Hi, I might be moving to Hayward, Cali ( is it hat bad?) (San Francisco: transplants, crime rates)

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by funtimessf

San Mateo had 1 murder last year, that's 0.01 per thousand, or 5 times lower than the national average. These stats include Shoreview BTW. Cupertino and Walnut Creek also had 1 murder each but that makes it 2 times more likely to get murdered there than San Mateo. Hardly the stats of a scary, gang-infested city.

It is impressive, actually, that a city of San Mateo's size and diversity has such low crime. Shoreview is pretty much gentrified at this point. Houses sell in the high $500's/sqft there.

Hayward is at 0.05 per thousand, about average for the U.S. Oakland is at 0.26 per thousand, or over 5 times higher than the national average. Put another way, you are 26 times more likely to get murdered in Oakland than in San Mateo.

Murder is not the only kind of crime to worry about... in fact, for the vast majority of the posters on this website it's the kind of crime they least have to worry about considering most on here are not black/latino/pacific islander nor are they affiliated with anyone who's actively in a gang or an active street-level criminal.

Property crime is not rare in San Mateo at all and in fact is on the rise in the entire county by 36%. And a big part of San Mateo's low O/A crime rate is due to under-reporting, namely in North Central and Shoreview. North Central is a heavily immigrant community and similar to east RWC has a lot of illegal garage conversions... they don't stand to gain much from reporting crime. In Walnut Creek this is all but a non-issue.

San Mateo obviously is not a high-crime city nor lawless but the crime that does happen there is largely concentrated in North Central and Shoreview which aren't quite as tame as the crime-rate would lead you to believe. Drug busts, stabbings and occasional shootings are not unheard of. B&E is very common.

[funtimessf]

First of all, you implied San Mateo was dangerous and gang-infested when the reality is it has a lower murder rate than both Cupertino and Walnut Creek, 1/5 the rate of Hayward, and 1/26 the rate of Oakland.

Now you are claiming San Mateo has a problem with property crime. The fact is, San Mateo (17.8 per thousand) has half the property crime rate as Walnut Creek (32.8) and a lower rate than Palo Alto (19.3). And just to note, it is 1/3 the rate of Oakland (54.0).

Your claim of under-reporting has no basis in fact. Also, the immigrant population in San Mateo is a small minority.

San Mateo is one of the safest larger cities in the Bay Area. The median SFH sold price is over $1m and that is including Shoreview in the calculation. High prices led to gentrification of any lower income areas long ago. It appears to me that you are the one who is unfamiliar with areas outside of the East Bay.

[jade408]

One key issue with Hayward is that it is has very few amenities for a city of its size. Things are improving there, but it is lacking a bit in terms of restaurants and shopping.

@funtimessf, no one is saying San Mateo is "dangerous" but there are parts of town that are pretty sketchy, and it is good to be aware of this. Most cities of a certain size do have areas with a larger amount of crime than other areas. It is helpful to know where those are, especially when the price seems extremely cheap for the city.

[funtimessf]

Originally Posted by jade408

@funtimessf, no one is saying San Mateo is "dangerous"...

Actually someone was. Direct quotes from Nineties Flava...
"Anyone who's "owned property" there would be aware San Mateo is not Los Altos or even Mountain View when it comes to crime and poverty"
"It's home to one of the most notorious neighborhoods on the peninsula"
"Does Walnut Creek have any neighborhoods with a deeply embedded gang culture...?"
"Drug busts, stabbings and occasional shootings are not unheard of."

San Mateo has a lower murder rate than Walnut Creek and Cupertino (2x lower than both). It has a lower property crime rate than Walnut Creek (2x lower), Palo Alto, and Mountain View. Median sold property prices were higher in San Mateo than Mountain View or Walnut Creek this year.

Sure, there are some less desirable parts of San Mateo, but they are more dumpy rather than dangerous. The statistics back this up.

