|
http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-aa2-snapshot-sf-crime-20141120-story.htmlquote:"In San Francisco, you definitely have this tale of two cities. You have a lot of very rich people. The top 5% have a median income of $350,000. And then you have 23% of the population at poverty levels," Adachi said. "When you have income disparities like that, you're going to see crime rates that may reflect that. This article discusses rates between 2012 and 2013, so it's not super-recent, but the trend is upwards for the last few years, and I think the reason is spelled out right here. SF's poor are increasingly desperate in a rising-cost-of-living city that does not care to spend its rising amounts of wealth on stupid things like additional housing, hospital beds, mental health services, etc.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
Rah! posted:I'm pretty sure the "Oakland is scary and crime is on the rise!" idea has been around for decades (even when crime is dropping), and exists because lots of non-black people are scared of black people, lots of wealthy people are scared of poor people, and also because Oakland has a high crime rate. It has nothing to do with the recession. Also, I wasn't aware that the recession caused the gentrification of west Oakland to stop/slow down...it seems to me that the gentrification train kept on rolling, whether in SF, Oakland, LA, NYC, etc. Though housing prices have gotten extra crazy in the Bay Area in the past few years thanks to the combination of way too little housing and the tech boom. This. When I moved here a little over two Years ago, my rent in the place I decided to move into was ~$500/mo cheaper with a pool for the same square footage, but I'd have a lot of nonwhite neighbors. It was an easy decision for me but racists gonna race.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:This. When I moved here a little over two Years ago, my rent in the place I decided to move into was ~$500/mo cheaper with a pool for the same square footage, but I'd have a lot of nonwhite neighbors. It was an easy decision for me but racists gonna race.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I don't think it's a matter of, "oh, the nonwhites!" San Francisco and Oakland both have pluralities of white people, while south bay cities like Sunnyvale, Cupertino, and Santa Clara do not. Or do South and East Asians count as white now? Effectively yes. Usually people don't care about the race of professionals/upper class folks, since at worst they're "one of the good ones". The exception for that is Jews, who have a unique relationship.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Actually, all that "crime" that you "see" simply consists of delusions brought about by being a pansy whitebread hipster. That's a relief. It wasn't crime at all, and just the guilt of shopping at whole foods made manifest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
In 2009 when we were shopping for a house, we looked at a lot of houses in Oakland. The checkerboard nature of the neighborhoods was a problem. There were good and bad within blocks of each other. It was very easy to tell visually which were the bad ones, too: there were invariably bars on all the doors and windows, the predominant neighborhood businesses were check-cashing and alcohol sales, and the street curbs were littered with sad piles of broken auto glass. The problem was, my wife takes BART into the city, so she'd be walking to a BART station. And most of the houses in actually-nice neighborhoods that we found, would still have required her to walk, alone, at night, back from BART through lovely dangerous neighborhoods. And this sort of thing: Shbobdb posted:as long as you know how to walk ands look at the same time you are as safe as you are anywhere ...is a lot less true if you're a woman by yourself after dark. In the end, we found a house for less money for the same or better square footage and construction standards, in an ethnically-diverse neighborhood of Concord. The BART ride is longer, but the walk to the BART station goes past a goddamn police station, and even after dark, it's much, much safer. And that's not based on racist ideas about my neighbors, it's based on easily-obtainable crime statistics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Oakland doesn't have a white plurality. It is pretty much 25/25/25/25 on how Americans conceive race. Last I checked whites were around 24.6. On a multiracial axis system you could probably make that a plurality if you split African Americans from African immigrants, split up all the Latin and southern Americans into their own groups and split up the asians into their own groups. But given such a stringent conception of race you may as well chop up the whites too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0653000.html Oakland has a white plurality. For that last category, US Census says quote:NonHispanic White persons are those who responded "No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino" and who reported "White" as their only entry in the race question. More complete tallies that show race categories for Hispanics and nonHispanics separately are also available. Whereas for White Alone, it says quote:White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian. e. I mean, I get what you're saying, but this isn't some finely-sliced racial definition that people aren't familiar with; this is the default racial categories used by the US Census. By the standard definition, 34.5% of Oakland's residents are White, by their own consideration. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Aug 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
That's five years out of date. Lemme see if I can dig up what I read, it may have been hearsay (or just excluded the hills because gently caress Libby).
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this census data includes Piedmont.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:...is a lot less true if you're a woman by yourself after dark. Shbobdb posted:That's five years out of date. Lemme see if I can dig up what I read, it may have been hearsay (or just excluded the hills because gently caress Libby).
