Oakland vs Newark: the sequel
I wrote last week about the historical similarities between Oakland, CA and Newark, NJ — and the dramtically different paths they seem to be on right now, with Oakland’s murder rate soaring while Newark’s plummets.
Well, a week later, the contrast looks even starker. While Oakland just had its most violent week of the year, Newark has now gone for its longest stretch without a homicide since 1963 — and the NYTimes article points out that the decline in murders is not only good for the victims, but it has freed up detectives to revisit unsolved cases, which may lead to arrests, which may lead to a reduction of further crimes, and so on:
As the weekend approached, with its promise of gunplay, law enforcement officials said Friday that they had passed a new threshold: 33 days without a murder, the longest stretch since 1963, when there were no homicides for 40 days.
As of last night, there had been two homicides this year; by this time last year, there had been 12. The number of shootings has also decreased, the Police Department said. In 2007, there 99 homicides in the city of 281,000.
In a speech earlier this month, the city’s mayor, Cory A. Booker, said the city would “set the national standard for urban violent crime reduction.”
Since homicide detectives have fewer new investigations to handle, the police said they were using the lull to try to resolve old cases. The Essex County prosecutor, Paula T. Dow, said her investigators were also looking at old cases, with the help of a new federal grant that would allow them to take a closer look at DNA evidence.
“When you keep adding on increased resources, manpower and strategizing, you’re going to reap results in the long run,” Ms. Dow said. By the end of June, law enforcement officials will know better whether a real change is under way, she said. “I’m hoping for the best.”
No one in Newark seems ready to declare any long-term victories yet, but even the most skeptical citizens quoted in the article seem cautiously optimistic. Contrast that with Oakland, where the most skeptical citizens are calling for the mayor’s job, and cautious optimism can hardly be found at all, except among city employees whose job it is to be optimistic.
Newark, N.J. and Oakland do have a lot of similarities–port/Airport cities large African-American/ non-White populations, historically industrial cities that have been largely deindustrialized. But Oakland has far more resources than Newark–and a far higher percentage of affluent or at least middle class people living within its borders. What would be the middle class of Newark (like my sister in law) live in separate suburban towns, there are no Newark “hills” or foothills. Newark has had some downtown development, but nothing like what Oakland’s gotten (that went to Jersey City and Hoboken). I always tell Eastern visitors when they come out here that Oakland isn’t Newark.
Comment by Nathan Landau — May 13, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
While the above comment does make interesting points, some of it is not entirely accurate. Newark indeed does have a ‘hills’ neighborhood that’s called the Forest Hills section which borders Branch Brook Park. A very very affluent neighborhood (you can google ‘forest hills newark’ for pics). Additionally, Newark has the very known ‘Ironbound’ neighborhood which is not only the most vibrant section of Newark, but also known for its Portuguese restaurants.
Newark most certainly did not have the development that Jersey City had, but it is incorrect to say that development is restricted to downtown, if such were the case, then Newark’s population would not have jumped in recent years instead of the long steady decline the people of NJ were used to.
I do not in any way think Newark is better than Oakland and vice versa, but I do think they are way more like than they are different. Newark may not be Oakland…but it’s very close
Comment by Edward A. Steed — June 12, 2008 @ 1:11 pm