But for now: Oakland’s median family income (based on the 2006 Census Department’s American Community Survey, the most recent data available) is $51,727 (while the mean family income is $78,236). San Francisco’s median family income for the same year was $79,423 and the mean family income was $110,682.

Interestingly, roughly 22% of SF’s households are bringing in less than $25,000 a year, while 29% of Oakland’s households fall under this threshold. Like I said, a comparison of the data merits a post of it’s own, so I’ll leave it at that for now. But all the relevant data can be found at the census department website for those who are eager to look into thing more before I get to it.

am i reading wikipedia correctly that the federal poverty levels are not adjusted up for regional differences in cost of living? nor does it adjust for federal welfare type payments such as food stamps or housing subsidies. it is adjusted for inflation.

so for oakland where the cost of housing, services, fuel etc is high and for casper wyo where it’s low, the poverty line is set at the same (per wikipedia, and i realize it’s accuracy is not the greatest) “In 2006, in the United States of America, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was US$10,488; the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$20,444.”

also per wikipedia for Oakland “The median income for a household in the city was $40,055, and the median income for a family was $44,384 . Males had a median income of $37,433 versus $35,088 for females. The per capita income for the city was $21,936. About 16.2 percent of families and 19.4 percent of the population were below the poverty line, including 27.9 percent of those under age 18 and 13.1 percent of those age 65 or over. 0.7% of the population is homeless.[33] Home ownership is 41%[33] and 14% of rental units are subsidized.[33] The current unemployment rate is 8.4%.[33]”

For comparison, “The San Francisco median household income is $57,833 and the median family income, at $67,809 in 2005, is the third-highest for any large city in the nation.[42] Following a national trend, an out-migration of middle class families is contributing to widening income disparity[44] and has left the city with a lower proportion of children, 14.5 percent, than any other large city in the U.S.[87] The city’s poverty rate, at 7.8 percent, is lower than the national average and among the lowest for cities ranked by the U.S. Census Department.[88]”

My point being a 2 br apartment in East O is at least a 1k/mo=12k/year, transportation for two working adults 3k/year, food 36/day=13k/year. clothing 1.25k, entertainment 1,000, child care 3k. that 30k probably closer to the 40k median house.

And aren’t unemployment rates based on people actively looking for work? so in east and west o the true rate could be much higher.

Your stats regarding poverty in Oakland are correct. Also, I don’t want Oakland held to SF standards of maintenance. Oakland needs to do much better than that. I want Oakland to be on par with Chicago. Our goal should be to hold the responsible parties accountable for making downtown Oakland a clean and safe place, in order for large and small businesses alike, to thrive. Oaklanders from every neighborhood should be able to feel proud of their downtown. The current level of maintenance and mediocrity should not be tolerated. I take no pleasure in pointing out these problems. My only concern is to see the area improved for every Oakland resident and for every visitor to our city. We need to hold the Oakland Police Department, Public Works, Nancy Nadel, and Mayor Ron Dellums accountable for the general appearance of Downtown Oakland.

Downtown Oakland’s main thoroughfare may be graffiti-ed, trash-strewn, and panhandler-rich, but I hardly think that’s an area where we compare poorly with San Francisco. Market Street is way worse than Broadway in terms of panhandlers and homeless people wandering around and loitering. On the other hand, I watched someone exit the downtown Burger King Tuesday night around 9:30, walk out onto the sidewalk at 13th and Broadway, drop his pants, crouch down, and defecate right there in full view of everyone nearby. I’ve never seen that happen on Market. But I don’t really go to SF very often.

This conversation made me think of some pictures of downtown Oakland someone put on flickr last year. Check out the tags he used to describe them.

talking w a buddy the other day, who asked me why i liked living in oakland. i gave him a long list. his reply was that when he moved to the bay area a few years ago he parked downtown oakland (that should have been a warning sign) and all was well until he noticed groups of ragged looking poor people wandering around, congregating around storefronts, some panhandling. not that he was hassled, just worried about his employees working late in that situation or his customers scared. he opened his business in emeryville instead of downtown.

sf “solved” the poor people problem by gentrifying them out to oakland, richmond, and stockton etc. both by our choice that many of us don’t want the 95% gentrified city that sf has become and for political reasons that poor people have a lot of clout here, we have to deal with the reality that something like 45% of oakland is at poverty level or below. the pols used to play that out with a two tiered system of govt services, but that model ain’t working no more. -len raphael

I’ve had the opportunity to travel to most major cities in this country and I can tell you that it’s possible to keep urban downtowns clean and inviting. Chicago for example, has an immaculate and beautiful downtown. No litter, and no graffiti anywhere. It’s absolutely gorgeous. Boston does an excellent job maintaining its downtown along with Boston Common. New York does a great job on Central Park and Manhattan. Locally we have downtown Walnut Creek as an example of a well maintained downtown. There is no reason why Oakland shouldn’t be held to the same standards as these cities.

Unfortunately, I think many residents have resigned themselves to thinking that the current state of maintenance is normal. It’s not! Resigning one-self to mediocrity only invites further mediocrity and then progresses to the denigration of ones pride in their own hometown. Oakland and Oaklanders deserve better!