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Here's the data for Piedmont City, CA: If you include that in "Oakland" you probably get data even more skewed towards a white plurality/majority. Again, though, I don't know if Oakland City statistics include Piedmont - I would assume not, because despite being a surrounded enclave, it's officially a different city (and as an aside, this is part of Oakland's financial problem... the rich people have their own little enclave to live in and keep their money separate.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Effectively yes. That's only if we dress up for literally everything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Between 1990 and 2010 Oakland actually got slightly whiter. That's probably the trend I've been hearing people extrapolating from. Never checked out the data before, neat. I'm not a colonizer. Your ancestors didn't kill me. I've belonged here the whole time. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:They will try to respond to one in progress, they just won't come to take a report from you, instead you have to go to them. That does suck. When my buddy living just off the lake got mugged a couple years ago the OPD came to take a report. When he described the guy – "Young guy, black, not too tall, wearing a black hoodie" – the officer literally laughed out loud. That's probably why they don't bother deploying officers to take burglary reports.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
The solution to homelessness: treat the homeless like the dogs they are? http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Tiny-houses-for-Los-Angeles-homeless-create-6439382.php 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
SuperiorColliculus posted:The solution to homelessness: treat the homeless like the dogs they are? I've seen a huge spike in street camping...tents on sidewalks and stuff, as homeless populations get displaced. Mini huts are the next logical step towards california's future favelas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Some dude in Oakland has been doing the same for a few years now, builds them out of dumped trash. http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_24869274/oakland-artist-turns-trash-into-homes-homeless
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:I've seen a huge spike in street camping...tents on sidewalks and stuff, as homeless populations get displaced. Mini huts are the next logical step towards california's future favelas. RVs are pretty popular too. Anywhere that's predominantly office parks (especially abandoned office parks like around north Menlo Park) always has a ton of them from the mid-80s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
SuperiorColliculus posted:The solution to homelessness: treat the homeless like the dogs they are? FireTora posted:Some dude in Oakland has been doing the same for a few years now, builds them out of dumped trash. Wow, the ones made of out of trash actually look more livable too: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Here's the really funny part though:quote:Los Angeles Councilmen Joe Buscaino and Mitch Englander have asked the city attorney to check the legality of the structures on public rights-of-way and to recommend the best way to remove them. Move these plebes to the ghetto, where they belong!
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
I'm all for giving the homeless homes (funny we're talking about this on the day Jimmy Carter has announced he's probably gonna die), but I feel like there have to be major health effects of having to basically sit down all the drat time and never be able to stand up when you're at home.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
SuperiorColliculus posted:Move these plebes to the ghetto, where they belong! I hate politicians, too, but are we seriously thinking it's a good idea for people to put little structures anywhere they want in a city?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:I'm all for giving the homeless homes (funny we're talking about this on the day Jimmy Carter has announced he's probably gonna die), but I feel like there have to be major health effects of having to basically sit down all the drat time and never be able to stand up when you're at home. I think they're more intended as safe places to store your belongings and sleep that won't kick you out if you sleep past 8am or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:I hate politicians, too, but are we seriously thinking it's a good idea for people to put little structures anywhere they want in a city? No, we're seriously thinking that giving homeless people figurative doghouses to live in is demeaning enough without demanding that these doghouses are also located in a ghetto. I just live in the bay area, and I'm from the glorious people's republic of New Zealandistan so I think that "homelessness" is something that oughtn't and doesn't need to, exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
SuperiorColliculus posted:No, we're seriously thinking that giving homeless people figurative doghouses to live in is demeaning enough without demanding that these doghouses are also located in a ghetto. I'm not sure what being from New Zealand has to do with homelessness. I don't think most Americans are pro-homelessness. I'd guess the entire homeless population of California would be pretty comparable to the population of Wellington. Given California in general has a critical shortage of housing to begin with only makes it worse...
