San Leandro-is it safe? (Oakland, Hayward: best cities, renters, house)

[Beullah]

Originally Posted by Taboo2

Alameda and Castro Valley have lower crime than San Leandro definitely. They just feel safer. People CARE about their neighbors etc. Parts of SL are ok.

bayovista, Estudillo, But really i wouldnt live in the rest of the area.

LOL. People out here think Alameda is a trashy town because of it's proximity to Oakland,

It's all about perception. You may think some people and communities are ghetto, and there are at least as many and probably more that think you and your community are ghetto. They wouldn't even consider considering living there. It's all about perception.

[Beullah]

Originally Posted by Taboo2

Right so alamed and castro valley have LESS crime than SL.

It may not technically be SL but ever been to bayfair lately? SUCKS.. the new Easmont I like to call it.

I see. It's all about race.

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by Beullah

Yes, Sperlings skews the facts. For what reason? They take statistical data, and make ratings based on that data. It's not difficult to understand.

What is true, however, is that when a community's socioeconomic demographics, people associate with crime. It's not just you, the police do it to. There's theft all over Walnut Creek and Clayton. Both considered affluent and uptown. And, primarily WHITE. They have their share of murders (one man murdered at the Clayton post office). Bar fights, home invasion robberies, murders. Palana Court in Walnut Creek is the meth capital of Contra Costa County. You, would look at all of the white folks and assume that these communities are so nice.

No -- not Sperlings... San Leandro civic leaders. It's my opinion that they are "redefining" crimes in order to make their stats look better. This is a common thought, too, and not just in San Leandro, but all over in various cities -- that "the powers that be" are somehow fudging the figures in order to look better.

And why not? Why would anyone want to get the same rep as Oakland?

And yes -- there really is crime everywhere... but more crime is more crime.... and more smaller crime seems to escalate into more serious crime. So, once again, in my opinion, saying there is crime every where is specious. It's akin to tossing your hands up and giving up.

[mattja]

Single girl in San Leandro? If I were your dad I would try to stop you.

Maybe start safe and work your way up to more excitement once you know the area better?

Try Walnut Creek. Nice city, entertainment and night life for a young person, and has BART access to San Francisco.

I would also suggest looking at College Ave. in Berkeley for the social aspects, but that area is mixed and you have to be careful.

[Beullah]

Originally Posted by Tallysmom

No -- not Sperlings... San Leandro civic leaders. It's my opinion that they are "redefining" crimes in order to make their stats look better. This is a common thought, too, and not just in San Leandro, but all over in various cities -- that "the powers that be" are somehow fudging the figures in order to look better.

And why not? Why would anyone want to get the same rep as Oakland?

And yes -- there really is crime everywhere... but more crime is more crime.... and more smaller crime seems to escalate into more serious crime. So, once again, in my opinion, saying there is crime every where is specious. It's akin to tossing your hands up and giving up.

So, if San Leandro is 'redefining' crimes, what makes you think Alameda isn't? Bias is bias. People get one thing in their head, and do anything to make the case.

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by Beullah

So, if San Leandro is 'redefining' crimes, what makes you think Alameda isn't? Bias is bias. People get one thing in their head, and do anything to make the case.

They could be -- if they feel the need to do it. But I don't think they need to... and I'd have to a lot of research to find out if they were.... and I don't feel the need to, like I did with Oakland where I live...

By the way -- I've never said anything about Alameda being trashy or ghetto.... Alameda is a fine place. I do a lot of my shopping there, and my massage therapist is there and I use their library....

[Beullah]

My point is not that Alameda is trashy. My point is that one's perception is not always accurate, and that one's bias can overrule one's ability to think rationally.

Your bias is that San Leandro is a ghetto, neighbors don't care about each other, and that the city's leaders are conspiring to hide crime levels, while other neighboring communities are totally different. It sounds a little off.

Alameda is OK. It has it's fair share of crime; just like it's neighboring communities. It's not where I would choose to live, nor many other Alameda County communities.

