Comments on: A baffling story about crime and Oakland nightlife

By: David

David — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:27:27 +0000

even worse, the NYT and WSJ often state bad-rap Oakland info from SF Chronicle personnel and columnists. OUCH!
The Tribune info is ignored, and they turn to the Contra Costa Times, if anything east-bay based.

By: Nancy Nadel

Nancy Nadel — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 05:20:40 +0000

There were many inaccuracies in the WSJ article. Our office is working with the police on the late night permit concept and there is no opposition on their part. They just wanted some language in case a business is consistently a problem.

Making policy requires a lot of people’s input so that it has a good chance of passing. It’s not a matter of too busy but a being thorough and inclusive. Please be patient; it’s coming.

By: Max Allstadt

Max Allstadt — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 05:57:56 +0000

Nope. The council is too busy, yet again. But with a little luck, we’ll see it done before Mardi Gras.

By: A baffling story about crime and Oakland nightlife « Oakland Grown.org Blog

A baffling story about crime and Oakland nightlife « Oakland Grown.org Blog — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:18:39 +0000

[...] more here Leave a [...]

By: awoodall

awoodall — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:11:24 +0000

Exactly. And the council is not likely to take up the issue this month despite what “city officials say” in the article. He didn’t actually say who those “city officials” were or qualify in any way why he didn’t name them. How sensitive could it be that the “city officials” didn’t want to be named?
Evidently the national papers think stories that defy every standard taught in Journalism 101A are okay to run if they are about Oakland. If this is what we are going to get from the NYT and WSJ with their new “bureaus?”

By: Max Allstadt

Max Allstadt — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:32:46 +0000

Who the hell was behind this article?

The violent crime in Oakland is rarely anywhere near the legal nightlife establishments.

The WSJ also completely failed to acknowledge that most of the relaxations for live entertainment are actually repeals of archaic and puritanical anti-business laws. Not very WSJ of the WSJ.