Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: Seven Days

Re: “Oakland's Culture Clash

Moby Dick, Jihan is right. Your response is degrading. I'm white, moved here 21 years ago, but I know my history.

Posted by Ann Barnett on 10/14/2015 at 5:12 PM

Re: “Oakland's Culture Clash

Just a observation from someone who has lived in East Oakland for over 60 years.
It would appear to me that the large and continuing replacement of African American residents in Oakland by "newcomers", is according to the census, more attributable to newly arriving people of color than it is to new techies who are mostly white.
I think any study of the US census figures will bear that out.
North Oakland isn't the only place changing.
It seems that when highlighting the situation, that everyone leaves out the entire swath of Oakland from Lake Merritt to the San Leandro border.
I guess it isn't politically correct to observe that type of "newcomer" and the impact it is having.
More narrow band journalism...seeing and reporting only that which fits the chosen story line.
And lets not even begin to talk about employee/job replacement, which leads to housing re-population.

Posted by Dan de'Data on 10/14/2015 at 5:10 PM

Re: “Oakland's Culture Clash

I wish the author and subsequent commenters would just be honest about what they really mean. "Newcomer" = white person. It doesn't matter whether that white person was born and raised in Oakland, or moved here yesterday. The coded language is a misguided attempt to camouflage a race issue as something else. Let's just get it all out in the open, people.

I suppose I am one of these so-called "newcomers" because I am white. And I've only lived in Oakland for a decade. So let me tell you what this "newcomer" thinks about your assessment: I have never once called in a noise complaint; I call the police only when I hear gun shots, witness an actual crime, or have had my house broken into; I use nextdoor to connect with neighbors and have never reported a black person acting suspicious in any case other than the one who was standing uninvited in my kitchen after climbing through the window; I moved here because it was the only place in the Bay Area I wanted to live - and it was the combination of attitude/vibe, affordability, weather, size that appealed to me. I have never lived in San Francisco and never wanted to.

I am one of those horrid tech people that theoretically don't exist in Oakland - according to the commentaries on recent Uber articles, tech companies moving to Oakland couldn't possibly be providing jobs for people like me who already live here, so they'll just attract more newcomers (i.e. white people) to come in and destroy Oakland. Oh, and while we're talking about destroying Oakland, I would say that yes I am hell bent on remaking Oakland, and have been since I moved here. That takes the form of: patronizing pretty much every new restaurant that opens within a 10 mile radius of Lake Merritt; voting for leaders that are pragmatic and results-oriented; voting in favor of parcel taxes and other funding initiatives for schools and other neighborhood improvements; paying the city for permits so that I can improve my home; picking up trash; attending street fairs and First Friday and other cultural events; visiting the parks AND ACTUALLY PAYING for parking to support them; shopping Oakland first whenever possible. I want this city to thrive. I know some people think a thriving Oakland means there will be no more room or resources for the poorest among us. I fervently hope this isn't true, and believe that it's possible to improve Oakland for everyone, not just the wealthy.

Thank you East Bay Express for presuming to speak for me (because I know you and all the other anti-gentrification ranters are talking about me and my ilk when you talk about newcomers) and then insulting me repeatedly. Funny, I don't remember anyone complaining about us newcomers back when I actually WAS a new Oaklander.

Posted by Lovica Callisti on 10/14/2015 at 4:16 PM

Re: “Oakland's Culture Clash

Looks like I hit a nerve. Someone doesn't like being reminded of their history. Big surprise. Lets just go back all the way, and call it what it really is, Huichin.

Posted by Chanty Nok on 10/14/2015 at 3:37 PM

Re: “Oakland's Culture Clash

Looks like Chanty has a little crush on me and is following everything I say. Sorry- I already have a partner but you are free to keep your crush on me. While we are on the topic of history- yes my neighborhood is Clinton, any Google search of my address brings up a map showing that name of my neighborhood. And if you want to go back further in time the entire area east of Lake Merritt was called the Brooklyn Township, before it was annexed by Oakland. It's why there is a Brooklyn Basin and the Brooklyn Basin Project that is starting to be developed. Everything else you rambled on about is your issues. To read more about The Brooklyn Township - https://localwiki.org/oakland/Brooklyn

