Blacks leaving the Bay? New report on black population trends in Oakland reveals ‘alarming’ results
Map of Black Population Trends in the Bay Area, 2000-2008, Image from Urban Strategies
For decades, Oakland was what George Clinton would refer to as a “chocolate city” — one with a majority-black population.
However, “State of Blacks in the Bay,” a recent study by Urban Strategies analyzing the Bay Area’s overall diversity, as well as the state of its African American residents, confirms what many have suspected: Oakland is no longer a chocolate city.
In 2010, Oakland still claims the largest percentage of African-American residents in the region. However, the city has become a melting pot of multiculturalism, a destination for diversity encompassing an ethnic stew of black, white, Asian and Latino peoples — both natives and immigrants. Yet the much-touted Oaktown renaissance, which has seen a development boom over the past decade, has coincided - perhaps not coincidentally - with a significant drop in its black population, suggesting that many longterm residents have indeed been displaced by newcomers.
Gentrification isn’t the only factor in the black exodus, Urban Strategies maintain; in addition to displacement due to development, the lack of affordable housing, foreclosures and underemployment have all played a role. So too, has the proximity of the black population to violent crime and the cycle of incarceration and recidivism, which has resulted in young black adult males declining at a faster rate than other age groups.
A quick review of the study’s data reveals that overall, diversity is up throughout the Bay Area, yet the black population is steadily declining in urban cities, which have had the largest number of African-American residents historically, like Richmond, Oakland and San Francisco. Furthermore, in the past decade, cities such as Berkeley and Daly City have experienced a significantly greater decline in African-American population than other cities in the region. Conversely, suburban or bedroom communities such as Antioch, San Leandro and Mountain View have seen as much as a triple-digit rise in the number of blacks.
Specifically, the study found that:
--“At a county level, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin all experienced declines in the proportion of Blacks among their populations, while the other five counties saw a rise in Black population proportions.
--“In AlamedaCounty, the proportional drop in Black population was a result of increased proportions of Latinos and Asians. In San Francisco, the drop in Blacks as a proportion was offset by an increase in the proportion of White, Latino, and Asian people.
--“In Oakland and Richmond, the drop in Black population was offset almost completely by Whites, while in Berkeley the decline in Black population (and for Multi-Race persons) was a result of increased proportions of Whites and Asians. In Daly City, the decrease across all ethnic groups was a result of an increased proportion of Asians. In Vallejo, the drop in Black and White proportions was matched by increased proportions of Asian and Multi-race persons.”
The study also found what is characterized as an “alarming” drop in the populations of 20- to 29-year-old black males, which could be attributed to “more troubling factors like incarceration, homicide and premature deaths as possible contributors to this reality."
So, what does this study mean for the future of diversity in the Bay Area and the future of Oakland’s black community in particular?
We asked Urban Strategies’ Junious Williams and Steve Spiker to comment on their findings. Here’s what they had to say:
Oakland Local: Regionally speaking, your data suggests we’re seeing an overall drop in diversity as well as a drop in black populations, which is epidemic in a few places, most notably Berkeley and San Mateo. The black population also has lessened considerably in San Francisco. In general, can we attribute this to housing and economic factors?
Steve Spiker: As the report notes, there are a variety of factors that influence regional population trends. Economic factors surely play a major role with many families seeking more affordable housing in outer suburbs and with jobs moving to larger corporations setting up in these ring suburbs also. Other factors include families seeking safer communities and better schools. Foreclosure has had an added impact although not enough research has been done into where foreclosure victims are moving across the region.
Junious Williams: Regarding diversity, the data indicate a trend towards increasing diversity in about half the cities in the region, although a shift in the composition of the ethnic minority groups that contribute to the diversity.
OL: In your executive summary, you characterize the underrepresentation of black males between 20 and 29 as “alarming” and suggest “we must consider other, more troubling factors like incarceration, homicide and premature deaths as possible contributors to this reality.” What led you to this conclusion?
