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.
# of times someone was shot in front of my apartment building in SF: 1
# of times someone was shot in front of my apartment building in Oakland: 0
# of homeless people I'd see every day in my old neighborhoods in SF: uncountable
# of homeless people I'd see every day in my old neighborhood in Oakland: 2 at most, usually none
# of times I saw human feces in SF: uncountable
# of times I saw human feces in Oakland: 0
# of times I saw people smoking crack in public in SF: practically every day
# of times I saw people smoking crack in public in Oakland: 0
# of times I saw people dealing drugs openly in SF: every day
# of times I saw people dealing drugs openly in Oakland: 0
# of times I'd see winos lying around on the sidewalk guzzling malt liquor from dawn to dusk in SF: every day
# of times I'd see winos lying around on the sidewalk guzzling malt liquor from dawn to dusk in Oakland: 0
Basically I'm mainly comparing the Mission to Rockridge and the Temescal, though other stuff like poop and drugs I'd see (or not see) all over either city in rich or poor areas. Mission/Rockridge/Temescal are very different neighborhoods, but keep in mind I was making just about the same level of income while living in each city, and paying the same amount in rent to live in either. The Mission is a cool place to live but after a while seeing all that depravity wears you down, especially when you take stock of how much you're paying to live there.
Rockridge is a nice neighborhood in Oakland and the Mission is one of the dirtiest neighborhoods in the S.F. Not a good comparison at all. You just said so yourself. You could change it to a crap neighborhood in oakland and compare it to a nicer part of San Francisco and screw the results the other way if you wanted.
i don't make excuses for oaklands high crime rate i point out that most of the violent crime is localized to specific areas of the city
the overwelming majority of homicide victims in oakland are black and latino youth standing on street corners in east and west oakland after dark. a signifigant percentage of homicide victims are also parolees/probationeers
the low risk of violence to people who do not go to those parts of east oakland or fit that demographic profile is why national and international media rave about oaklands entertainment and dining scene
the globe and mail,cnn/ money magazine,forbes,the huffingtonpost,new york times,food & wine magazine ,boston globe,la times ,washington post,new york magazine,travel +leisure,sunset magazine,7x7 sf,smartertravel,sacremento bee,tastingtable,diablo magazine,conde nast traveler,businessweek,outside magazine,the city traveler,bon appetit magazine wall street journal and the independent UK all are encouraging about oaklands scene.
as the list of media sources continues to grow in praising oakland the people bashing oakland begin to look more and more off.
seriously, when the british press starts talking about oakland's scene i think the denial is getting pathalogical
It doesn't make it okay just because the majority of victims and are black or latino youth standing on street corners or whatever. I know want my whole community and city to be a become a better safer place. Don't you? What goes on in one part of the city I live in whether it's crime or new development does matter to me. The unsafe neighborhoods are an important part of the city as much as the safer areas. No one should turn a blind eye just because it's not in their part of town.
Also people might have a different opinion if they actually lived in the less desirable areas.
Many parts of West Oakland are way cheaper for a reason. And there are many other types of areas in Oakland that fewer issues with crime.
But then those aren't all that cheaper than San Francisco. Median home price in Rockridge is right around a million, half again more expensive than the median home price in Sunset in San Francisco. Not sure where the neighborhood cutoffs are for schools, but there's a good chance they feed into the abysmal schools. So if you've got a million for a house and $30,000 per year per kid for private school tuition, yes, I'd agree that Oakland is great. I'd personally rather live in Rockridge than Sunset, except maybe Inner Sunset which has very good schools. That only works, now, if you have young kids in preschool. Otherwise, you're pretty much subjected to the lottery system and it's even worse than feeding into a lousy school in say Temescal. At least in Oakland, your kids aren't sent off in separate directions clear across the city to lousy schools.
For younger people, neighborhoods like Temescal or Adams Point are attractive. They're pretty affordable, not complete war zones of the economically marginalized turned to "street cliques." But they're not attractive to most families because the schools are horrible and the crime is high. That's why you're seeing so much middle- and working-class flight from Oakland. Oakland is like a lot of cities in that it's Ground-Zero for the growing income disparity in America. The middle is increasingly getting the hell out of Dodge. Factor in $40-60k for private school tuition, and even if a suburb is more expensive to buy into it has a functional school system and lower crime. Of course, that's the catch 22. Improve the schools and it's just going to be that much more expensive.
And just as an interesting tidbit, it's interesting how white people just don't engage in Oakland's public school system. Non-Hispanic whites are 26% of Oakland by population, but make up less than 10% of public school enrollment. I suspect it's a combination of white students coming from more affluent families who can afford private schools. To a lesser degree, there's also probably a larger percentage of younger whites with no kids. Blacks and Hispanics are both over-represented. Hispanic families due tend to be larger, which is a pretty major factor in that. San Francisco has the same thing. Whites just don't participate in the public school system there either. The interesting thing is that Asian families do, which probably has something to do with why Sunset has such great schools. You don't have the selection bias going on where a large number of the parents that give a crap are pulling the kids out to go to private schools or if they can't afford it fleeing for a suburb.
For younger people, neighborhoods like Temescal or Adams Point are attractive. They're pretty affordable, not complete war zones of the economically marginalized turned to "street cliques." But they're not attractive to most families because the schools are horrible and the crime is high. That's why you're seeing so much middle- and working-class flight from Oakland. Oakland is like a lot of cities in that it's Ground-Zero for the growing income disparity in America. The middle is increasingly getting the hell out of Dodge. Factor in $40-60k for private school tuition, and even if a suburb is more expensive to buy into it has a functional school system and lower crime. Of course, that's the catch 22. Improve the schools and it's just going to be that much more expensive.
