To those who think SF is safer than Oakland-:)

[majoun]

Originally Posted by jade408

@Davachka, the thread was started to serve as a contrast to the amount of media coverage of crimes in SF vs the neighboring cities. SF's crime reporting rate is probably 25% of actual crime, and the local media tends to over-report crime in the neighboring cities. For example, an ATM robbery hold up in Oakland will be on the news on 5 regional stations. In SF it will only show up on the neighborhood watch blog.

When looking at crime statistics the best indicator of real violent crime is murders, because they are the most difficult crime to cover up. If one sees statistics indicating a larger number of murders in a neighborhood then it is also going to have higher levels of other violent crimes. (As for nonviolent property crime - that's a problem in SF but it's also a problem in every city in the state, and in most suburban areas and many rural areas in the state.)

This said, yes, SF does have more than its share of violent crime - it's not AS obvious to someone just passing through or visiting, you really have to live here to know that.

Oakland's violent crime is concentrated in certain neighborhoods and there are many safe areas in Oakland which make up for other areas being out of control crimewise.

I'm a fan of both SF and Oakland, but they are different cities. What is true is that SF violent crimes *other than murder* don't get reported as much by the media like those in other Bay Area cities do.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by majoun

What is true is that SF violent crimes *other than murder* don't get reported as much by the media like those in other Bay Area cities do.

Shootings in SF are ridiculously under-reported.

[Davachka]

I understand...however, the OP was listing various murders/crimes in the first post to show that SF is dangerous similarly to Oakland.

The statistics I posted showed SF actually has far less murders/crimes than Oakland, and also far less than in various cities I have lived, including east coast, midwest, south, etc.These are crime rate statistics, not media statistics, and more difficult to cover up or exclude.

Originally Posted by jade408

@Davachka, the thread was started to serve as a contrast to the amount of media coverage of crimes in SF vs the neighboring cities. SF's crime reporting rate is probably 25% of actual crime, and the local media tends to over-report crime in the neighboring cities. For example, an ATM robbery hold up in Oakland will be on the news on 5 regional stations. In SF it will only show up on the neighborhood watch blog.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by Davachka

I understand...however, the OP was listing various murders/crimes in the first post to show that SF is dangerous similarly to Oakland.

The statistics I posted showed SF actually has far less murders/crimes than Oakland, and also far less than in various cities I have lived, including east coast, midwest, south, etc.These are crime rate statistics, not media statistics, and more difficult to cover up or exclude.

And you will never see a report in the Chronicle on the actual city stats. It is really weird. And annoying.

For example, a few years ago the Chronicle had a special report on the "alarming murder rate in Oakland." The same year SFs murder rate wasn't far behind, and there was zero coverage.

Crime in Oakland and SF is very different generally. SF crime is typically more random and opportunistic. Oakland crime tends to be more targeted. But the media perception is that Oakland is far more dangerous than SF. In reality, for the average resident in a middle class area, Oakland is safer than SF. (Hence the thread) If you are in an area with lots of drug/gang activity it is a toss up.

[redfish1]

SF as a whole much is safer than OAKTOWN.
no comparison

[goldenchild08]

SF as a whole much is safer than OAKTOWN.
no comparison

Safe is a relative term. I used to know a young refugee from the war-torn country of Liberia who grew up literally stepping over dozens of dead bodies and fending for himself without family in a real life warzone. Miraculously, he survived living a childhood of ducking constant gunfire, literally living in trees and scavenging for food only to be killed in the United States when he was older. He was murdered out of the blue at a party in a wealthy suburban area that is known to be very "safe" with a very low violent crime rate. Similarly, my family used to live a few feet away from a corner that had the one of the highest concentration of homicides in San Francisco in the early 90's on Randolph Street in Ingleside Heights and we never witnessed a murder or were victimized. However, I have been randomly assaulted in a stereotypically safe suburban area with a low crime rate in Maryland. Go figure.

Whether or not you get victimized depends greatly on who you are. If you are unemployed and your hobbies include get stinking drunk outdoors with other unemployed drunk people, then you have a very high chance of being assaulted, robbed, murdered, etc. Same thing if you are a drug dealer or a gang member. If you have an ounce of street smarts and common sense, you probably won't be victimized in SF or Oakland or any other big city.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by redfish1

SF as a whole much is safer than OAKTOWN.
no comparison

Actually. That isn't really true. The likelihood of being a victim of a random serious crime in SF is higher than in Oakland. Like the above post says, if you engage in riskier behaviors or hang out with riskier people, your odds are about the same on either side of the bay.

If you compare middle class, upper class, and downtown areas, Oakland is safer and has a lower crime rate. Contrary to popular belief.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by jade408

Actually. That isn't really true. The likelihood of being a victim of a random serious crime in SF is higher than in Oakland. Like the above post says, if you engage in riskier behaviors or hang out with riskier people, your odds are about the same on either side of the bay.

If you compare middle class, upper class, and downtown areas, Oakland is safer and has a lower crime rate. Contrary to popular belief.

Your post is debatable.

I have not seen a single post breaking down neighborhood to neighborhood crime for both cities. Its easy for Oaklands nice areas to avoid crime when they have 580 and a large hillside as a physical barrier.