Oakland response

Here’s a response to Jesse’s response to my earlier post on Oakland

“Well I saw on the news a while ago that a lady that was in Mont Claire or some other really nice part of Oakland left her 6 year old daughter take care of 2 or 3 of her baby siblings for an entire day. The lady came back the next day and the police came and arrested her (I don't know how they found out). That's just an example that some nice places turn out to get a bad reputation, so these peaceful places and Alameda will probably get that. The shooting in Alameda 3 years ago is another example. A little girl got shot by some kids at a park in Alameda, so that's another sign. I heard that all of Oakland used to be a nice place, but it just slowly turned into a bad place. I predict that Alameda and the rest of Oakland will share the same fate. It's only a matter of time.”

I think that this post makes since, but I do not agree with what he is saying about places not being what they seem and Alameda soon turning out like Oakland.  Jesse said that Oakland started out nice and then turned bad, and that Alameda will do the same.  I did some reading on Wikipedea, and I do not believe that this is the case.  Here is what happened that turned Oakland into a dangerous place:

During World war two there was high demand for war supplies.  As a result manufacturing jobs quickly appeared all around the country.  One place where manufacturing became very successful was Oakland California. 

At the same time this was happening, many African Americans in the south, in order to escape oppression, moved to these places that offered these factory jobs requiring little mental skill (Southern Africans were for the most part uneducated because of the poor quality of black schools).

These manufacturing jobs did not last long though.  After the war there was no need for excess supplies.  This caused the jobs to disappear along with the richer people of Oakland (mostly white).  This period of time where whites left the poorer cities was known nationally as the White Flight.

In the 70’s, just like the rest of the country, drugs became more common and accessible.  As a result of this, the crime rate increased dramatically, so much that it was double that of New York City.  Because there was a higher crime rate, whites did not return, and with the richer people gone, there was no one to employ the poor.

Property in Oakland was very low because of the bad conditions.  This made the city an excellent place for immigrants from Mexico (legal or illegal) to settle down in.  For the Mexicans, it was just as difficult, the increase in population did not improve things at all, it just increased the poverty.

On top of all of the social difficulties, the Earthquake and fire caused a huge economic loss for the city.  This is about where Oakland stands today; not enough jobs, drugs and crime everywhere, almost uncontrollable population, and low funds. 

This is why I don’t think it will happen to Alameda.  Alameda is a small suburban town, whose pulpous is not to employ, but to give people a place to live.