11–20 of 68 posts
One of the big advantages of SF (and especially the financial district) is that it's possible for most people in the city, the East Bay _and_ the South Bay to get to work in less than an hour. I want to make the commute decent for as many employees as possible.
If you want me to leave Fruitvale to take the Bart to SF, you better be paying me to do so.
Companies, especially tech, in SF usually offer these cards. I think it's the law'ish. It's a mix between the company straight giving you money + pretax deductions. I have the purely company-paid-for option, it covers about 10 days of me going from Concord to montgomery and back.
Did you factor in the risk of dying when you made this decision? This kid is naive.
Do you know anything about the crime in Oakland beyond the superficial 'oh man there is a lot of crime in Oakland!'? Most of the crime is isolated to a few specific areas. You realize there's a lot of crime in SF, too, right? And that crime is concentrated in the areas where a lot of startups have their offices (e.g. the Fidi). Do you factor that in to your search when you look for a job in the City?
Just downvote and move along. The lack of responses would hurt way more than any clear appeals to logic, I assure you.
We started in Oakland and it was great from a community and creativity perspective.
Why not just not partake in all of these startup events and meetings instead of moving? I have the same opinions as the author about all the startup noise and groupies here in KC. Which is why I avoid most of them.
Did you factor in the risk of dying when you made this decision? This kid is naive.
Yeah, you're naive. Yes, there are slightly more violent crimes in Oakland than San Francisco (and there's more property crime in San Frnacisco)[1], but on the whole they are pretty equivalent in terms of safety; especially if you stick to the 'nicer' areas of both. [1] http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Crime-up-in-Oakland-much...
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-cities-in-amer...
And according to the link you posted, Oakland has less than half the population of San Francisco, but 37% more violent crime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, you're naive. Yes, there are slightly more violent crimes in Oakland than San Francisco (and there's more property crime in San Frnacisco)[1], but on the whole they are pretty equivalent in terms of safety; especially if you stick to the 'nicer' areas of both. [1] http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Crime-up-in-Oakland-much...
Oakland has the 3rd highest violent crime rate per capita in the country: http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-cities-in-amer... And according to the link you posted, Oakland has less than half the population of San Francisco, but 37% more violent crime.
Did you factor in the risk of dying when you made this decision? This kid is naive.
Most of San Francisco is safe, with just one or two neighborhoods being dodgy. Most of Oakland is unsafe, with just one or two neighborhoods being safe.
Oakland is one of the most dangerous cities in the USA. Just because you live there and haven't been gunned down yet, doesn't mean it's not happening to many other people.
It's literally your life, so do your own research and don't listen to me or anybody else.