SS: Our deep connections with our community and a long history of working in the black community as well as extensive data and research that shows disproportionate levels of incarceration amongst black males both leads us to correlate these things with the ‘gap’ in black populations you refer to.
OL: Looking at Oakland specifically, it retains the highest numbers of black people, but that population is still trending downward. Your report states, “The Black population in Oakland decreased in proportion by 6.6 percent, while White residents increased by 6.2 percentage points,” And you cite a 25 percent overall decrease in Oakland’s African-American population over the last decade. Is there a connection between this decline and the much-touted Oakland renaissance? In other words, has the perception that Oakland is on the rise come at the expense of its African Americans?
SS: This is a difficult question to answer. We see much of the appeal of our city as being driven by and a product of a rich black history and culture. At the same time, one cannot ignore the much more recent influence and visibility of the hipster influx. However, the diversity and strength of this city is also reflected in the growing Asian and Latino culture of our residents and their significant impact on our food, art and business culture.
JW: Much of the decline appears to be connected to issues such as a lack of affordable housing for families and the apparent attractiveness of affordable family size homes in the outer suburbs and the northern towns in the Central Valley.
OL: Your study suggests “many Black (and other races) families are moving even further from the Bay Area in search of newer and lower cost housing in cities such as Tracy, Lodi, and Stockton.” So, in effect, we are seeing reverse white flight back to dense urban areas and a black exodus from these same areas, correct?
JW: Not necessarily migrating back. It is more likely that people who are moving from rental tenure to ownership find some of the lowest cost ownership housing (condos and single family) in Oakland and drawing people from San Francisco and San Jose who want ownership, but an urban culture and amenities.
OL: Given this statistical data, is it fair to say that fears of gentrification by longtime black residents of Oakland are well-founded?
SS: There is both anecdotal and statistical evidence of gentrification in Oakland, yes.
OL: Is there any way to reverse this trend? Or, in your opinion, will this trend become even more prevalent, barring an influx of new jobs, a reform of the public education system and a drop in incarceration, recidivism and homicide rates — all of which seems unlikely?
JW: The city of San Francisco has probably been the most active in focusing on the pattern of black population decline and has attempted to address it through its certificate program for black families who were displaced due to redevelopment in the historically black neighborhoods of the city. Their efforts include trying to rebuild the database of those who received the certificates as well as active outreach to locate families with certificates and advising them of their rights to housing as a result of those certificates. The SF Redevelopment Agency has been active in leading this process.
For more info, visit here, here and here.
The complete study is below. Spiker and Williams say Phase II of their study, expected in 2011, will address the cultural, economic and social impact of their findings.State of Bay Area Blacks Report Part I
Story Features
Environment
Food
Daily Image
Recent comments
Development
Identity
Arts & Education
Join Our Mailing List
Sign up for Oakland freebies, discounts & exclusive stories 2X a month.
Pro bono web design grant provided by TechScouts
None of these results from Urban Strategies surprise me. All demographics mentioned are shifting towards more affordable housing. Whites and Asians are growing populations in Oakland (in proportion to blacks) because they're moving from SF, the South Bay, Marin, etc. to Oakland; just like Blacks moving out of Oakland are migrating to the more affordable housing in the outskirts of the Central Valley (Tracy, Lodi, Mateca, etc).
I am always critical of cited statistics since there are so many ways to spin results. I definitely felt the author was trying to interpret them here with more meaning than due.
Simply put, people everywhere are being uprooted due to foreclosures, unemployment and lack of commerce. The shift in the population of different races comprising "The Town" is a byproduct of the economy. I'm sure somewhere an article is being written about the breakdown of Asian communities in San Francisco's Sunset district. But the cause is the same.
Bay area girl, thank you for your comments. Feedback is always appreciated.
However, i'm a bit puzzled by your comment, "I definitely felt the author was trying to interpret them here with more meaning than due."
You don't really explain your cynicism, so i must ask: what exactly did you mean by that?