And just as an interesting tidbit, it's interesting how white people just don't engage in Oakland's public school system. Non-Hispanic whites are 26% of Oakland by population, but make up less than 10% of public school enrollment. I suspect it's a combination of white students coming from more affluent families who can afford private schools. To a lesser degree, there's also probably a larger percentage of younger whites with no kids. Blacks and Hispanics are both over-represented. Hispanic families due tend to be larger, which is a pretty major factor in that. San Francisco has the same thing. Whites just don't participate in the public school system there either. The interesting thing is that Asian families do, which probably has something to do with why Sunset has such great schools. You don't have the selection bias going on where a large number of the parents that give a crap are pulling the kids out to go to private schools or if they can't afford it fleeing for a suburb.
One thing to note, elementary schools are improving a lot in Oakland. Most are actually pretty good. But somewhere between middle and high school the middle class kids start leaving. It will be interesting to see how this trend plays out over the next 5-10 years. There are a lot of young families in Temescal, Adam's Point and Grand Lake. Have you seen all the kids stores in those areas? I've got a ton of neighborhoods with toddlers...and they have all bought condos in recent years. I have also met quite a few parents to be who live in Uptown.
I don't now what part of Oakland you live in. But the majority of my friends that were priced out of San Francisco have moved to West Oakland. They describe it as pretty dangerous, but they love that the rent is low and they have a lot of space. For instance one of my friends is able to grow his own vegetables and keep chickens. Another is able to have a music studio in his home because he has a lot of space. But I know they have both had multiple shootings in their neighborhoods.
What neighborhoods do they live in? What's their definition of dangerous? Even in West Oakland, homicides and shootings are concentrated?
It doesn't make it okay just because the majority of victims and are black or latino youth standing on street corners or whatever. I know want my whole community and city to be a become a better safer place. Don't you? What goes on in one part of the city I live in whether it's crime or new development does matter to me. The unsafe neighborhoods are an important part of the city as much as the safer areas. No one should turn a blind eye just because it's not in their part of town.
Also people might have a different opinion if they actually lived in the less desirable areas.
I live in a scary area -- East Oakland flatlands. I learned, as sad as it is, I can't fix people.
I've done the hand wringing, the neighborhood get togethers, the taking back the nights, the let's all get together and sing Kumbayas.... but I stopped. I can't make people live better lives and raise better children. They have to want to change their paths, and have the strength to do so.
As someone who has watched someone fight addiction to alcohol and drugs and lose, over and over, and someone else who suffered from mental illness, and insisted every one else was to blame and SHE was fine.... there comes a time where you have to stop worrying about them and accept they are lost. If you don't, they will take down into their own circle of hell. In the bad parts of Oakland, that pretty much sums it up.
I know that makes me sound like an uncaring beast, but I need to take care of myself and my family and business, and the last time I checked I wasn't omnipotent.
What neighborhoods do they live in? What's their definition of dangerous? Even in West Oakland, homicides and shootings are concentrated?
I have no idea. I've haven't been to see their new places. They both had owner move ins done on them in the Northern Mission district in San Francisco ( that used to be my stomping grounds too when I was younger). Then they moved to West Oakland, don't know which part just that they have already seen lots of crime. One said a walk to the corner store is always an adventure. These two people are both my friends but don't know each other.
But then those aren't all that cheaper than San Francisco. Median home price in Rockridge is right around a million, half again more expensive than the median home price in Sunset in San Francisco. Not sure where the neighborhood cutoffs are for schools, but there's a good chance they feed into the abysmal schools. So if you've got a million for a house and $30,000 per year per kid for private school tuition, yes, I'd agree that Oakland is great. I'd personally rather live in Rockridge than Sunset, except maybe Inner Sunset which has very good schools. That only works, now, if you have young kids in preschool. Otherwise, you're pretty much subjected to the lottery system and it's even worse than feeding into a lousy school in say Temescal. At least in Oakland, your kids aren't sent off in separate directions clear across the city to lousy schools.
For younger people, neighborhoods like Temescal or Adams Point are attractive. They're pretty affordable, not complete war zones of the economically marginalized turned to "street cliques." But they're not attractive to most families because the schools are horrible and the crime is high. That's why you're seeing so much middle- and working-class flight from Oakland. Oakland is like a lot of cities in that it's Ground-Zero for the growing income disparity in America. The middle is increasingly getting the hell out of Dodge. Factor in $40-60k for private school tuition, and even if a suburb is more expensive to buy into it has a functional school system and lower crime. Of course, that's the catch 22. Improve the schools and it's just going to be that much more expensive.
And just as an interesting tidbit, it's interesting how white people just don't engage in Oakland's public school system. Non-Hispanic whites are 26% of Oakland by population, but make up less than 10% of public school enrollment. I suspect it's a combination of white students coming from more affluent families who can afford private schools. To a lesser degree, there's also probably a larger percentage of younger whites with no kids. Blacks and Hispanics are both over-represented. Hispanic families due tend to be larger, which is a pretty major factor in that. San Francisco has the same thing. Whites just don't participate in the public school system there either. The interesting thing is that Asian families do, which probably has something to do with why Sunset has such great schools. You don't have the selection bias going on where a large number of the parents that give a crap are pulling the kids out to go to private schools or if they can't afford it fleeing for a suburb.
Excellent post. I've tried to argue this before, that the Oakland middle class is a thing of the past, but always get dog piled on by people claiming Oakland is some bastion for middle class "hipsters" and artist who have found a paradise in West Oakland.
So why would you believe those articles published by news outlets which are thousands of miles away, but totally disregard local media in the area of Oakland?
So I guess no one is going to answer this? I guess we'll just have to assume that the people claiming Oakland is being demonized by the local media only claim that when the press is NOT a glowing review of the city of Oakland. Otherwise, it's a "great well written article".
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.
