Depends, I guess, on what would be done.
I'm actually from and in the Oakland area, though I've never lived or done regular work in the actual city and therefore get to avoid it.
There are pockets of development, which tend to look like dense "smart growth" and may bring with them "streetscape improvements" that are supposed to make the area more "vibrant," with as many other New Urbanist buzzwords as you can cram in.
I'm not afraid to visit Oakland at all, and within the past year I've actually driven through the middle of West Oakland and East Oakland multiple times, even at night, but I began a little boycott of the city after it began a regime of road narrowing, which is being advocated from high levels of government under various euphemisms, because we can have a shiny new city if we make it green, and hip, or something.
This is not at all to say that a city has to pour all its resources into taking care of its worst problems, with nothing left over for lesser priorities. It's just that I don't care to pay for inducing road stenosis.
Meanwhile, my problem isn't just with civic priorities. I still wouldn't care to drive through Oakland's rougher neighborhoods for fun, much less walk or ride on one of those new bike lanes. If you're trying to restore an old Victorian, construction workers are regularly robbed, and even the nicer neighborhoods are increasing in crimes like burglary and even armed robbery. Some neighborhoods have begun hiring private security.
Oops: “I’m not afraid to visit Oakland at all” was intended to be more like “I’m not afraid to visit Oakland in general.”
Private security guards are visible in Oakland's Rockridge district.