Are you inferring that the findings of the study, such as a 25% shift in the African American population in Oakland over the past decade, should not be imbued with any meaning whatsoever? Are you implying this will have no impact on the cultural identity of Oakland as a whole? Do you actually believe that gentrification--which you conspicuously omit as a cause of "uprooting"--is not a relevant factor? Or perhaps your cynicism doesn't allow you to append any deep meaning to anything you are presented with.
No one would dispute that economics on a whole is the main catalyst for any significant shift in population in any given region over any given period. But economics in itself is a fairly complex term, which is always the result of numerous factors, such as those mentioned in the study and the article.
Your implication that somehow, i am "spinning" the study--which primarily focused on two things: overall population trends with respect to diversity, and population trends among African Americans--is to misunderstand the role of journalists and the press. In short, there is a difference between spinning a topic and supplying necessary context. Journalists frame topics in context. that's different from spin, which is applying one's own opinion to a topic, unsupported by facts.
Statistics on their own are just numbers. In and of themselves they don't have any meaning unless attached to a context. I simply presented a context in which these statistics could be examined, and in doing so, was careful not to jump to a conclusion which could not be supported by facts, or at least anecdotal evidence. In fact, if you read the article, i don't even make a conclusion on my own, but pretty much stuck to the findings of the study. I did ask Williams and Spiker to elaborate on some of the issues raised, with the idea of contextualizing the data to help explain their findings in real terms that non-sociologists could understand. However, i didn't paraphrase their responses--which could be interpreted as spin--but instead presented them verbatim, exactly as given. (That's called a Q&A, btw). If you noticed, I also quoted directly from the study.
So, where's the spin?
Perhaps you are suggesting that no one should write about any sociological or demographic study for fear of offending someone like you, with apparently heightened sensitivity to "spin" -- which is fairly ludicrous as i don't really think i applied any torque to this topic, other than perhaps the insertion of a well-crafted phrase or two.
(If you really want spin, try watching Fox news... :{)
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with George Clinton's song "Chocolate City," or the historical context surrounding such places, i.e. Washiington D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, etc. Perhaps you don't really care about Oakland's changing identity, as your reference to SF's Sunset district suggests. It's all the same to you, evidently. But i bet for Asians who live in the Sunset, there is a deeper meaning which transcends cynicism and the downplaying of cultural shifts by casual observers.
With regards to Oakland, the study clearly indicates that it's not all the same, i.e. it suggests that there are causes for displacement which are disproprotionately represented among African American males between the ages of 20-29 in particular--which isn't the case with other ethnic groups to that extent. This should be a cause for concern and, yes, "alarm," as the Urban Strategies researchers noted.
One reason i didnt apply spin--which, again, would be opinion unsupported by facts-- is that further data is needed before anything other than a broad conclusion can be reached. Still, i am confident that Part II of the study will address this in as thorough a way as Part I examined population trends and changing demographics.
But perhaps you didn't actually read the study or missed that point in the article. After all, cynicism and superficiality often go hand in hand.
Let me ask you something: since you don't dispute Urban Strategies' findings, what exactly are you disputing?
Once again: where's the spin?
All of the blacks are leaving Oakland and moving to Antioch. Duh. Antioch is a shit hole now and the black population is skyrocketing at an alarming rate. I can't even by any more watermelon at Raleys because they are always sold out!
No more section 8 in antioch please.
Bob, your comments don't reflect well on the residents of Antioch. Ewww.
As a white person who has moved to Oakland in the past 2 years, I don't understand the obsession with skin color. Control for socio-economic status in these studies, and it's probably just poorer people moving out, richer people moving in. That would make sense given that both home ownership and home rental prices are stratospheric compared to other places in the region, state, and country (especially for such a dangerous and poorly run city).
Even if you are a Dennis Moore (of the Monty Python skit) type who has a knee-jerk reflex to "fix" any economic or racial imbalance anywhere, wouldn't you be supportive of increased "diversity" in Oakland? Or does "diversity" really mean "fewer white people"?
And isn't gentrification a good thing, when applied to a city that is mired in crime and poverty and run by the Bay Area equivalent of the Politburo? Maybe we'll eventually elect some competent, innovative, honest, and hard-working leaders someday, instead of re-upping on a governing philosophy that has by all accounts made cities like Oakland, Detroit, etc. failures on a national level.