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by Beullah

Your bias is that San Leandro is a ghetto, neighbors don't care about each other, and that the city's leaders are conspiring to hide crime levels, while other neighboring communities are totally different. It sounds a little off.

Nope -- I never said San Leandro is a ghetto. It's far from a ghetto. It's a community that is facing serious fiscal problems, and it's leaders are turning a blind eye to crime and not facing that either. And it's not a conspiracy to hide crimes, but more a rationalization. A lot of the "crime line" quantifications have grey areas, and a lot of places will use that fudge factor to look better.

Kind of like how our state solved a budget crisis by finagling the numbers. Which is why I have to come up with a great deal of my 2010 estimated state taxes by June -- it's a numbers game that very likely bite them on the bottom later.

And in all honesty -- right now -- there isn't a community in this state that isn't facing serious fiscal problems. Our sales tax base has eroded, since people have stopped spending, our property tax base has been eroded since the housing crash, and I can't think of any place that isn't going to be spending a great deal of cash on the Cal-Pers pensions they have to fund for their workers.... in some cases larger than their whole city budget. (Lafayette, CA -- their city manager has stated this)

Sorry to get all "I-need-to-get-the-last-word-in" on you, but I don't like to be quoted on things I didn't say.

[Beullah]

Originally Posted by Tallysmom

Nope -- I never said San Leandro is a ghetto. It's far from a ghetto. It's a community that is facing serious fiscal problems, and it's leaders are turning a blind eye to crime and not facing that either. And it's not a conspiracy to hide crimes, but more a rationalization. A lot of the "crime line" quantifications have grey areas, and a lot of places will use that fudge factor to look better.

Kind of like how our state solved a budget crisis by finagling the numbers. Which is why I have to come up with a great deal of my 2010 estimated state taxes by June -- it's a numbers game that very likely bite them on the bottom later.

And in all honesty -- right now -- there isn't a community in this state that isn't facing serious fiscal problems. Our sales tax base has eroded, since people have stopped spending, our property tax base has been eroded since the housing crash, and I can't think of any place that isn't going to be spending a great deal of cash on the Cal-Pers pensions they have to fund for their workers.... in some cases larger than their whole city budget. (Lafayette, CA -- their city manager has stated this)

Sorry to get all "I-need-to-get-the-last-word-in" on you, but I don't like to be quoted on things I didn't say.

Sorry, we weren't talking fiscal issues; we were talking crime.

"Well -- the problem is that the facts are getting waylaid by the people in charge who want to keep the impression that SL is just a peachy place to live... I think they are skewing the stats...

I work there and get to hear about all the stuff that's happening to people -- muggings, break ins, thefts, vehicles stolen.... and that HAS gone up. WAY up. I've worked in SL for 12 years and it was an occasional thing at best and now a couple times a month I hear about SOMETHING.

And I also know quite a few people that are no longer call the police when their car is broken into, because they feel it does no good. I used to shop all the time in San Leandro, and I do my best to not anymore. Because of theft.

I don't have time in my life to purchase something only to have to take it back when the thing I bought isn't what's in the package. I've purchased cleaners at Home Depot that have been used and replaced with water and returned. I've purchased hair products at Longs/CVS only to get home and find out someone pulled the same switch. Not to mention straight out theft -- I've found countless empty boxes on shelves....

So yeah -- I'd agree with you that perception is not reality, and the reality is San Leandro isn't very nice anymore, no matter what the city council says."

Please summarize this statement for me. Aren't you essentially saying it's a ghetto with uncontrolled crime, and the city leadership is conspiring to sweep it under the rug by skewing the crime stats?

Sure as hell sounds that way to me.

[Tallysmom]

Beulah, something bad happening a couple times a month doesn't make it a ghetto. A ghetto pretty much means your life is in danger almost all the time, with bullets flying overhead at all hours of the day.

San Leandro is a place that isn't facing it's problems. There is a crime problem. And part of the crime problem is laying off the police. THAT'S fiscal.

Unfortunately, crime doesn't go away in the strict sense. Criminals don't wake up one morning and see the light and change their ways. The best that can be done is move it down the road.