Posted by Steve Kopff on 10/14/2015 at 3:10 PM

Re: “Oakland's Culture Clash

Steve, Its hard to take you seriously especially, regarding advice on not being "mistaken." In August in the Wine & Bowties comments section, you insisted that you lived in the "Clinton" neighborhood and further insisted that there is no Funktown. Even more arrogant, you insisted that Funktown is a derogatory term. Maybe if you're a real estate agent. To the people who survived the era living and working in said neighborhood its a badge of honor for residents who survived the deliberate government neglect and historical consequences of being stuck on the wrong end of the red lining, colonizing, social justice stick but whatev you're here now and here to stay. What is history anyways??? You also said that your neighborhood was a food dessert when you arrived there. It wasn't! You also said International Ave and all of the associated Asian & Latino grocers are not in "your neighborhood" despite the fact that Clinton Park, from whence the name came, is located, you guessed it, on International Blvd. Me thinks it has more to do with you wanting a Whole Foods and your feelings of being above shopping at an ethnic grocer. Have long held bigoted views led you believe that the grocer's foods, like their patrons are inferior and beneath you in some way? Steve I don't think you can be trusted to know the difference between "our children" and a "horde of invading foreigners" so let me help you. Our children are the ones being displaced and whose use of public spaces is being overly regulated for the benefit of the few, your children would appear to be the displacers with urban homesteading dreams and parental financing to boot. If the two groups of "children" were equal, then ours wouldn't be being displaced to make room for yours. Socially fragile and neglected folks fleeing government and social disenfranchisement and those seeking freedom from the rule of the financial elites and corporate entities in their home communities are still welcome in the Town! And to Moby Dick, who says poor people don't work hard? Word on the street is that they not only work but in most cases work 2-3 jobs but are guess, what? Still poor! Guess you just moved here. You know what working all the time and still needing "handouts" used to be called. Slavery was it, and in nicer instances involuntary servitude and today we call it American peonage???

Posted by Chanty Nok on 10/14/2015 at 2:45 PM

Re: “Oakland's Culture Clash

This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.

Posted by Editor on 10/14/2015 at 2:27 PM

Re: “Oakland's Culture Clash

michael good "They just happen to be able to afford more." is part of the problem, its actually really THE problem. the problem is that there's no "happen" about it. its not a coincidence, its the predictable outcome of a social sructure that prioritizes whiteness and the well being of white people over that of others. the majority of gentrifiers, gentrifiers being people moving into the city with economic gain in mind, are white precisely because they are able to access an unequitable amount of the resources available to everybody, because politicians prioritize their success while neglecting black & brown people and our "justice" system plays its part by criminalizing non-white people for the same kinds of behaviors the average white person can expect to get away with. to say this just "happens" is to not understand the full socio-political force that is gentrification whether it has racial implications or not. any scholar would tell you that gentrification is an outcome of socio-economic policy and nothing remotely close to a coincidence.

Posted by Jihan McDonald on 10/14/2015 at 1:51 PM

Re: “Oakland's Culture Clash

The real tragedy is that a very high number of suspects in Oakland crimes are described as Black (this figure remains even for crimes committed in mostly White neighborhoods).

Since the housing crisis is not limited to Oakland, a more pragmatic approach would be to develop a regional solution. Why people think City leaders have the power to reverse a trend experienced in the entire Bay Area is beyond me...

Posted by John Blankenship on 10/14/2015 at 1:11 PM

Re: “Oakland's Culture Clash

The struggles of a changing city are nothing new to the Bay Area or other cities. We seem to forget history and repeat it.

"It appears to me that you are in danger of making a very fundamental mistake concerning both your own identity and that of the young people who are coming to us. They are not some horde of invading foreigners. They are our children, yours and mine, exercising their right to move freely about a country which will soon be very much their own.

You for your part are not some select group of medieval chieftains who can, at will, close up your town and withdraw behind the walls of your own closed society. The City of St. Francis deserves better from you. Whether we like or dislike, agree or disagree with the 'Hip' community is not the issue here. The issue is whether you can by fiat declare a minority unwelcome in our community. If you declare against these young people today, what minority is going to bear the brunt of your discrimination tomorrow?"

– Haight Ashbury Assemblyman Willie Brown, 1967 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archiv…

Posted by Steve Kopff on 10/14/2015 at 1:04 PM

Re: “Oakland's Culture Clash

Thanks Bob for this and I wish all the folks who are moving in would take the energy to VOLUNTEER somewhere in our community. Every school, rec center, arts non-profit, food bank who has been working for years to make Oakland better can use your help by donating $ and/or better yet your time. This blog still is the best on the theme I think: http://wineandbowties.com/culture/you-not-…

Posted by Karen Hester on 10/14/2015 at 11:59 AM

Re: “Oakland's Culture Clash

Given the recent representation Oaklanders' received from Ms. Rachel "There is no affordability crisis" Flynn, Director of Housing & Planning and Libby "Let's appointment an eviction specialist as tenant advocate" Schaff, Mayor of Oakland it seems pretty clear that the folks in power are failing to prioritize and enact policies that would preserve Oakland's "secret sauce." I would also like to suggest that that "sauce" is 99% cultural capital that has been built up by and sustained by Oakland's economically and ethnically diverse, working class residents and only 1% actual financial investment in Oakland by private and state monies but to hear our leaders tell it its the other way around. Thank you for voicing these concerns so succinctly. Just one peeve...hella lot = hell of a lot, lot..maybe "hella sauce"...if you have to.

