Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The OP didn't deserve such a thoughtful response, notice after countless responses to review the wealth of info available, he hasn't return to ask questions.
I'm here. I'm reading.
But really, nothing has overturned the mass of credible info out there that Oakland is a bad place.
Being in the top 5 or 10 most dangerous cities in many, many credible lists pretty much says "It's a bad place" in capital letters.
The only real question is "Where are the bad places?" and "Can the bad be avoided in one's daily life?"
There's a thread in hear "All about Oakland" or some such, trying to paint it all wonderful. But again, what good are all the good points if the place is a leading spot for personal and property crime etc.?
So, same end point. What do folks that are stuck there do about it? Where to they, for lack of better terminology, "hide" from it?
Humm strange sonny a majority of those people rioting are white in ALL those videos. Yes, blacks are the majority of the players but you would have to be quiet dim to think that the players are out in the street leading these riots. more specifically the cities in each of those videos are 65% or more white in their population. further more a majority of those well off folks you speak of in the above post both reside and hang out in Oakland, and a good number of them are black. i know this because 1, I'm a part of that group and 2 everybody i hang out with is part of that group. you should pop on down to the Oakland rotary meeting. Oaklands rotary is the third formed rotary in the world and is very well attended. You should explain to them how "bad" their city is and see what response you get.
You're missing the point. They were riots over sports games of all things. An endeavor generally dominated by blacks and hence black culture really. Same for rap music too.
When pro sports figures and rappers are shooting at each other and torturing dogs and whatever, what do you expect of fans?
So if Oakland is so wonderful, why is it on Dangerous City Lists and even Wikipedia talks about it's crime issues? I mean, if the place were so great, how'd it get the bad rep?
I mean let's be serious here. What value does the media have in putting a place on a "Dangerous City" list if it isn't?
Do a little research, pull up any number of "Most Dangerous City Lists", then go over to Wikipedia and look at the demograpics. All the top cities are way above average AA count of 12%. The leaders (generally Detroit and Atlanta, etc. depending on the year) are generally black majority.
The correlation is quite strong, even to the casual observer. The only conclusion one individual trying to raise a family can come to is, "Avoid places that are black."
Perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, the vast number of problem schools you hear about have over representations of blacks.
We can deny it all we want, but until the numbers change, which means the black community has to change, people are going to reach the same conclusion over and over again.
So fine, you're OK with those areas, great. Just don't hold it against those of us who don't. It's as wrong to force integration as it is segregation. Both inpinge on freedom of choice.
Whatever. I can see from the data, Oakland doesn't buck the trend.
Because we all know how the sport of hockey (re: exhibit C - the Vancouver riots) has been just overrun these days with blacks, both on the ice and in the stands. There must be a full dozen AA players in the league now.
Sonny boy, in post after post, you have clearly outed yourself as a racist troll. If you were remotely earnest in your original inquiry, you would have taken Jade408's generous advice by now, and taken the time to educate yourself about some of Oakland's nicer neighborhoods. As she's stated, there's an abundance of information already on these boards, all yours for the searching.
Here, I'll even give you some keywords to get you started: Rockridge, Montclair, Temescal, Piedmont Ave, Lake Merritt, Grand Lake, Dimond, Laurel. But you won't do that, because that's not really why you're here is it?
Maybe you can surprise me, and post something informed...that doesn't use the words "You Tube" or "riots".
Just go read the Oakland page in Wikipedia. Then google "Most Dangerous Cities Oakland".
The question isn't "Are the any nice places in Oakland?" Heck there's probably nice places in Detroit if you can afford them. Every town has it's richy rich section.
The question is, "Can the bad be avoided?". Which gets harder the larger the problem areas are.
Yes, Hockey players and fans can be idiotic too. I never said non-blacks were saints. And by all stats I can find, the asian folks have the lowest problem rates, followed by whites, then hispanics then blacks. Not sure where Native Americans fit into the spectrum.
I have to wonder about pro sports fans in general. "Gee let's throw money at guys who play high school sports at a really high level so they can live great lives and we can riot over the games."
Seriously, why's the place have such a bad national rep if it's all good?
Anyway, Jade408, if you're out there, thanks much.
This should trump your claims, and shoot this "bad reputation" of Oakland down for good.