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
We have (or had, actually) a really good welfare and state housing system. Until relatively recently, homelessness was the exclusive domain of the severely mentally unstable and/or people with crippling addiction issues. Going even further back, even these weren't really "things". I guess I see that it just doesn't have to be this way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
SuperiorColliculus posted:We have (or had, actually) a really good welfare and state housing system. Until relatively recently, homelessness was the exclusive domain of the severely mentally unstable and/or people with crippling addiction issues. I don't want to use America's vast geography and orders of magnitude larger population as an excuse, because I think you're right... but it also doesn't seem like anyone knows how to, or has the political will to fix it. ... which is why these weird homeless doghouse things pop up as some sort of desperate, breathless manifestation that is only capable of vaguely pointing towards the real problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:I'm all for giving the homeless homes (funny we're talking about this on the day Jimmy Carter has announced he's probably gonna die), but I feel like there have to be major health effects of having to basically sit down all the drat time and never be able to stand up when you're at home. Ironically Utah of all states had a free housing program which ended up saving the state money and dramatically reduced the homelessness rates in the state. Of course don't expect the limousine liberal state of California to ever try the above plan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
etalian posted:Ironically Utah of all states had a free housing program which ended up saving the state money and dramatically reduced the homelessness rates in the state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:doesn't seem like anyone knows how to... I mean, we could make a more steeply progressive taxation system, spend money on public housing, strictly regulate housing development, fund addiction and mental health services...etc...etc.. Space-Bird posted:or has the political will to fix it. There it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Utah's housing is cheap. California has a severe shortage of housing supply in general, and in order to increase it we'd have to These people are extremely real.. They go from 'liberal' to 'gently caress you got mine' in a heartbeat. They have the resources and the will to protest just about any development project because of 'the environment'. It's really frustrating, and basically makes me vote yes to any and all development at any opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
I dunno. Check out the "Oakland is super dangerous and also has a white plurality!" (ignoring that it is the most diverse city in the United States) guy earlier on this page. NIMBYism is pretty widespread and makes a lot of sense on a site that is heavily biased towards the suburban->urban population. And since goons trend towards the misanthropic, we're also going to trend towards the pearl clutching. poo poo happens. It's not like the Berkeley folks (academics, mostly) are balling out. Hating on them is a broader part of dekulakization. Sure, prop 13 fucks things up but really only because everybody and their mother wants to move to California. As a recent transplant, I can't blame 'em/us. It's awesome here. If the state were less of an immigrant (legal, illegal and everything in between) magnet, prop 13 wouldn't really matter. I'm cool with measures to protect the people already living here (who did not choose where they were born or migrated 30-odd years ago under very different circumstances) from the roving hoards. I chose to move here. I knew what the housing market was like. I'm the only guy I know to leave NYC and pay higher rent. So what?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
It's progressive to give a hand to the poor vs the rich. It's not progressive to give a hand to people who happened to have lived there longer vs those that moved recently.Shbobdb posted:I dunno. Check out the "Oakland is super dangerous and also has a white plurality!" edit: Oakland is #3 on Forbes' list of most dangerous cities in the US: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlj45jggj/3-oakland/ Cicero fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Density is fine as long as we can keep up with infrastructure and transit, which we don't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 03:36
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Even though transit is far from perfect here, we can still densify. And then eventually transit will have to improve (like the planned BART extensions that will happen in 500 years), and then we can densify some more.Cicero posted:It's progressive to give a hand to the poor vs the rich. It's not progressive to give a hand to people who happened to have lived there longer vs those that moved recently. I was the one who first brought that up. I'm not accusing everyone who dislikes Oakland of being racist, there are plenty of reasons a person might not like it (though anyone who dislikes Oakland is dumb  ). The racism thing is part of the reasoning for plenty of people though, whether they admit it or not. I'd say classism (despite the fact that Oakland has tons of wealth and a large middle class, like any big city), or being scared of oakland's reputation for high crime, are the more common reasons for people to dislike the place. Or maybe it's just a bit too big and busy or whatever, and someone prefers the suburbs.Cicero posted:And Oakland is a dangerous city. Yes, there are parts of it that aren't super dangerous, but taken as a whole, it is substantially more dangerous than average. Acknowledging facts has nothing to do with NIMBYism. I'm probably about as anti-NIMBY as you can get. "Parts of it" aren't "super dangerous"? More like most of it isn't "super dangerous". Parts of Oakland are dangerous of course, but this idea that most of the city is extra dangerous is dumb. Many parts are perfectly fine, and many other parts are somewhere in between being perfectly fine and crime-ridden. And of course poo poo can happen anywhere. Meaning, it's basically like every other big city in the US. The bad parts of Oakland and SF are pretty equal for example, when it comes to how rough they are. The main difference is that Oakland's neglected low-income areas are a bit more extensive, while SF's upper class areas are more extensive (though SF's worst public housing is worse than Oakland's worst, and Oakland also has lots of wealth). But if you're not living in those rough areas or living a life of crime, your chances of being a victim of serious crime are very low (though yeah, the risk of danger is higher across the board compared to some upper class suburb like Danville or something). It's kind of inaccurate to paint an entire city as either "dangerous" or "safe", is my point. It's more about neighborhoods and what kind of life you're living. 99% of Oakland residents are never in any danger while living in Oakland. Rah! fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Rah! posted:99% of Oakland residents are never in any danger while living in Oakland. The violent crime rate is 19.9 per 1000 per year so maybe 98% are never in any danger per year if you could possibly try to spin that as not horrendous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
The murder rate might be 6 times higher than the national average but honestly how often do you hear about people getting murdered in Rockridge?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Cicero posted:people who prefer other cities in the bay area must hate everyone who's not white. No one was saying this but you went super crazy on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:No one was saying this but you went super crazy on it. quote:This. When I moved here a little over two Years ago, my rent in the place I decided to move into was ~$500/mo cheaper with a pool for the same square footage, but I'd have a lot of nonwhite neighbors. It was an easy decision for me but racists gonna race.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 06:33
|
|