> Lots of people on the other side of the hills (Concord, Moraga, Walnut Creek) have this idea that Oakland is a really scary place. I think it's partly racial (because of the higher percentage of African Americans here) and partly a PR issue (the 24/7 news cycle only presents sensational items).

Those may each be part of the issue, but I think that a big part of the issue is the actual crime statistics that show that, indeed, Oakland is, in fact, a dangerous place by comparison to those other places.

I mean, there's something about Oakland having a little over 3 times the population but a little under 20 times the number of violent crimes as Concord in 2012 [1].

[1] http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Crime-up-in-Oakland-much...

But all parts of the city are not the same. The very high crime areas, no where near the downtown, are what skews the stats. Downtown Oakland is no less safe than a lot of other cities. Certain parts of Oakland are a lot less safe than the worst parts of many other cities.

So, do you avoid Oakland or avoid the bad parts of Oakland? I, personally, just avoid the bad parts.

Crime's been down since 2012 (though still high).

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Oakland-sees...

I hear that Concord's gotten worse since, as well, but I don't have a good source for that.

<< Lots of people on the other side of the hills (Concord, Moraga, Walnut Creek) have this idea that Oakland is a really scary place. I think it's partly racial (because of the higher percentage of African Americans here) and partly a PR issue (the 24/7 news cycle only presents sensational items) >> Lots of people have the idea that there is a lot of violent crime in Oakland because, well, there is a lot of violent crime in Oakland. No need to bring race into it.

I think a big issue is that Oakland is way bigger than people think, especially geographically - it covers more land than SF - and there's a lot of diversity. Some regions are really bad. Some regions are ritzy. There's plenty of everything between. But the news doesn't differentiate well between the different parts of Oakland, so when you hear over and over that there was crime in Oakland and you're sufficiently unfamiliar with it that your model has it as an undifferentiated blob, and you think that blob is smaller than it is, of course you think anything about Oakland is scary.

Yep, it's all about drawing lines around things. Piedmont has little crime, but it's encircled by Oakland. Should it just be lumped in with Oakland statistically?

Speaking of which, when I get around to running for mayor of Oakland, I'm going to have only 2 planks:

1) Charging the people of Piedmont $50 to drive out of Piedmont.

2) Divesting "Oakland" of almost all of its real estate, while retaining all of its civic debts, then letting the remnant entity of "Oakland" just go bankrupt.

I think this is going to be a very popular platform!

Well, I thought it was funny.

Ethnic demographics and crime rates are correlated, so it would be a mistake to dismiss concerns over crime in an area as a "race thing". People may have legitimate concerns about an area not necessarily driven by racial animus in Oakland, Baltimore, Detroit, DC, Atlanta, and etc.

Because of the correlation between crime and demographics, it might be tempting to publicly call out concerns about high crime neighborhoods as examples of racism, but I still wouldn't check your iPhone on the street at night in Oakland.

I regularly check my phone on the street at night in Oakland and have had precisely zero issues. Of course, I'm also large and male and in one of the nicer areas of Oakland, and I still make a point to keep my head about me (it's a city...).

For your one mention of race in 200 words -- expect a flood of responses either chastising you for unnecessarily bringing up race politics, or letting you know that it's actually just fine for it to be about race.

~~an Oakland resident