Posted by Chanty Nok on 10/14/2015 at 9:14 AM

Re: “Oakland's Culture Clash

That is what I love about our Liberal Bay Area Writers. We celebrate and cherish diversity.

But.....if they don't look like us, earn like us, like what we like, want what we want, then we don't welcome them here.

Oh, and you really think that people (young/old, white or not) really want to move into areas being "gentrified" if they are wealthy and have lots of disposable income? Really? It is just people looking for housing that is affordable to them. They just happen to be able to afford more. Shame on them.

We would not want them here. They are different than us. We are too busy promoting diversity. The East Bay is liberal and conservatives try to maintain the status quo but we had better not let anything change around here.

Geez, listen to yourself.................

Posted by Michael Good on 10/14/2015 at 6:43 AM

Re: “Oakland's Culture Clash

"This city has a hella lot to offer." Thanks for that, Bob.

Posted by Eric Arnold on 10/13/2015 at 6:40 PM

Re: “Oakland Leaders Still Missing in Action

I agree with the above. Things change. Got to keep up with it. This ain't no backwater burg - it's a place where prices go up. Luckily, opportunities have been created that allow those who take advantage of them to meet the rising costs. You get a choice - complain on behalf of all the victims of circumstance you can identify, or get with it. It's one or the other-not time enough to do both. Consider - some former cab drivers drive for UBER now and some of their kids are software engineers.

Posted by Tim Frank on 10/07/2015 at 4:33 PM

Re: “California Water Officials Made the Drought Worse

This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.

Posted by Editor on 10/06/2015 at 4:24 AM

Re: “Oakland Leaders Still Missing in Action

Why is EBX so against progress? If Uber did not go in there, what is the alternative? To sit empty? Also, rents are higher because property taxes have gone up along with water just to name a few. I feel like EBX should report more balanced news.

Posted by Garry Ovalbach on 10/05/2015 at 7:52 PM

Re: “Oakland Leaders Still Missing in Action

"Uber has so far created a profitable business that is wildly popular..."

Nope. Uber has had only losses. Look it up.

Posted by Hobart Johnson on 09/30/2015 at 1:44 PM

Re: “Oakland Leaders Still Missing in Action

Again, EBX is out of touch and contradicting its own message. All of a sudden when rooms are being rented out to temporary visitors on AirBNB, EBX cares about housing inventory? If EBX wants more inventory they could very easily support housing, for which EBX only supports affordable housing. And who will subsidize that affordable housing? Not wealthier new residents who have cars, because EBX wants to eliminate parking spaces as well. Not developers E12th St Parcel, because EBX opposes that as well.

In fact you will find EBX arguing every detail about why specific housing projects should not be built, but you will never find them actually advocating to build new housing. So sorry if I'm not buying the "inventory" argument.

And as far as the sustainability of Ubers business ? Ubers is capitalizing on an inefficiency created by the corrupt and monopolistic system of taxi medallions. The medallion lawsuit boils down to limiting # of Ubers on the road, in order to maintain their monopoly. It wont work, because the public has voted with their dollars, and removing Uber would be take away an affordable service that people depend on.

Uber has so far created a profitable business that is wildly popular, affordable, and most importantly provides an important service that the public relies on. EBX "business" is to capitalize on the fears of poor people of color, by pandering, grandstanding, and posturing for clickbait headlines all in the name of "progressive" journalism.

Posted by Clarence C. Johnson on 09/30/2015 at 12:33 PM

Re: “California's Missing Climate Hawk

There appears to be a misreading about the 50% figure. If the State of California gets, say 20%, of its energy from renewable sources, increasing renewable energy by 50% would mean a 30% mix, not 50% percent. So the calculations William H. Thompson showed us above could be even less of an impact than what he is describing.

One more important point, is that renewable doesn't mean CO2 emission-free. All renewables, even wind mills, involve a manufacturing process that has used fossil fuels in the production, transportation and erection of the parts and assembly.

Posted by Vincent Sauve on 09/14/2015 at 6:39 PM

Most Popular Stories


© 2017 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation