for the metro.

This still sounds like an opinion... there is plenty of nightlife and culture in San Jose. Not nearly as much as SF (and I can't personally compare it to Sacramento), but that is not what determines if a city is a city - it just defines what type of city it is. I know at least one member in the SJ forum that would vehemently disagree with your opinion of it not being a true city (and/or cultural center).

And though it does serve as a place to live, it's not like everyone living there is commuting to SF (the big city) for work. It's simply a result of the diverse nature of Silicon Valley - no one city has the majority of the jobs like in the Sacramento area. It may not be the main job center in the area, but it's certainly one of the larger ones.

San Jose has most, if not all the same big city attractions and activities that Sacramento does, even if it does have more sprawl within the city limits. Just because it has more of a suburban feel does not mean it should be disregarded in a comparison between big cities - in your case, dismissing its low crime rate in the process. You can't just say SJ is not a big city. That's just ridiculous.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Majin

Only 21? On a national scale 21 cities having a higher violent crime than us is a lot, same as 31 cities having higher property crimes.

Besides, if you actually looking at the list, the actual difference between us and 5 cities lower than us for violent crime is in double digits (out of 1113 for us). The difference between Sacramento Detroit and St Louis is over 100%. Hardly the crime capital of the US and yes, very mild. Yes mild in my opinion, but I am using facts and figures to form my opinion.

Yes you are. Yours and yours alone. That Sacramento ended up on the list at all is NOT a sign of being mild. That is ranks roughly in the top third of listed citied in violent crime and in the middle of property crime is not "mild."

But I'm just an old, former cop. What do I know?

Oh, yeah! I know I'm not an apologist for Sacramento!