The executive board of the American Society of Criminology (ASC) has approved a resolution opposing the development of city crime rankings from FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs). "These rankings represent an irresponsible misuse of the data and do groundless harm to many communities," said ASC President Michael Tonry, professor of law and public policy at the University of Minnesota. "They also work against a key goal of our society, which is a better understanding of crime-related issues by both scientists and the public." Since 1994, Morgan Quitno Press, a tiny Lawrence, Kan.-based publisher, has produced an annual list of the "safest" and "most dangerous" U.S. cities. CQ Press, a division of Congressional Quarterly, Inc., purchased Morgan Quitno in June 2007, and is scheduled to publish the rankings again next week. The resolution, approved at the ASC's annual meeting now under way here, states: "Be it resolved, that the Executive Board of the American Society of Criminology opposes the use of Uniform Crime Reports data to rank American cities as 'dangerous' or 'safe' without proper consideration of the limitations of these data. Such rankings are invalid, damaging, and irresponsible. They fail to account for the many conditions affecting crime rates, the mismeasurement of crime, large community differences in crime within cities, and the factors affecting individuals' crime risk. City crime rankings make no one safer, but they can harm the cities they tarnish and divert attention from the individual and community characteristics that elevate crime in all cities. The American Society of Criminology urges media outlets to subject city crime rankings to scientifically sound evaluation and will make crime experts available to assist in this vital public responsibility." The Society's resolution is the second passed in recent months deploring crime rankings by community. Last June, the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a similar measure, which also committed the Conference to working with the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice "to educate reporters, elected officials, and citizens on what the (UCR) data means and doesn't mean." In addition, the FBI has posted the following disclaimer on its Web site with the UCR data: Caution Against Ranking -- Each year when Crime in the United States is published, some entities use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, or region. Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual reporting units from cities, metropolitan areas, states, or colleges or universities solely on the basis of their population coverage or student enrollment.
Maybe you didn't notice when "researching" Oakland, but Oakland is on more than that one list:
• walkability
• coolest cities
• most fun cities
• best climate
• healthiest cities
• cities of the future
• best cities for dating
• most educated cities
• best music towns
• longest life spans
• best cities for young adults
• most diverse cities
• and the list goes on
OK, let's wade in a little, but I'll say up front, it matters little when time is short and one must make a decision. Better to play the odds that go against them.
All those lists are fine an dandy, but it you're surrounded by bad areas, it invalidates all that. Been my experience you want at least a 10-20 mile buffer from bad areas, if possible. But that's just me.
Certainly sounds high minded. But it "Trumps" nothing until we find out what the statistics that were used are, and how/if they were improperly used.
It's just as possible the numbers are dead on, until we ascertain the methods. Which we likely won't be able to do.
What we have here is a Politically Correct denouncement. Big black cities are tired of being cited as the most dangerous places, and that's "not acceptable" so a number of political and gov't groups decided to grandstand on it. It's bad for business to be a "Most Dangerous City", at the very least.
I mean, really. what else can they say?
Consider, if you say, "Jewish people run Hollywood", you'll get reamed for it as a racist... unless you're Jewish, LOL!:
So is it "racist" if it's actually true? What if they guy saying it is from the demographic? Why should that make a difference? Facts are facts (hard as they are to come by.) Even if a racists says something, if it's true, it's true... otherwise you're engaging in an ad hominem attack.
But seriously, how is using crime statistics on a per capita basis not a valid measurement?
No matter how you slice it and dice, Oakland *does* have a bad reputation. It's all over the web. It's even in Wikipedia.
Whether it's deserved or not is perhaps the question on the table.
So let's ask who the ASC is exactly and why thier opinion holds more weight that FBI numbers? And also, what exactly is wrong with Morgan Quito's methods?
Seems like a fair place to start.
So let's start with Quito since it's easiest. They defend thier rankings as follows (So how do we know who's right?)
"CQ Press has taken the position that they are in effect practicing journalism. On November 19, 2007, CQ Press publisher John A. Jenkins issues a statement entitled "Why CQ Press Publishes City Crime Rankings: A Response to the Critics".[8] While Jenkins concedes that "crime-ranking information contains many variables and that all must be considered carefully," he points out that "we take very seriously our responsibility to keep Americans informed -- even if the news is not good. So we publish such data, even if it causes cities and officials to feel aggrieved."
So we all's we really have are the stats, which we haven't seen yet, and two different opinions on thier validity. On one side, a publishing company. On the other Academics and Gov't people. Niether side can be counted on to be impartial.
But the real stats, if we had them, might be.