As for Hayward, it is about average for the U.S. in terms of crime, neither particularly bad nor good.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by funtimessf

Actually someone was. Direct quotes from Nineties Flava...
"Anyone who's "owned property" there would be aware San Mateo is not Los Altos or even Mountain View when it comes to crime and poverty"
"It's home to one of the most notorious neighborhoods on the peninsula"
"Does Walnut Creek have any neighborhoods with a deeply embedded gang culture...?"
"Drug busts, stabbings and occasional shootings are not unheard of."

San Mateo has a lower murder rate than Walnut Creek and Cupertino (2x lower than both). It has a lower property crime rate than Walnut Creek (2x lower), Palo Alto, and Mountain View. Median sold property prices were higher in San Mateo than Mountain View or Walnut Creek this year.

Sure, there are some less desirable parts of San Mateo, but they are more dumpy rather than dangerous. The statistics back this up.

As for Hayward, it is about average for the U.S. in terms of crime, neither particularly bad nor good.

What nineties is saying is that San Mateo's bad parts are actually worse than places like Los Altos, Walnut Creek and Pleasanton. There are pockets where the crime pattern is more typical of larger cities not typical suburbs.

Obviously, avoiding those areas would mean you don't have to worry. I would assume that in those few areas that vast majority of crime is concentrated and in the rest crime is much lower than average.


On an autocorrecting iDevice.

[funtimessf]

Given San Mateo's crime rate is way below average, then that would mean what little crime there is would be occurring in a very small area and the rest of the city would have absolutely zero crime. Doesn't seem likely. It's just speculation. Before making claims, people should have some facts to back them up.

It seems as if the Oakland advocates have become emboldened on here, and are now trashing cities with crime rates that are a tiny fraction of Oakland's. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by funtimessf

Given San Mateo's crime rate is way below average, then that would mean what little crime there is would be occurring in a very small area and the rest of the city would have absolutely zero crime. Doesn't seem likely. It's just speculation. Before making claims, people should have some facts to back them up.

It seems as if the Oakland advocates have become emboldened on here, and are now trashing cities with crime rates that are a tiny fraction of Oakland's. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Maybe you should check the crime maps.

http://spotcrime.com/ca/san+mateo


On an autocorrecting iDevice.

[funtimessf]

Originally Posted by jade408

Maybe you should check the crime maps.

Shoreview doesn't appear to be much worse than some nicer parts of the city.

[ScottJP]

Originally Posted by jade408

Most places over a certain size, around 90K or so have genuinely bad areas. It is the price of development unfortunately.

The Bay Area is perhaps a little different. A bunch of average places became "posh by proximity" due the the dot com boom and real estate booms (and aerospace booms, and the 80s technology boom).

Agreed. Most of the "bad areas" in the Bay Area are the perception of the many, many monied types looking down their noses at the upper-middle class and long-standing stereotypes that stubbornly refuse to fade. I know people who still claim East Palo Alto is a hopeless ghetto.

It makes me wonder if these people ever get out of the Bay Area and go to a place that's not buoyed by exorbitantly high median incomes. It makes me wonder, if Hayward is the ghetto, what words do you use to describe regular average-joe cities in other, less affluent parts of the country? Or Fresno? Eventually because you've ramped up the exaggerations so high you run out of plausible adjectives to accurately describe these places.

I know someone who lives in Hayward (not the hills) and I've never heard her refer to any kind of methamphetamine epidemic going on there.

[ScottJP]

I kind of have to beg the question... how did Oakland get in the middle of all of this? We're not even comparing Oakland and Hayward anymore, how'd we get to Oakland vs. San Mateo?

Anyway, San Mateo is nice and I don't have any problem with the sketchier parts. In two years we'll be bitching that Oakland has lost all of its grit and "soul" and bemoan the hipsters invading 85th and International. Every city in the Bay Area is going to have its "dicey" area reclaimed by people desperately searching for some kind of bargain so basically it seems like a moot point.