3 ms·

Ah, yes. Crime mapping. As an LA resident, I've lost quite a bit of time playing around with the crime mapper at the LA Times website, poking around places I

Ah, yes. Crime mapping. As an LA resident, I've lost quite a bit of time playing around with the crime mapper at the LA Times website, poking around places I used to live, checking out demographics, average amount of education, income, etc. and it would be safe to say that LA is significantly more dangerous than SF, at least going by the numbers. So, what keeps me from bolting for the cozy countryside? Well, it's tempting to hit you with the one-word answer "Work." which is certainly compelling, but obviously there are alternatives in the age of telecommuting to living in the risky city. The best I can come up with is that I'm alright here. I might be better somewhere else, but I'm ok with LA. I have friends, family, and fond memories here, and those mean a lot to me. I'm no romantic, and I would up and leave if opportunity in SF, Austin, NYC, or Mumbai called, but this is where I am right now, and it's not bad. Try not to get caught up in the crime maps. You know very little about what lead to the unfortunate incidents represented by those ominous buttons. Control what you can, keep your eyes open, and, should you ever find yourself in a precarious position, don't be a hero.

carguy1983 15y ago
West LA / Santa Monica, which is similar in size and population to SF, is significantly safer than San Francisco. I've lived for extended periods in both locations. For example, you don't have to take all the change out of your ashtrays and hide your phone charger/other electronics every time you park your car on the street, or see drug deals going on in broad daylight, walk past brothels on your way to get coffee, or see drunk people get into extremely violent fights at night outside the bars. Frequent murders occur in the city. Anyway, my point is that SF is really unsafe when it comes to property crime and vice. Like, to the point that it's really obvious that the police just aren't enforcing laws at ALL in most neighborhoods. For what it's worth, I lived in one of the nicest neighborhoods, Pacific Heights (Fillmore & California), and saw most of that stuff within 2-3 blocks from my front door. Japantown and Divisadero were where most of it happened, but my friends' cars got broken into EVERY time they parked on the street near my place.
- redschell 15y ago
  Oh, no doubt. LA is a big place, and some bits are clearly nicer than others, but I guess I was just trying to point out that crime can happen anywhere for any number of reasons. You're more likely to get robbed in South LA than in Santa Monica, absolutely, but you can stay reasonably safe in both places by just doing a few simple things, like keeping valuables, especially smartphones out of sight at all times, walking with a bit of purpose, and making sure to straight up avoid places at certain hours. Interesting line about SFPD though. I wasn't aware they were so inept.
  - carguy1983 15y ago
    I agree - East LA, South LA, all are not nearly as safe as West LA. My main point is that West LA, as a whole (and by that, I mean you never have to leave it), is safer than SF, which is more akin to taking the different east/west/south LA's and packing them all together into one peninsula. In other words the bad parts are impossible to avoid. Having said that, the restaurant food in SF is better on average (LA = driving to eat good food) and of course there's more/better/bigger tech companies/activity in the bay. :)

carguy1983 15y ago

West LA / Santa Monica, which is similar in size and population to SF, is significantly safer than San Francisco. I've lived for extended periods in both locations. For example, you don't have to take all the change out of your ashtrays and hide your phone charger/other electronics every time you park your car on the street, or see drug deals going on in broad daylight, walk past brothels on your way to get coffee, or see drunk people get into extremely violent fights at night outside the bars. Frequent murders occur in the city. Anyway, my point is that SF is really unsafe when it comes to property crime and vice. Like, to the point that it's really obvious that the police just aren't enforcing laws at ALL in most neighborhoods. For what it's worth, I lived in one of the nicest neighborhoods, Pacific Heights (Fillmore & California), and saw most of that stuff within 2-3 blocks from my front door. Japantown and Divisadero were where most of it happened, but my friends' cars got broken into EVERY time they parked on the street near my place.

redschell 15y ago
Oh, no doubt. LA is a big place, and some bits are clearly nicer than others, but I guess I was just trying to point out that crime can happen anywhere for any number of reasons. You're more likely to get robbed in South LA than in Santa Monica, absolutely, but you can stay reasonably safe in both places by just doing a few simple things, like keeping valuables, especially smartphones out of sight at all times, walking with a bit of purpose, and making sure to straight up avoid places at certain hours. Interesting line about SFPD though. I wasn't aware they were so inept.
- carguy1983 15y ago
  I agree - East LA, South LA, all are not nearly as safe as West LA. My main point is that West LA, as a whole (and by that, I mean you never have to leave it), is safer than SF, which is more akin to taking the different east/west/south LA's and packing them all together into one peninsula. In other words the bad parts are impossible to avoid. Having said that, the restaurant food in SF is better on average (LA = driving to eat good food) and of course there's more/better/bigger tech companies/activity in the bay. :)