Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 441 posts

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#121

Post by thatswrong0 »

Aspos wrote: post #32
diffset wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The homeless and those issues pretty much only exist in the tourist areas near downtown, the tenderloin, soma, etc. The tourists come and see all of that and get the idea SF is some horrible dystopia, but unless you live in those areas, it's not a problem. I lived in Noe Valley for 3 years and never ran into a single problem from your list. SF is so much more than downtown.

Can confirm. In general, unless you actually step into them, human feces are not a problem. Just watch your step and be alert. How difficult can it be?

Your bar is so low it's on the ground - watch your step.

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#122

Post by babesh »

shuckles wrote: post #25
hamburgerwah wrote: post #11

A lot of my family has lived in SF for decades, all of them have moved out in the past 4 years. It's a monstrous dystopia now. The ultra rich completely insulated from the human misery sprawled out in every direction around them while their peasants toil away as tiny ants looked down upon with pity from their gleaming towers.

Huh? The primary issue with San Francisco is that you are in fact not insulated from human misery at all. If you want insulation, check out Atherton or Woodside 20 miles down south. In addition, the wealthy of San Francisco live in giant single family homes. It’s not a big skyscraper culture.

Woodside and Atherton are closer to 30 miles to the south. I should know. I live 20 miles to the south.

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#123

Post by Apocryphon »

bastard_op wrote: post #108
rpmcmurdo wrote: post #17

27 year San Francisco resident here. The government here is dysfunctional because that's what people voted for. The fact that people pay so much to live here says that people are willing to put up with a lot in exchange for living in a diverse and beautiful city.

Not sure I would ever call San Francisco "beautiful" - it was a dirty, beat-down city when I lived there in 1999/2000. Unless you can afford a view to just stare over the actual city to the waterfronts, pretending a bum isn't taking a shit on your doorstep right now and leaving their heroine needle for you to clean up. Working in Manhattan many years later, I expected much the same arriving for the first time, but su…

Underrated observation. S.F. has always had a scraggly personality since the Gold Rush days. It's where Dirty Harry and tons of '70s police procedurals were set in, after all. The issue is that despite tech wealth since the late 2000s, none of it has seemed to better the city and in some ways has increased wealth inequality.

Manhattan's answer is because of Giuliani's authoritarian mayoral reign. Cleanliness came at a cost of mass arrests and evictions of the homelessness, restrictions on shelters, and stop-and-frisk. Probably not a price that S.F. is willing to pay.

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#124

Post by reilly3000 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #112
reilly3000 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco was brilliant before tech, and will be shining in the next boom. Some things are bigger than now, and maybe bigger than we can fully understand. Here’s some enjoyable reading for those with a few minutes to spare: http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist1/early.html To me the confluence of cultures, like the brackish waters of the bay, are it’s hallmark. The issues around sudden wealth, excess, limited housing, and…

San Francisco had a declining population from 1960 until 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco So according to people voting with their feet: no, San Francisco was not a brilliant place before tech. Or at least it wasn't brilliant enough to attract a net increase in population.

Exodus is part of its ethos. By 2002 some people were ready to declare the city deceased. Boom towns need their busts like forests need fires.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/24/business/a-city-takes-a-b...

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#125

Post by thatswrong0 »

metalforever wrote: post #48
ithinkso wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are willing to put up with a lot if it means they don't give anything to someone that doesn't deserve it. 'I will walk through a pile of shit before my money is used for you to shit somewhere else you lazy fuck'

You don't actually live in SF or you would know that there's not actually literal piles of shit everywhere.

I've lived in SOMA, the Mission, and Russian hill to name a few... there is a lot of shit here my dude, far more than should exist for a city with this much wealth.

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#126

Post by lhorie »

space_fountain wrote: post #62

I think some of the responses here are too gloomy. Look things are bad but SF does have a lot going for it and it's a lot less bad than some people think, just don't live in SOMA or the tenderloin and you'll be a lot better off. SF has lots of wealth and resources just waiting to be tapped into, a climate that's likely to get nicer over the next several decades (maybe ignoring smoke), some of the highest densities bo…

> just don't live in SOMA or the tenderloin and you'll be a lot better off

I mean, that's basically just saying "lalala can't hear ya". The entire point of calling SF dysfunctional is that a significant number of people in those areas (and others) are on the streets without access to needed psychiatric help and other basic needs. As a result, there's so much petty crime going unreported that any statistics on the matter are bogus.

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#127

Post by [deleted] »

systemvoltage wrote: post #115
Manuel_D wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crucial to dig into the criteria for what studies consider living in the state at the time of becoming homeless. Plenty of studies consider prison to be "housing" so someone who was homeless before moving to California, then commits a crime and spends a month behind bars, and is homeless after release becomes categorized as living in California when they become homeless.

My problem with these assertions is that there is no data supporting it, but these stories and anecdotes keep circulating. I could make up 100 reasons to hypothesize how homeless could possible end up in California, but without data this is just thinly supported.

[deleted]

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#128

Post by mixmastamyk »

space_fountain wrote: post #62

I think some of the responses here are too gloomy. Look things are bad but SF does have a lot going for it and it's a lot less bad than some people think, just don't live in SOMA or the tenderloin and you'll be a lot better off. SF has lots of wealth and resources just waiting to be tapped into, a climate that's likely to get nicer over the next several decades (maybe ignoring smoke), some of the highest densities bo…

Unwilling to fix is a de facto unfixable. Until something major changes.

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#129

Post by zaphar »

shuckles wrote: post #41
zaphar wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it's hard to argue that it isn't the voters fault. Whether that is because they are not electing a conservative enough mayor or not isn't the point of the article. Vote in non-corrupt officials who are willing to clean house and you start to make a dint in the problem. Ideology is irrelevant as a qualification for the candidate. The fact that they choose largey based on ideology rather than integrity is the pr…

At this level of evidence, every problem in a nominally democratic society could be explained by “voters” in the abstract. Would you blame local discretion over land use, Prop 13, or CEQA - semi-permanent features of the Californian democratic system - on today’s San Francisco voters? How about the lack of national healthcare system that can support drug abusers and other mentally incompetent which drives a lot of ne…

In a democracy the answer to all of the above has to be yes. You literally get what you vote for in a democracy. Even more so in the kind of direct democracy that San Francisco engages in so frequently.

Re: Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

#130

Post by yodsanklai »

nradov wrote: post #86
yodsanklai wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading from HN, half of Americans are either in jail or homeless dealing with mental issues. Are there proper statistics to get a better assessment of the situation?

https://www.usich.gov/homelessness-statistics/ca/ The Federal Government estimates that about 0.4% of Californians were homeless in 2020. From what I've seen on the streets the numbers are probably a little worse now.

By comparison, France has 300 000 homeless persons [1], which is about 0.44%. It doesn't seem to be as big an issue here compared to California. Maybe homeless people are more concentrated in SF which makes the problem appear worse than in other countries?

[1] https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2020/11/15/la-fondati...

Post reply on HN