|
Cicero posted:My problem is that your assertions have no data to back them up. I don't think you're trying to trick me, I just realize that people often have personal bias, so I prefer to look at data for stuff like this. Look, if you have better sources, I'd love to see them. If there aren't any, I'm fine ending this debate. Piedmont has a lower crime rate than the national average, and it will make a decent proxy for the crime rate in the Oakland Hills until someone comes up with the better stats.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
Rah! posted:It's not "because i say so", it's because that's how it actually is. My evidence is a lifetime of living in the Bay Area. Born and raised in SF, and I now live in Oakland. I've been to the bad and nice parts of both cities, as well as cities like LA and Philly. I've been to hosed up poor areas in mexico, etc...I know what "safe" and "dangerous" is, and you seem really loving scared of a bunch of neighborhoods you shouldn't be scared of. "My evidence is a lifetime of living in the Bay Area" is basically the same as "Because I say so." I understand that lot of statistics don't tell the entire story, and sometimes can be flat out wrong... But Anecdotal Life Experience is going to be vastly different from person to person. You're a Bay Area Native, we get it, but you probably shouldn't be leveraging life experiences this way, because it only applies to you. Sure, it can provide some insight but a 6'1 tall dude is going to have a very different experience than a 5'3 woman. Some people feel perfectly safe having their iphone out in public transportation, or wearing headphones, other people don't. It's a legitimate issue that I'm guessing your life experience doesn't really adequately cover.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
I can't get your link to work, but what are its listed stats for Montclair and Oakmore? (If Oakmore isn't broken out its own, how about Glenview)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:I can't get your link to work, but what are its listed stats for Montclair and Oakmore? (If Oakmore isn't broken out its own, how about Glenview)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Rah! posted:
In the summer of 2009, we found a neighborhood near the railroad tracks that had houses going for under $300k. It was shockingly bad, compared to the general affluence of the area (which accounted for why it had the lowest house prices in the area). I had no idea there were Peninsula neighborhoods outside of East Palo Alto that were that bad. I have no idea what it's like now: I imagine the meteoric recovery of peninsula prices has lifted it up a lot by now. quote:Who is doing this? Do we really still have to keep repeating the 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." This is the easiest most-quotable but more broadly (and definitely more outside this thread, generally, "people") make the claim that white people avoiding black neighborhoods when house-seeking is racism in action. Which, as I said, it is, from a systemic point of view, but every white family avoiding a poor black neighborhood isn't necessarily doing so because of racist opinions about black people, and it's not helpful to imply that they are. I strongly suspect you'd agree with me basically on this, and that so does everyone else in the thread, but I felt like it hadn't really been articulated well. quote:That website is hosed up when it comes to neighborhood crime stats. "Those stats are obviously wrong because they disagree with my personal assessment" isn't a very convincing argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 21:01
|
|
you think Redwood City has "very scary" areas.
|
Cicero posted:Yeah I cut down that link manually which didn't work. Try this: http://www.areavibes.com/oakland-ca/neighborhoods/ I also like this: http://gismaps.oaklandnet.com/crimewatch/ Click "I agree" and then you get to an interactive filterable map of actual recent crime reports. You can directly compare between neighborhoods. I used this a lot when I was house-hunting. e. For example, Here is a map of just homicides since February 14th  It's immediately obvious that Oakland in general is more dangerous than San Francisco in general, at least in terms of homicides, and that the worst neighborhoods in Oakland are clearly more murdery than the worst neighborhoods in SF. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:"Those stats are obviously wrong because they disagree with my personal assessment" isn't a very convincing argument. Here's one: in all the safe neighborhoods I checked, the violent crime rate was the same (791/100k), because it was an estimate. It wasn't based on reports within that particular neighborhood - all the subcategories are N/A. So that particular website isn't usable for this particular comparison.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Yeah that's fairly convincing that it's not actually neighborhood-by-neighborhood statistics being used. I'm pretty sure those statistics do exist, though, because there have to be location-specific data sets in order to generate the maps like the one I just posted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
