Is Oakland Like Newark, NJ? (Los Angeles, San Francisco: apartment, city hall, crime)

[04kL4nD]

I've lived in Oakland for the past 6 years, OP. Send me a direct message if you want advice/tips.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

I've lived in Oakland for the past 6 years, OP. Send me a direct message if you want advice/tips.

Same here....I think it is year 9 for me... preceded with some time in Berkeley, Alameda and Dublin.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by jsba

Doc, it is in fact true about any city. The majority of violent crime happens to people involved in a select set of high risk activities. Oakland is no different. The number of people involved in those activities is high in Oakland however, but by and large the crime only effects that group. Oakland is the epicenter of the ingress and egress of drugs into the northern part of the state mostly due to geography. You can get everywhere in the bay area reasonably fast from Oakland. This is unfortunate for the city, but not unique crime wise. Miami, LA, New York basically any central city in a major (5million+) metro area will have a substantial crime rate among that exact demographic. Oakland, unlike most of those cities, except Miami, has a much smaller population to dilute the damage those groups do on themselves.

Well when we look at crime, it's all about the numbers IMO. Anecdotal stories, and experience do have some relevance, but not as much as overall stats.

Per capita, Oakland has the worst violent crime rate in California. As a whole, you are more likely to be a victim in Oakland than Los Angeles, or SF. Yes if you are a drug dealer, the percentage sky rockets, but that's true of any city, as we both agreed.

So everything else equal, Oakland is more dangerous for people than other cities with lower violent crime rates. That's my point.

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Well when we look at crime, it's all about the numbers IMO. Anecdotal stories, and experience do have some relevance, but not as much as overall stats.

Per capita, Oakland has the worst violent crime rate in California. As a whole, you are more likely to be a victim in Oakland than Los Angeles, or SF. Yes if you are a drug dealer, the percentage sky rockets, but that's true of any city, as we both agreed.

So everything else equal, Oakland is more dangerous for people than other cities with lower violent crime rates. That's my point.

Well in my opinion, 'stats' and numbers count for far less than first-hand and actual lived experiences.

When consulting strangers on the internet about relo plans, I'd probably take the advise from a long-term resident over someone who doesn't even live there. But hey, that's just me and my opinion.

[DocGoldstein]

Stats don't lie.

"First hand experiences" can be full of lies.

[Natural510]

Statistically, the Angels should've won the West last year

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Stats don't lie.

"First hand experiences" can be full of lies.

Stats show the real picture. First hand experience is only fine if you are talking about a very specific area where you spend everyday at, but definitely not an entire city.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Stats show the real picture. First hand experience is only fine if you are talking about a very specific area where you spend everyday at, but definitely not an entire city.

But as you mention yourself, you don't spend all if your time in the entire city. Only a few areas. So doesn't it make sense to focus on the stats for the areas you frequent? Most crime in Oakland is concentrated both geographically and to certain groups. As we ascertained in the tale of two cities thread, your life in Oakland is very dependent on the part if town you frequent. So overall stats for the city don't paint an accurate picture if what might happen to you.

SF is "safer" than Oakland, but not so much if you are young and Latino and live in the mission. Are you a white hipster? Well your life will be different.


I am on my phone, please forgive the typos.

[bmw335xi]

I agree that a person living in neighborhood x has the best information about neighborhood x. However, to say a Latino living in the mission district is more at risk than if he/she lived in West Oakland is completely false. Unless you are a Latino that lived in both the Mission and West Oakland, you are just assuming and when someone assumes, I'll look at stats and facts.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

I agree that a person living in neighborhood x has the best information about neighborhood x. However, to say a Latino living in the mission district is more at risk than if he/she lived in West Oakland is completely false. Unless you are a Latino that lived in both the Mission and West Oakland, you are just assuming and when someone assumes, I'll look at stats and facts.

Lets just say it is a lot safer for someone young and Latino to live in grand lake than the mission, although sf is "safer"


I am on my phone, please forgive the typos.