Comments on: Crime Stats, Oakland 2008

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:34:20 +0000

Apologies for posting on a dead thread, I don’t know if the moderator checks this.

I am wondering if the question about archived data ever got resolved. Does anyone have access to 2005 or 2006 Oakland crime data, but individual crime, including the address or police beat and date that it occured on?

Thanks,

Ben

By: John1468

John1468 — Wed, 13 May 2009 00:35:13 +0000

Very nice site! cheap cialis http://aieypxo.com/toxrss/4.html

By: Max Allstadt

Max Allstadt — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:56:32 +0000

Nav,

1. Are you pointing out that Newark and Oakland are not clones? I think we got that.

2. The fact that Newark is much poorer per capita would seem to make Oakland’s higher crime rate LESS excusable, no?

By: V Smoothe

V Smoothe — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:46:55 +0000

What is you point, Navigator?

By: Navigator

Navigator — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:45:48 +0000

Newark is a city of 280,000 residents and has an area of only 24 square miles. Oakland has about 400,000 residents and has a land area of 56 square miles. Newark’s household income in 2000 was $26,000 compared to 40,000 for Oakland.

By: James H. Robinson

James H. Robinson — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:18:44 +0000

Berkeley has Cal which provides substantial economic stability for Berkeley residents. Oakland had the military, but they are gone and the port doesn’t provide adequate financial stability for the residents.

By: Navigator

Navigator — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:07:36 +0000

V, Is this strictly a crime comparison?

By: Navigator

Navigator — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:06:32 +0000

Oakland is much more like Berkeley than Newark. How can Berkeley afford to ignore business development? We’re not talking about Beverly Hills here.

By: V Smoothe

V Smoothe — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:03:22 +0000

What on earth do historic theaters have to do with crime?

By: Navigator

Navigator — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:01:48 +0000

I don’t think Newark is a good comparison to Oakland. First of all, Oakland is a much more cosmopolitan and diverse city with many affluent hillside neighborhoods with magnificent bay views. Oakland has great restaurants, vibrant and charming shopping districts, a lake in the middle of its downtown, three of the grandest historic theaters in the Country, three pro sports franchises, a great zoo, a wonderful museum, and a state- of- the -art science and space center, etc.. The climate the topography, and the relative wealth, are completely different. I don’t see the similarities. Are we making San Francisco into Manhattan in this comparison? If so, we are kidding ourselves. I’ve been to Manhattan, and San Francisco isn’t even close to being Manhattan.