Safety of Oakland (esp. Lake Merritt area)? (Richmond, Compton: neighborhood, schools)

[Mr. Fantastic]

Yeah Jade is right. Ignore the crime stats. Oakland's biggest problem is obviously littering when it comes to crime.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

Yeah Jade is right. Ignore the crime stats. Oakland's biggest problem is obviously littering when it comes to crime.

if you frequent safe areas of town you see property crime. If you don't, then you'll run into something else. It is pretty straightforward. On the safety spectrum the area of your apartment is something like this:

Super safe ------------Grand Lake ---- Your Apt. -------- Uptown --------------------------------------------------- The Flatlands

[SickOfCalifornia]

This exact topic was just discussed in a very heated thread about the relative safety of Oakland, specifically the Lake Merritt area:

//www.city-data.com/forum/san-f...-merriett.html

While some people thought it was just fine, others advised that it was not particularly safe. I don't know about you, but when there is an argument about an area's safety, and half the people think it is safe and the other half say it is unsafe, I tend to favor the side that says unsafe. The people who say it's safe are usually only going off anecdotal evidence, and why would you want to risk the option that precludes the other half being entirely wrong? If you are safety-minded, you don't simply ignore the arguments of those who vote for unsafe.

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by SickOfCalifornia

This exact topic was just discussed in a very heated thread about the relative safety of Oakland, specifically the Lake Merritt area:

//www.city-data.com/forum/san-f...-merriett.html

While some people thought it was just fine, others advised that it was not particularly safe. I don't know about you, but when there is an argument about an area's safety, and half the people think it is safe and the other half say it is unsafe, I tend to favor the side that says unsafe. The people who say it's safe are usually only going off anecdotal evidence, and why would you want to risk the option that precludes the other half being entirely wrong? If you are safety-minded, you don't simply ignore the arguments of those who vote for unsafe.

In the interest of fairness -- the people who don't think it's safe don't live here, and know nothing of the area. The people who are giving anecdotal evidence actually LIVE here.

[jade408]

Another note, there are a few areas around the Lake (meaning directly on the trail/path) that are a bit dark. Which makes it feel unsafe. When it is dark and you are alone. I typically do not feel safe when it is dark, deserted and I am alone. Daytime is another story. And different areas around the lake feel really different... there is a pretty big mix in neighborhood feel in the Lake Merritt area.

[daepro]

I am a runner and run around the lake every morning at 6am. Sometimes it is dark others light depending on the time of year. There are some unlighted isolated parts but I have not a problem whatsoever. In general I see the same people daily who do the same thing and I feel safe.
By the way it is a beautiful way to start my day.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Originally Posted by SickOfCalifornia

This exact topic was just discussed in a very heated thread about the relative safety of Oakland, specifically the Lake Merritt area:

//www.city-data.com/forum/san-f...-merriett.html

While some people thought it was just fine, others advised that it was not particularly safe. I don't know about you, but when there is an argument about an area's safety, and half the people think it is safe and the other half say it is unsafe, I tend to favor the side that says unsafe. The people who say it's safe are usually only going off anecdotal evidence, and why would you want to risk the option that precludes the other half being entirely wrong? If you are safety-minded, you don't simply ignore the arguments of those who vote for unsafe.

Nail on the head. A conclusion supported by logic, no less.

[baybook]

Instead of posting your own anecdotal advice, why don't you use it?

If you read the last post, you would find that the overwhelming majority of folks on the safe list actually LIVE IN OAKLAND.

Originally Posted by SickOfCalifornia

This exact topic was just discussed in a very heated thread about the relative safety of Oakland, specifically the Lake Merritt area:

//www.city-data.com/forum/san-f...-merriett.html

While some people thought it was just fine, others advised that it was not particularly safe. I don't know about you, but when there is an argument about an area's safety, and half the people think it is safe and the other half say it is unsafe, I tend to favor the side that says unsafe. The people who say it's safe are usually only going off anecdotal evidence, and why would you want to risk the option that precludes the other half being entirely wrong? If you are safety-minded, you don't simply ignore the arguments of those who vote for unsafe.

[Joe_Ryder]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

Nail on the head. A conclusion supported by logic, no less.

An appeal to ignorance, or Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is a logical fallacy.

[SickOfCalifornia]

You know, it doesn't matter where you live - in even the worst cities in America, a vast majority of the people who live there are never mugged, raped, or killed. And just because significant majority of a city's population never encounters these crimes does not necessarily mean they are safe. The question is one of likelihood. The statistics in Oakland speak for themselves, and I don't care how many residents post their anecdotal evidence to the contrary - they are merely part of the large majority who are not affected by crime. There are people who walk around every single awful place in America every day who go completely unharmed. That doesn't make those places safe. Lake Merritt has some beauty and also has a crime problem. You can tell yourself (and others, apparently) that it is safe, but that doesn't make it so. It's a disservice to others to substitute anecdotal evidence for reality, as if your own personal experience tells the whole story.