OK, The ASC:
"The American Society of Criminology is an international organization whose members pursue scholarly, scientific and professional knowledge concerning the measurement, etiology, consequences, prevention, control, and treatment of crime and delinquency. The Society was organized in Berkeley, California in December 1941."
Well, apparently they've changed stripes.... in 1979 they were being accused of being racist and sexist:
"
[LEFT] Crime and Social Justice No. 11 (1979)[/LEFT]
On the American Society of Criminology
[RIGHT]
Editors
[/RIGHT]
As many of you know, over the last few years there have been a number of serious criticisms of the American Society of Criminology -- its conservative policies, its failure to respond to the current crisis in the field, its inbred and self-perpetuating executive board, its unwillingness to recruit minorities and women, and its expensive and unrepresentative annual conferences."
OK, so that's way out of date, but bottom line is, without more research, we don't really know what thier unspoken agenda and leanings are.
As for the FBI stats:
Since I don't know what they are, can't really comment.
But I can say Quito at least was using stats, vrs. making a political grandstand.
I'll have to continue researching.
Last edited by SonnyBelt; 08-02-2011 at 08:12 PM..
There's a thread in hear "All about Oakland" or some such, trying to paint it all wonderful. But again, what good are all the good points if the place is a leading spot for personal and property crime etc.?
So, same end point. What do folks that are stuck there do about it? Where to they, for lack of better terminology, "hide" from it?
Lots of people live in Oakland by choice because:
a. it is actually diverse meaning different people live in the same neighborhood
b. it is one of the few walkable/transit friendly places in the bay area
c. restaurants are top notch in all price ranges
d. there are a variety of neighborhood types: denser "downtown" neighborhoods, dense "main street" neighborhoods, suburban neighborhoods, posh estates with views in all price ranges (well besides the posh estates).
You'll find that SF has a vested interested as painting Oakland as "bad" so the tourists can feel like SF is "safe" since Oakland is "crime-ridden." Serious crime in Oakland is generally isolated
Certainly sounds high minded. But it "Trumps" nothing until we find out what the statistics that were used are, and how/if they were improperly used.
It's just as possible the numbers are dead on, until we ascertain the methods. Which we likely won't be able to do.
But seriously, how is using crime statistics on a per capita basis not a valid measurement?
No matter how you slice it and dice, Oakland *does* have a bad reputation. It's all over the web. It's even in Wikipedia.
Read it again until you understand.
(You can swim in the Sea of Knowledge all day, and still come out competely dry. Most people do. - Norman Juster)
The executive board of the American Society of Criminology (ASC) has approved a resolution opposing the development of city crime rankings from FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs). "These rankings represent an irresponsible misuse of the data and do groundless harm to many communities," said ASC President Michael Tonry, professor of law and public policy at the University of Minnesota. "They also work against a key goal of our society, which is a better understanding of crime-related issues by both scientists and the public." Since 1994, Morgan Quitno Press, a tiny Lawrence, Kan.-based publisher, has produced an annual list of the "safest" and "most dangerous" U.S. cities. CQ Press, a division of Congressional Quarterly, Inc., purchased Morgan Quitno in June 2007, and is scheduled to publish the rankings again next week. The resolution, approved at the ASC's annual meeting now under way here, states: "Be it resolved, that the Executive Board of the American Society of Criminology opposes the use of Uniform Crime Reports data to rank American cities as 'dangerous' or 'safe' without proper consideration of the limitations of these data. Such rankings are invalid, damaging, and irresponsible. They fail to account for the many conditions affecting crime rates, the mismeasurement of crime, large community differences in crime within cities, and the factors affecting individuals' crime risk. City crime rankings make no one safer, but they can harm the cities they tarnish and divert attention from the individual and community characteristics that elevate crime in all cities. The American Society of Criminology urges media outlets to subject city crime rankings to scientifically sound evaluation and will make crime experts available to assist in this vital public responsibility." The Society's resolution is the second passed in recent months deploring crime rankings by community. Last June, the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a similar measure, which also committed the Conference to working with the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice "to educate reporters, elected officials, and citizens on what the (UCR) data means and doesn't mean." In addition, the FBI has posted the following disclaimer on its Web site with the UCR data: Caution Against Ranking -- Each year when Crime in the United States is published, some entities use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, or region. Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual reporting units from cities, metropolitan areas, states, or colleges or universities solely on the basis of their population coverage or student enrollment.
