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

231–240 of 441 posts

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

#231

Post by jdminhbg »

mc32 wrote: post #177
Manuel_D wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Believe it or not, I met a RE agent who told me back in the early 90s RE agents were leaving SF because business was so bad. It's hard to imagine, but at least an anecdote. But so was San Jose. Apparently the "downtown" was boarded up in many places till the late 90s when it began emerging from a mini-Detroit like state. MacEnary was feverishly trying to resuscitate it, I don't think it was his effort so much as it w…

I don’t live in California but visit[ed] a bunch for work and family reasons. San Jose has essentially always felt like a rust belt city with better weather. Even up until 2020 the downtown restaurant and bar scene was like going to the cool part of Toledo. I don’t understand why that is, but it’s not surprising to me that any small economic downturn would result in flight.

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

#232

Post by nradov »

Hermitian909 wrote: post #207

As someone who's family has been in the bay area for over a century I was disappointed the article didn't mention any of the old money families who've controlled SF politics for decades. This article[0] mentions some, though not all of the families (The Aliotos aren't mentioned here for example). While I haven't fully kept up, I know in the 90s at least a quarter of the financial district was held by two families. Th…

If SF politics is really controlled by a wealthy cabal then why have they allowed the situation to deteriorate so much? What possible benefit could they derive from homelessness, dirty streets, rampant property crime, and a dysfunctional government? The wealthy people who control NYC politics seem less tolerant of such issues.

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

#233

Post by qweqwweqwe-90i »

colinmhayes wrote: post #219
thatguy0900 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of a bubble do you have to be in to think someone peeing on cars is a non issue

I don't think arresting people solves problems. Just makes them shittier people when they get out a week later.

What use is the law anyway...

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

#234

Post by qweqwweqwe-90i »

systemvoltage wrote: post #33

I'd like bundle Oakland (across from SF on east bay) with this as well. Totally useless government, unbelievably filthy, utterly third world and embarrassingly woke. Yes, I say this as a liberal who's never voted for Republican candidate ever. Portland, Seattle, LA and SF - this is a west coast phenomenon and a policy-induced suicide. > In 2017 Portland ranked third. Now it has dropped to 66th out of 80. https://www.…

Maybe start voting for another party for some change...

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

#235

Post by Talanes »

lubujackson wrote: post #172
ecf wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are incarceration rates low because people behave or are they low because SF police don’t bother to arrest people?

Low because they don't arrest anyone. But that isn't on the police - they don't arrest anyone because the DA doesn't prosecute anyone. Property crime is sky high... if you happen to get caught breaking into a car the penalty is a warning. That is the policy. You have to break into many cars and be caught (which is hard to do) many times for any action. Boudin has indefensibly ignored violent criminals, too. Like a wo…

>But that isn't on the police - they don't arrest anyone because the DA doesn't prosecute anyone.

This always struck me as a BS excuse, because if you're trying to demonstrate that the DA is the problem, wouldn't you want to be making arrests and creating a paper trail to prove your point? Apathy by the police just makes them look bad to anyone who's on the receiving end of it.

And getting arrested is still a deterrent without charges. Hell, even "A cop might begin asking me some questions" is a mild deterrent.

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

#236

Post by Talanes »

trhway wrote: post #223
rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For better or for worse, homelessness in America can largely be attributed to Regan-era changes in policy [1] that prevented people from being committed against their will to psychiatric hospitals. It was done in the name of human rights, but naturally there were ulterior motives. It's time we reverted it. About 10% of humans have been addicts across most cultures throughout most of recorded human history, and they d…

>About 10% of humans have been addicts across most cultures throughout most of recorded human history, and they desperately need help (even if they claim don't want it). one can wonder why this trait hasn't been selected out by now (or some trait managing it hasn't appeared).

How many addicts crash and burn before reproductive age?

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

#237

Post by dralley »

Talanes wrote: post #235
lubujackson wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low because they don't arrest anyone. But that isn't on the police - they don't arrest anyone because the DA doesn't prosecute anyone. Property crime is sky high... if you happen to get caught breaking into a car the penalty is a warning. That is the policy. You have to break into many cars and be caught (which is hard to do) many times for any action. Boudin has indefensibly ignored violent criminals, too. Like a wo…

>But that isn't on the police - they don't arrest anyone because the DA doesn't prosecute anyone. This always struck me as a BS excuse, because if you're trying to demonstrate that the DA is the problem, wouldn't you want to be making arrests and creating a paper trail to prove your point? Apathy by the police just makes them look bad to anyone who's on the receiving end of it. And getting arrested is still a deterre…

I assume they would feel that sticking their neck out like that would put themselves at personal risk, either literally or figuratively.

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

#238

Post by srswtf123 »

bpodgursky wrote: post #227
chrisseaton wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as they aren’t harming anyone why can’t you respect their wishes and leave them alone if that’s what they want? What if someone decided you needed help even after you made it clear you didn’t want it?

I don't consider it humane to let someone live on the streets begging until they happen to die of a drug overdose. I don't care about their wishes, guided by drug addiction and mental health issues. To allow and enable this much squandering of human potential is a moral crime. Get people clean of drugs, healthy, stable, and educated. By force, if needed. If from that baseline he decides to go back into a life of drug…

This is, in all honesty, a terrifying point of view.

Forcing people to take part in a society that has already rejected them and conform to someone else’s view of normal, healthy, stable, etc., that, to me, would be literal torture. I don’t consider it humane to torture people.

How do you feel about all the busywork jobs that enable so so much more squandering of human potential? Should all those folks be forced to live your version of their best life?

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

#239

Post by [deleted] »

poorjohnmacafee wrote: post #224
Hermitian909 wrote: post #207

As someone who's family has been in the bay area for over a century I was disappointed the article didn't mention any of the old money families who've controlled SF politics for decades. This article[0] mentions some, though not all of the families (The Aliotos aren't mentioned here for example). While I haven't fully kept up, I know in the 90s at least a quarter of the financial district was held by two families. Th…

I think a story about an ultra wealthy ruling class that stands behind the public political class is not going to get published in mainstream outlets. I mean it will if it's about Russia or China or historical periods like "the Gilded Age", but I guess you don't see it talked about for modern day West.

[deleted]

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

#240

Post by annexrichmond »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #213
muh_gradle wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those that are mentally ill, and especially if they are violent, you force them to get the psychiatric help that they need. It's an unpopular opinion. But frankly it's long overdue. For those that have the option to go to shelters, receive plenty of benefits (which SF most definitely provides) but prefer to be homeless, they need to be separated from major city areas where tourists, business people, and every day…

For better or for worse, homelessness in America can largely be attributed to Regan-era changes in policy [1] that prevented people from being committed against their will to psychiatric hospitals. It was done in the name of human rights, but naturally there were ulterior motives. It's time we reverted it. About 10% of humans have been addicts across most cultures throughout most of recorded human history, and they d…

It was a bipartisan initiative. Tying Regan’s name to it seems disingenuous.
Post reply on HN