3 ms·

My reasons (left in 2019, moved there in 2011): * Unsafe. 2 vehicle break-ins, 1 apartment intruder while I was home. Fortunately I own a handgun. * Dirty *

My reasons (left in 2019, moved there in 2011): * Unsafe. 2 vehicle break-ins, 1 apartment intruder while I was home. Fortunately I own a handgun. * Dirty * The proportion of creepy weirdos I met got too high. When I first got there, it was something like 1 out of every 20 people I met. By the end, it was something like 1/4. * Overpriced * Bad transit * Corrupt city government * NIMBYism Why I stayed longer than I should have: * Rent control. I'm paying twice as much in rent now. * The issues didn't appear all at once, they got a little worse each year. * Cost of moving. It cost me around $15k and it took a lot of energy to pack/apartment hunt/unpack/drive with trailer.

jerkstate 7y ago
I left Oakland last summer after 20 years in the Bay Area. I had noticed a gradual decline especially over the past 5-6 years in cleanliness and public safety in my area, including frequent car break-ins (about every 3 months for the last 2 years), visible symptoms of drug addiction and homelessness everywhere, and so on. The disdain for law enforcement as well as individual rights of self-protection is a dangerous combo. When I started a family and realized that I had to make school district decisions in the next few years, I could no longer square the extremely high taxes, decrepit quality of living (including my 90 year old highly energy-inefficient dwelling as well as the well known public sanitation issues) AND the likelihood of private school tuition a few years down the line and started looking for a way out. I hope the Bay Area will right itself (although I don't have any suggestions for how that could be done), but I fear that some of the most impacted areas are going to go through a cycle of urban decay and flight and hit "rock bottom" politically before things get safer and cleaner again.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  The disdain for law enforcement as well as individual rights of self-protection is a dangerous combo. It takes two to tango. Wanting police to be held accountable for their actions is not disdain for police. Wanting to be treated like a human being doesn't mean being soft on crime (nor does it mean there's disdain for police). On the other hand Oakland PD rather famously pimped out a child (Celeste Guap) not that long ago (2017), so perhaps they have earned whatever disdain you're referring to?
  - thrway239043 7y ago
    Some members of Oakland PD, who were removed years ago, being bad does not mean that Oakland does not deserve the rule of law now. You're part of the problem. I moved away from the Bay Area to get away from people like you.
    - inferiorhuman 7y ago
      Some members of Oakland PD, who were removed years ago, being bad does not mean that Oakland does not deserve the rule of law now. Removed years ago? We're talking 14 OPD officers alone (Guap was used by a variety of bay area police departments), maybe 2-3 years ago, not yonks. If you want to talk eons ago, let's talk about the Oakland Riders. OPD is under federal receivership not because the citizens of Oakland "don't deserve the rule of law" but because the federal government thought that the Oakland police department was simply that fucked up. For a brief moment in time OPD had a chief (Batts) that was reform oriented and did engage the community. He got thrown under the bus and landed at a research gig at Harvard. Now we're back to this utterly dichotomous rhetoric that police simply can't do anything wrong. But if you'd like to talk about Guap, let's. The chief resigned and one of the cops committed suicide. As more evidence came to light one candidate for chief decided to remain at the rank of captain instead of seeking a promotion to chief. By 2018 charges against all but three of the officers implicated were dropped. OPD did not clean house. The rule of law does not mean that you simply give carte-blanche to the cops. As long as you've got structural issues exempting the police from oversight you don't have rule of law. And as long as you shut down any discourse that isn't in lockstep with the police, you don't even have a facade of rule of law. Police aren't the (only) problem, but they are very much part of the problem. You're part of the problem. I moved away from the Bay Area to get away from people like you. You're certainly welcome to move wherever you want for whatever reason. But, please, let's not pretend that not wanting police officers to pimp out a teenager is some dog whistle for agitating against the rule of law (or against law enforcement in general). Lemme guess tho. In your free time you post blue lives matter nonsense to facebook?
      - thrway239043 7y ago

jerkstate 7y ago

I left Oakland last summer after 20 years in the Bay Area. I had noticed a gradual decline especially over the past 5-6 years in cleanliness and public safety in my area, including frequent car break-ins (about every 3 months for the last 2 years), visible symptoms of drug addiction and homelessness everywhere, and so on. The disdain for law enforcement as well as individual rights of self-protection is a dangerous combo. When I started a family and realized that I had to make school district decisions in the next few years, I could no longer square the extremely high taxes, decrepit quality of living (including my 90 year old highly energy-inefficient dwelling as well as the well known public sanitation issues) AND the likelihood of private school tuition a few years down the line and started looking for a way out. I hope the Bay Area will right itself (although I don't have any suggestions for how that could be done), but I fear that some of the most impacted areas are going to go through a cycle of urban decay and flight and hit "rock bottom" politically before things get safer and cleaner again.

inferiorhuman 7y ago
The disdain for law enforcement as well as individual rights of self-protection is a dangerous combo. It takes two to tango. Wanting police to be held accountable for their actions is not disdain for police. Wanting to be treated like a human being doesn't mean being soft on crime (nor does it mean there's disdain for police). On the other hand Oakland PD rather famously pimped out a child (Celeste Guap) not that long ago (2017), so perhaps they have earned whatever disdain you're referring to?
- thrway239043 7y ago
  Some members of Oakland PD, who were removed years ago, being bad does not mean that Oakland does not deserve the rule of law now. You're part of the problem. I moved away from the Bay Area to get away from people like you.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    Some members of Oakland PD, who were removed years ago, being bad does not mean that Oakland does not deserve the rule of law now. Removed years ago? We're talking 14 OPD officers alone (Guap was used by a variety of bay area police departments), maybe 2-3 years ago, not yonks. If you want to talk eons ago, let's talk about the Oakland Riders. OPD is under federal receivership not because the citizens of Oakland "don't deserve the rule of law" but because the federal government thought that the Oakland police department was simply that fucked up. For a brief moment in time OPD had a chief (Batts) that was reform oriented and did engage the community. He got thrown under the bus and landed at a research gig at Harvard. Now we're back to this utterly dichotomous rhetoric that police simply can't do anything wrong. But if you'd like to talk about Guap, let's. The chief resigned and one of the cops committed suicide. As more evidence came to light one candidate for chief decided to remain at the rank of captain instead of seeking a promotion to chief. By 2018 charges against all but three of the officers implicated were dropped. OPD did not clean house. The rule of law does not mean that you simply give carte-blanche to the cops. As long as you've got structural issues exempting the police from oversight you don't have rule of law. And as long as you shut down any discourse that isn't in lockstep with the police, you don't even have a facade of rule of law. Police aren't the (only) problem, but they are very much part of the problem. You're part of the problem. I moved away from the Bay Area to get away from people like you. You're certainly welcome to move wherever you want for whatever reason. But, please, let's not pretend that not wanting police officers to pimp out a teenager is some dog whistle for agitating against the rule of law (or against law enforcement in general). Lemme guess tho. In your free time you post blue lives matter nonsense to facebook?
    - thrway239043 7y ago