(Before you ask, I moved here to be close to a friend.)
My take away from this article is that those who care enough need to work like mad to ebb the flow.
It's also important to respect the data within the context of natural ebb and flow of populations at large.
Pre WW II, the Black "population" in oakland was less than 3%. End of WW II the # was around 12%. Anyone remember the Ohlone? What suburb did they move to?
These days, do people come and go for their own individual reasons? Is the question perhaps: are people being forced out or are people in general making decisions that are most beneficial for themselves at this time and are Black people more likely to be affected?
I think the data would be more interesting if it included other dimensions such as economic status (ie whether there is a particular salary level or other indicator which tips the scale) as you might find additional depth beyond ethnicity. As an Oakland native I have to admit I would not be able to afford to buy a home here at today's prices. Personally, I'd rather rent here than own in Podunk (no offense Algonquians.) But if your dream includes home ownership or other vested interests then what are your options?
Cheers. cp
shiny, i'm not sure i follow you. i dont think there is an obsession with skin color, except for people who dont live in oakland, like bob and the rest of his ilk--who usually inhabit SFGate for all their commenting follies.
i do think that race is an issue which needs more honest discussion around it. ;)
and, fyi, diversity means just what it says: a diverse population. overall, the bay area is becoming more diverse. some areas are becoming more multicultural, some whiter, some blacker, some more Latin, some more Asian.
is gentrification a good thing? sometimes, but not always. i personally dont want to see Oakland turn into Walnut Creek, but i dont mind an influx of hipsters as long as they respect people who were here before them (and are still here).
I could understand the fear of change in the racial makeup (and consequently, a change in the culture) if Oakland were some sort of cultural mecca, but it's not (unless you count marijuana). Although it does have a few bright spots, as does any large city in the world, there's no romanticizing this city. It's poor; it's firmly in the clutches of special interests that feed themselves at the public trough at the expense of regular citizens; it has astronomically high crime of all types, including violent ones; large swathes of the city are blighted; and it's expensive. On the list of places that need a radical overhaul, Oakland is near the top. (I've lived in Hunters Point in SF, Chicago's South Side, Washington DC, and the ghettos of Houston, all of which would also rank pretty high.)
One issue that I think will become more important in the next few years is that of housing prices being inflated by subsidies (e.g., "section 8"). As California drowns in red ink, those subsidies are going to dry up, forcing those who receive them to flee to less pricey parts of the state and country. Right now, I don't think those subsidies are doing a whole lot of good, because the subsidies distort the market and drive up rents, making even the most ramshackle housing unaffordable for those who are wait-listed or no longer qualify (a perverse disincentive if I ever saw one). And because the subsidies often make it difficult for a tenant to move and thus remove incentives for landlords to maintain and improve property, the condition of some of these apartment buildings is abysmal.
And I am not a big fan of hipsters, myself. I respect pretty much everyone who doesn't infringe on my rights, regardless of whether they arrived before or after me.
As an black american I've never understood the view that blacks "have to" live in the cities as opposed to the suburbs or country. Can someone show me the gene in my DNA that's says I need to live in an urban city to be happy. My dad grew up on a farm in the south. I've lived in Livermore, Pleasanton, and now Oakland - and enjoyed all three. If I were married and raising kids, I'd definitely choose Pleasanton over Oakland - better schools, less crime, quiet neighborhoods. This is not the old South Africa where blacks were told by the government where to live. People should live where they want, end of story. The fact that Oakland is becoming more diverse is a good thing.
Also, considering that in Walnut Creek about 1.0% of families and 4.0% of the population were below the poverty line, compared to Oakland where 15.3 percent of families and 17.0 percent of the general population were below the poverty line - Oakland turning into a Walnut Creek would probably be a good thing.
this discussion is starting to get interesting.
@jay: i appreciate you elaborating on your POV. however, i dont think anyone introduced the notion that 'blacks have to live in urban areas' but you.
