Why is Oaklands crime rate higher than most? (Los Angeles, San Francisco: locations, gay)

[DocGoldstein]

I didn't make the Chicago comparison, though I was surprised that Chicago had a lower homicide rate than Oakland. I thought it was the other way around seeing as how Chicago has around 500+ murders a year and murderous gangs within the city.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by Senno

I don't disagree with the bolded really.

However we do have people flocking to Oakland to make it as the housing is cheaper there than anywhere else in the bay area generally relative to the rest of the Bay Area.

I think it's because Oakland is cheap. Much cheaper than S.F, and I've pointed this out on numerous occasions. People move to Oakland as a 2nd choice because they got priced out of places like S.F. Most of my Oakland tenants have previous addresses in S.F.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by jsba

Irvine really isn't comparable in size, it has a population of a little over 200k, 215 to be exact. Oakland is at what? 390K+ thats almost twice the size. a better comparison would be a city like Fresno, Long Beach, or Bakersfield. Lager cities by maybe a 100K or so but much more similar in size than Irvine.

Though this below the poverty line jazz is interesting. Do you think that maybe Oakland based on its central location attracts more people to it of low economic status because it is easier to move around the Bay Area from its central location? This is just a thought I actually have no input on that issue that is statistical.

Irvine is closer in size to Oakland than Oakland is to L.A.

But I agree Long Beach, Fresno, Bakersfield are better fits.

[Senno]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

I think it's because Oakland is cheap. Much cheaper than S.F, and I've pointed this out on numerous occasions. People move to Oakland as a 2nd choice because they got priced out of places like S.F.

Who have you interviewed that bemoans living in Oakland as they can't afford Frisco?

The people I know in Oakland moved to Oakland as their jobs are in Oakland and they can afford to live in Oakland.

Spoiler

Waits for SF is the center of the universe argument... LoL

Ahh, you edited in your tenants. /shrug

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

though I was surprised that Chicago had a lower homicide rate than Oakland.

Yes and now you that Oakland is generally more affluent than either Chicago or LA despite having a higher homicide rate.

2011 Census Data

Median Household Income
Oakland $50,500
Los Angeles $46,148
Chicago $43,628

Families Living Below Poverty Line
Chicago 19.7%
Los Angeles 18.4%
Oakland 17.2%

Median Earnings, Full time Employed Males
Oakland $50,289
Chicago $44,647
Los Angeles $36,413

[jsba]

That can't be the only reason people choose to live in Oakland as there are other even cheaper alternatives. I agree there is a portion of the population that live in Oakland because they were priced out of SF. In my area, Jack London, I would say its around half the population that live here because they can't afford SF. However they chose Oakland over just as cheep or cheaper areas Like Berkeley, or San Leandro, or Albany or various other east bay hoods. Not withstanding I wouldn't say for the majority of the populace Oakland is a second choice.

[18Montclair]

Oh, and Oakland is also more highly educate as well:

Adults with a Bachelor Degree or Higher, 2011
Oakland 37.9%
Chicago 33.5%
Los Angeles 30.8%

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by jsba

That can't be the only reason people choose to live in Oakland as there are other even cheaper alternatives. I agree there is a portion of the population that live in Oakland because they were priced out of SF. In my area, Jack London, I would say its around half the population that live here because they can't afford SF. However they chose Oakland over just as cheep or cheaper areas Like Berkeley, or San Leandro, or Albany or various other east bay hoods. Not withstanding I wouldn't say for the majority of the populace Oakland is a second choice.

Berkeley isn't exactly much cheaper for non-students, and Berkeley has a huge housing shortage because of students. Plus it's primarily known as a college town.

San Leandro is a bit further from S.F, so it is less of a choice for quick commuting across the bridge.

But compare housing prices of Alameda to say Eastlake, or Fruitvale. You'll find a huge difference in price.

[Senno]

Originally Posted by jsba

That can't be the only reason people choose to live in Oakland as there are other even cheaper alternatives. I agree there is a portion of the population that live in Oakland because they were priced out of SF. In my area, Jack London, I would say its around half the population that live here because they can't afford SF. However they chose Oakland over just as cheep or cheaper areas Like Berkeley, or San Leandro, or Albany or various other east bay hoods. Not withstanding I wouldn't say for the majority of the populace Oakland is a second choice.

People who identify as strongly Bay Arean tend to think everyone wants to live in SF.

[jsba]

Well I wouldn't compare Alameda to those two areas because its not comparable. Now Alameda is a solidly middle class to upper middle class city so I would compare more to areas like Redwood heights or Sequoyah. The housing in those areas are far more comparable and in most cases higher than those in Alameda.

Alameda is a good SF alternative. The other cities I picked based on the assumption that these SF transplants are working or hanging out on a regular basis in SF and therefor would appreciate a quick BART ride to the city. I have noticed however most transplants from SF aren't poor but usually solidly middle class or young families. They choose Oakland not for lack of options but as a conscious choice to be in the city and most are moving with price only being part of their reasoning for leaving SF.