That map is excluding about 90% of SF's homicides. There have been over 20 murders since february, not 5. And the most murdery parts of SF are usually just as murderous as the most murdery parts of Oakland (in terms of concentration of murders, and other crime). But Oakland's murdery parts are more extensive. Here's a better map: http://www.mercurynews.com/homicides It should also be noted that SF has seen murders drop by 50% in the past 7 years, while Oakland's murder rate has also dropped, though not as much as SF. Leperflesh posted:In the summer of 2009, we found a neighborhood near the railroad tracks that had houses going for under $300k. It was shockingly bad, compared to the general affluence of the area (which accounted for why it had the lowest house prices in the area). I had no idea there were Peninsula neighborhoods outside of East Palo Alto that were that bad. I have no idea what it's like now: I imagine the meteoric recovery of peninsula prices has lifted it up a lot by now. But there's a difference between "poor" and "scary" (though "scary" is almost always "poor"). There are poor neighborhoods in Redwood City that have a higher crime rate than other parts of Redwood city (which has a low crime rate, for the record), but compared to truly bad areas in the Bay (parts of SF, Oakland, East Palo Alto, Richmond, etc), it's quite safe and quiet. quote:Do we really still have to keep repeating the 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." How does that equate to "all white people avoid black neighborhoods because they are racist"? Lots of white people (and people of other races) do that though, by the way. quote:I strongly suspect you'd agree with me basically on this, and that so does everyone else in the thread, but I felt like it hadn't really been articulated well. No, they're wrong because there's no way an upper class neighborhood has more crime than a neglected area that's full of poo poo-tastic public housing and constant violence. That website obviously is using some bad methodology to "estimate" neighborhood crime stats, and it's producing inaccurate results. Cicero posted:If that was true, they'd all have the exact same crime rate, since it's listed as per capita. Dude, something is clearly hosed about their methodology if they're claiming upper class neighborhoods are more violent than neglected ghettos (with no shown data, but rather "estimates", no less). The fact that the website says "per capita" somewhere on it, does not change that. Space-Bird posted:"My evidence is a lifetime of living in the Bay Area" is basically the same as "Because I say so." I understand that lot of statistics don't tell the entire story, and sometimes can be flat out wrong. This is one of those times that the statistics aren't telling the entire story. And I'm not the only one who feels this way...I've encountered so many Oakland residents who have to constantly convince ignorant people that Oakland is not 100% a ghetto (even the good areas!), just like I'm doing right now. Trabisnikof posted:Piedmont has a lower crime rate than the national average, and it will make a decent proxy for the crime rate in the Oakland Hills until someone comes up with the better stats. Agreed. It's an Oakland neighborhood, for all intents and purposes. GrumpyDoctor posted:Here's one: in all the safe neighborhoods I checked, the violent crime rate was the same (791/100k), because it was an estimate. It wasn't based on reports within that particular neighborhood - all the subcategories are N/A. So that particular website isn't usable for this particular comparison. Exactly. But clearly those of us who actually live in Oakland are wrong, while the random website with crazy-looking data is right! Rah! fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:In other news: In the last 7 years the eastern parts of the Inland Empire have been getting these torrential downpours that I never saw prior. Just blasted with heavy rains, sometimes with hail and thunder. This is gonna be a lot worse than in '97. I'm going to spend a weekend in September setting up sandbags and I advise everyone else to do the same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Man I can't wait to experience that tropical storm LA got back in July but on a weekly basis. (For reals though it cleared out the garbage and homeless piss where I work down in Silver Lake  )
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Has there been any work done mapping where people go after they're pushed out of gentrifying neighborhoods?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Has there been any work done mapping where people go after they're pushed out of gentrifying neighborhoods? I know there's been research into similar topics during the 50s (eg, Chicago after its large spree of development) but I don't know about anything contemporary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Rah! posted:That map is excluding about 90% of SF's homicides. There have been over 20 murders since february, not 5. And the most murdery parts of SF are usually just as murderous as the most murdery parts of Oakland (in terms of concentration of murders, and other crime). But Oakland's murdery parts are more extensive. Weird, OK. I was misled by bad information and I concede the point. Thanks for pointing it out by linking to a source, which is way better than just insisting based on experience. quote:There are poor neighborhoods in Redwood City that have a higher crime rate than other parts of Redwood city (which has a low crime rate, for the record), but compared to truly bad areas in the Bay (parts of SF, Oakland, East Palo Alto, Richmond, etc), it's quite safe and quiet. Yeah my shock was more "this is much worse than I was expecting in Redwood City" and not "This is as bad as Richmond or East Palo Alto," which it absolutely wasn't. quote:How does that equate to "all white people avoid black neighborhoods because they are racist"? Lots of white people (and people of other races) do that though, by the way. It doesn't, necessarily. But it's a generalization, and I was arguing against that generalization. I think I said what I meant pretty clearly and I don't feel like there's much value in debating it further.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
Cicero,