Considering the psychotic anti-Oakland-ness of his posting style and name-dropping of the OC I'm gonna go with it being a Craptastic alt. I guess he's finally got some free time set aside from his waiter gig.
And I just spent 4 days in the OC and it's such a mess compared to the Bay Area. It's either dirty suburban sprawl or gaudy mansions by the beach. The nice parts of Oakland are 10,000 times better. I spent all day wandering around Oakland and I had a great time and didn't have to spend all day in aggravating traffic like in the OC.
You're missing the point. They were riots over sports games of all things. An endeavor generally dominated by blacks and hence black culture really. Same for rap music too.
When pro sports figures and rappers are shooting at each other and torturing dogs and whatever, what do you expect of fans?
So if Oakland is so wonderful, why is it on Dangerous City Lists and even Wikipedia talks about it's crime issues? I mean, if the place were so great, how'd it get the bad rep?
I mean let's be serious here. What value does the media have in putting a place on a "Dangerous City" list if it isn't?
Do a little research, pull up any number of "Most Dangerous City Lists", then go over to Wikipedia and look at the demograpics. All the top cities are way above average AA count of 12%. The leaders (generally Detroit and Atlanta, etc. depending on the year) are generally black majority.
The correlation is quite strong, even to the casual observer. The only conclusion one individual trying to raise a family can come to is, "Avoid places that are black."
Perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, the vast number of problem schools you hear about have over representations of blacks.
We can deny it all we want, but until the numbers change, which means the black community has to change, people are going to reach the same conclusion over and over again.
So fine, you're OK with those areas, great. Just don't hold it against those of us who don't. It's as wrong to force integration as it is segregation. Both inpinge on freedom of choice.
Whatever. I can see from the data, Oakland doesn't buck the trend.
are you aware the largest racial group in oakland are caucasions at 41%?
oaklands demographics are not at all similar to detroit or atlanta.
what bigots don't understand ratios and percentages?
are you aware the largest racial group in oakland are caucasions at 41%?
oaklands demographics are not at all similar to detroit or atlanta.
what bigots don't understand ratios and percentages?
Exactly. Except you answered your point. Bigots don't understand; they assume.
crime, race, ethnicity, nationality, culture, education, money, time
None of these determinants can "trended" without bias on the part of the individual (ie. Bigot). General assumptions are NEVER a good starting point and especially when dealing with stigmatized concepts such as race. Rational interpretation of anthropological and sociological data is the only starting point but it's also super boring and will put most city-data folk to sleep in a couple posts. Suffice it to say there are some more obvious patterns in all these aforementioned factors. If you have enough time, education, and money, then seeking correlations between crime and race/ethnicity/nationality/culture becomes irrelevant if not entirely futile.
The OP said his bit and proved his determined ignorance; buried conspicuously under a pile of sh-t arguments riddled with textbook fallacies.
Probably better left alone now.
That being said, there are a ton of AMGs in Glendale. You can't throw a tall non-fat 3 pump chai without hitting at least 5 CL65s.
Violence is mainly gang on gang crime
With once in awhile civilian casualities. This crazy rep is undeserved. Worked there 5 years hung out. It depends on your circle of friends if you are around violence. If you are scared don't come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonnyBelt
Hi All,
1) Oakland was rated 4th most violent city in the US last year. SF and Berk aren't much better. I know of three people who have been mugged recently in very public places. I hear about kids getting shot each weekend. it's embarrassing.
And the counterpoint...
2) OK here comes the Oakland bashing again. Yipee. OK you folks from zip codes with 4 towns, please note that Oakland has 13 zip codes. Before you go and make generalizations, I'd recommend you take a look at each zip code in Oakland specifically. You might be surprised.
So where are the good zip codes vrs. the bad, or how to find out?
Photos in the photo thread make the place look like, I dunno, downtown Dubuque only larger. I.e. looks like everything was built in the 1800's and run down since.
But then much of NYC in places as that sort of duality. Run down areas right next to really expensive areas. (IMHO this is one of the reasons big cities suck, but that's another thread I suppose, 'cause there are always folks who thing "urban is chic" or whatever. I feel it's just crowded and dirty. But that's just me.)
...
Was just looking at another thread about Oakland and found this:
1) Black culture has always been the prevailing culture in Oakland so it's not very surprising that ghetto black culture is used throughout the ghetto.
Is Oakland "ghetto"? All of it? Some of it? Does the ghetto culture pervade any and all surrounding suburbs?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