@shiny: i would also say it could be argued that, despite the problems you list, oakland is indeed a cultural mecca for diversity--which, btw, walnut creek clearly is not.
and, why can't Oakland be romanticized? San Francisco certainly is. catching the sunsets at jack london square is kinda romantic, not to mention seeing the gondola pass while walking the lake. Sure, there are areas which are hella ghetto, but the same could be said about any major urban city, from New York to Paris to London.
i live in what is considered a fairly high-crime area (downtown-lake merritt), statistically-speaking, and i've never been mugged, or shot. occasionally, cars get broken into on the street, and there is an occasional drunk, crackhead or homeless person on 14th st., but for the most part, they are harmless.
the most violent thing that's happened to me in four years is when my next-door neighbor--a white woman who moved from Oregon--had a domestic violence situation with her boyfriend--a white man from Arkansas--and i had to call the police.
Not saying that crime in Oakland is a myth, but it has been sensationalized to some degree. Maybe i dont invite crime or don't look like a target, but the reality of Oakland for residents seems quite different from the opinions held about the city by non-residents.
I'll pass on the whole section 8 issue as that's a complicated topic, deserving of its own article. however, i will point out that subsidized housing isnt limited to one particular ethnic group.
jay, a final comment: you say oakland becoming walnut creek would 'probably be a good thing.' To which i say, for who? and at whose expense?
The main problem I have with this study, and article, is that it paints with such a broad brush. Generalizing from macro trends like this inevitably leads to problematic discourse, because people end up just arguing their assumptions.
For example: here we are told (though not with actual numbers, just percentages, which is also problematic) that black people are migrating from Oakland to the suburbs. That’s it. It’s not enough to draw any conclusions, just enough to get people worked up, so you just end up arguing your beliefs about gentrification and development.
Perhaps part 2 of the study will be more useful. I would like to know how many of the people moving out of Oakland feel they were displaced. How many of them feel that they were disrespected, or that their communities were denigrated by people migrating to Oakland. How many of them are happier now than they were in Oakland before they moved? Or 10 years ago? Mr. Arnold, you spoke of a journalist giving context to statistics, I think that’s the kind of context that would have helped this piece.
For full disclosure: I’m a white male and have lived in Oakland for 2 years. I don’t know what a hipster is, except that the term seems to be used as a pejorative for folks like me. I work in my community, I feel like I do my part to make it better, and there’s definitely a piece of me that feels like the subtext of this study / article is that I’m not welcome here. Gentrification is a very tricky topic, one I’ve certainly struggled with. I don’t want to play any part in displacing someone from their home and community, but I also don’t want to feel that once a racial or ethnic community is established, outsiders aren’t welcome. That seems like the opposite of what we’re going for, right?
On a side note, I would also like to see this migration discussed in the context of the redlining that took place after WWII. I think that that overtly racist practice was a primary reason that parts of Oakland were almost all black, while the suburbs stayed almost all white. What we’ve seen over the last few decades may just be the breakdown of those systems… again, the need for more context!
jac, thanks for your comments. you know what? i agree with you 95%. i think the topic is an important one, but you're absolutely right that statistics only begin to show patterns which must then be contextuaized--which gets problematic because people have opinions and preconceived notions which may or may not be true. there's also a fine line which has to be walked between contextualizing and editorializing, perceptions being what they are.
i personally don't feel like this article or the study is the last word on the topic, but i am at least grateful that its emergence has engendered discussion which has raised many points worth considering in greater depth. if people want more follow-up and perhaps more personal accounts from current and former Oaklanders on their feelings about this topic, well then that's good feedback which can be applied to future endeavors.
peace,
-eric
Jac, very good points on the need for more context--and more questioning.
Next year's research will be getting more into the issues of economics, income, education and more contextual data - when the new census data are released and we have something more recent and relevant for those types of indicators. 10 year old employment and housing data are fairly irrelevant when a foreclosure crisis and a recession happened at the tail end of the decade unfortunately.
Glad there's been some good discussion about this report and what it means for our city.
Peace
Spike