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Cicero, I'm cool with coming up there, but I evacuate my bowels uncontrollably if I so much as glimpse a black person. Will that be a problem?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Has there been any work done mapping where people go after they're pushed out of gentrifying neighborhoods? I've heard, and it kind of makes sense, that a lot have moved to Pittsburgh and more of the outer rim of the area. Would love to see some actual journalism on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
snyprmag posted:I've heard, and it kind of makes sense, that a lot have moved to Pittsburgh and more of the outer rim of the area. Would love to see some actual journalism on the subject. A lot of the poor people who have been pushed out of SF and Oakland have ended up in Antioch, Pittsburg, Fairfield, Vallejo, (or to Oakland in the case of many priced-out SF residents) etc., as well as the central valley, to Stockton, Tracy, Sacramento, etc (basically wherever they can go that's still close to home, and is still relatively cheap). Others have moved to cheaper places in SoCal (like some shitville in the inland empire), or to other states where they have family (which in the case of the black population, mostly means the south). I remember reading several years ago about a sort of mini-exodus from the Bay Area to Reno too. Rah! fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Aug 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Has there been any work done mapping where people go after they're pushed out of gentrifying neighborhoods? Ironically due to whole city is now cool for rich people, people end up in up in the suburbs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
etalian posted:Ironically due to whole city is now cool for rich people, people end up in up in the suburbs. I can't wait for required car ownership to turn into (more of) a class signifier. Instead of "needs consistent transportation" it will be "no parking offered".
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
I take Amtrak from Sac to Oakland (cuz hey it's faster than my old commute of driving from Sunnyvale to Oakland !  ) once per week and that thing is packed with people that do that commute every single day and it's 2 hrs each way minimum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
I still find it incredible that despite living a five minute walk from a lightrail station that drops me off across the goddamn street from my office is still slower than slogging all the way up SJ to Milpitas through rush hour. gently caress at grade public transit forever. If you're ever going to hear me say nice things about SF, it's that Bart & MTA are appreciably fast, at least in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Sydin posted:I still find it incredible that despite living a five minute walk from a lightrail station that drops me off across the goddamn street from my office is still slower than slogging all the way up SJ to Milpitas through rush hour. gently caress at grade public transit forever. If you're ever going to hear me say nice things about SF, it's that Bart & MTA are appreciably fast, at least in my experience. VTA is pretty horrible in general
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
etalian posted:VTA is pretty horrible in general It always misses the connection with the Caltrain in Moutain View. It is so frustrating: either take a train that arrives 35-40 minutes early or take the train that is supposed to connect and wait in hour for the next connection when you miss your train by a minute. Public transport in the bay area is terrible if you aren't going a very short distance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
If it's any consolation I had to travel from Oxnard to Van Nuys for medical treatments. There was three hours of downtime between when I was finished for the day and when the first metrolink train to Oxnard would arrive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:It always misses the connection with the Caltrain in Moutain View. It is so frustrating: either take a train that arrives 35-40 minutes early or take the train that is supposed to connect and wait in hour for the next connection when you miss your train by a minute. Public transport in the bay area is terrible if you aren't going a very short distance. It's not bad at all in SF city limits (though it has problems of course), and it's pretty decent in parts of the inner east bay too, Like Oakland and Berkeley. But yeah, it's pretty much poo poo everywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Rah! posted:It's not bad at all in SF city limits (though it has problems of course), and it's pretty decent in parts of the inner east bay too, Like Oakland and Berkeley. But yeah, it's pretty much poo poo everywhere else. With the notable exception of the light rail that meets the CalTrain requiring cash - exact change only.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Sydin posted:I still find it incredible that despite living a five minute walk from a lightrail station that drops me off across the goddamn street from my office is still slower than slogging all the way up SJ to Milpitas through rush hour. gently caress at grade public transit forever. If you're ever going to hear me say nice things about SF, it's that Bart & MTA are appreciably fast, at least in my experience. Problem is BART really doesn't have good coverage and do to ever increasing population/traffic the SF light rail part of the muni system gets slower each year due to not being grade separated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:With the notable exception of the light rail that meets the CalTrain requiring cash - exact change only. But is that actually uncommon? All public transit I've ridden has required exact change when paying on the train/bus. It seems like it would slow things down a lot if the driver was expected to hand out change. etalian posted:Problem is BART really doesn't have good coverage and do to ever increasing population/traffic the SF light rail part of the muni system gets slower each year due to not being grade separated. Muni just ordered 260 new train cars (compared to the current fleet of 150), which will also be able to connect four cars together, rather than two cars as with the current trains. They'll break down a lot less frequently too. So that will help. Of course what we really need is for BART and Muni to expand their subway coverage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
etalian posted:Problem is BART really doesn't have good coverage and do to ever increasing population/traffic the SF light rail part of the muni system gets slower each year due to not being grade separated. Also outside of the SF corridor BART trains run at a pathetic frequency.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Rah! posted:But is that actually uncommon? All public transit I've ridden has required exact change when paying on the train/bus. It seems like it would slow things down a lot if the driver was expected to hand out change. It is uncommon, as far as my experience, for light rail to not have ticket machines on the platform. For the bus, yes, usually exact change.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
The Bart covers a huge area because the Bay spreads everyone out. I'm honestly amazed they're able to afford expansion at all. The proposed diesel electric extension will be a huge deal if it works well. Also if we want to giggle about public transit in the Bay, check out the ACE.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Sydin posted:I still find it incredible that despite living a five minute walk from a lightrail station that drops me off across the goddamn street from my office is still slower than slogging all the way up SJ to Milpitas through rush hour. gently caress at grade public transit forever. If you're ever going to hear me say nice things about SF, it's that Bart & MTA are appreciably fast, at least in my experience. I've only ridden it a handful of times so far but riding VTA from South SJ to campus downtown has been super chill and positive. The extra time it takes is worth being able to relax and read rather than engage my clutch and brake every 25 feet, and then shelling out money for parking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:It is uncommon, as far as my experience, for light rail to not have ticket machines on the platform. Yeah that can be confusing I guess. They have ticket machines in all the subway stations, but not the above ground stops. 90% of them are like minimalist bus stops, but for trains (marked by just a stripe of yellow paint on the street/a pole), because much of the muni metro runs at grade, mixed with vehicle traffic (using routes that used to be street car lines many decades ago). So there's not really anywhere to put a machine at most stops. It seems like they would've put machines on the platforms along the new above-ground segments, like in mission bay and third street (and across from caltrain)...maybe they're afraid they'd get vandalized, or broken into.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The Bart covers a huge area because the Bay spreads everyone out. I'm honestly amazed they're able to afford expansion at all. They can *afford* expansion, it's just that the neighbors scream until it's dropped. There's a reason the SF-to-San Jose extension runs down the West side of the bay, and it's not population density. e: I'm halfway down the peninsula and our skies are darker and smellier because of the wildfires. Anybody else?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Also outside of the SF corridor BART trains run at a pathetic frequency. It was originally intended as commuter rail type system to the Caltrain hence the really long waits outside the city. I like this fantasy map of the BART: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
etalian posted:It was originally intended as commuter rail type system to the Caltrain hence the really long waits outside the city. That's a whole lot of trains into the boonies and still one track through Oakland.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:I've only ridden it a handful of times so far but riding VTA from South SJ to campus downtown has been super chill and positive. The extra time it takes is worth being able to relax and read rather than engage my clutch and brake every 25 feet, and then shelling out money for parking. The VTA from South SJ to downtown is fine, because it mostly runs along the 87 and only has a few stops. It slows to a loving crawl going through downtown and up first street, though. If I worked downtown I'd take it every day over driving, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
etalian posted:It was originally intended as commuter rail type system to the Caltrain hence the really long waits outside the city. Lmao at BART being built through any part of Marin County just lmao.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
In something of local news, the Riverside County Sherrif deputies union has pulled support of their Sheriff Stan Sniff after recent actions and commentsquote:The union representing Riverside County sheriff’s deputies has pulled its support from Sheriff Stan Sniff and accused him of a dictatorial approach that shunned union input on the deployment of body-mounted cameras and other matters. Sheriff Sniff piloted one of the first body camera programs in the state, scaled back the take-home car program and blamed runaway pay and pensions for contract city's police force costs inflating. The union has pulled their support in return.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:52
|
|
