Live data from Hacker News

Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

economist.com

271–280 of 441 posts

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

#271

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…

Except the aliotos cannot get elected. I'm happy to believe in conspiracies but if they control so much as you say, why can't they get their own elected.

Do they try to get elected? why would you need to get elected when you can control any candidate, or control things regardless of who is in power???

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

#272
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

LA county alone has like 100 thousand homeless people. That's the population of Burbank California.

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

#273

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…

Except the aliotos cannot get elected. I'm happy to believe in conspiracies but if they control so much as you say, why can't they get their own elected.

Elected officials are a lot like C-suite: they run the company, but they don't own it. Owners sit on the board and rarely seek publicity.

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

#274

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…

Except the aliotos cannot get elected. I'm happy to believe in conspiracies but if they control so much as you say, why can't they get their own elected.

I think you are confused about what upper class (old money) is. They don't work. They do charity and art. Politicians work for them.

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

#275

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 done in the name of human rights, but naturally there were ulterior motives.

what was the ulterior motive?

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

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the aliotos cannot get elected. I'm happy to believe in conspiracies but if they control so much as you say, why can't they get their own elected.

Do they try to get elected? why would you need to get elected when you can control any candidate, or control things regardless of who is in power???

Yes. Angela alioto, daughter of ex mayor Sam alioto has campaigned as a conservative democrat and loses spectacularly. There is no basis to claim they run the city. This is just mindless conspiracy.

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

#277

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…

Except the aliotos cannot get elected. I'm happy to believe in conspiracies but if they control so much as you say, why can't they get their own elected.

[deleted]

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

#278
post #180
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's human feces everywhere outside the tourist/financial districts, This is not accurate. The Sunset, Richmond, Parkside, Presidio, Marina, and many other parts of the city are very clean (or at least not notably dirty for a city). Perhaps the Marina/Presidio could be called tourist areas but the Sunset and Richmond certainly are not.

I've lived here for over 5 years and can absolutely confirm there are a few parts of the city that are dirty and have the feces/needles that people who honestly can't afford to live here love to talk about when they're denigrating the city. As you've noted, there are lots of neighborhoods, MOST of the city, that are very clean, safe, and obviously very desirable to live in.

The parts youa re talking about are not city at all imo, its precisely the places that try to get as far away as possible from SF, within SF.

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

#279
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly, but I don't think its required. The Irvine Company is very similar in Southern California. It seems like they own everything when you want office real estate. So, it's corruption, right? Well, except that if you talk to any contractors (like your internet provider installer) you find that they love The Irvine Company because there is someone who has a little bit of competence for them to talk to when they n…

To add further color to this, the Irvine Company benefits enormously from Prop 13. This law guarantees that once you hold property for long enough, your tax burden will be so much lower than everyone else you have a cost advantage that newcomers will not be able to match. So the current state law favors older companies over new ones. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13

Your tax burden would stay the same, relative to future buyers, if prices stay flat. At which some point, they're bound to plateau. How many people or institutions will buy single family homes once they're $10 million each, but the median household income is still somewhere around $100k? It's a subtle point, but the benefits of Prop 13 aren't a function of time, they're a function of appreciation. It just so happens to be the decades following Prop 13 came with great price appreciation, some of that attributable to Prop 13 itself, but most of it attributable to local rule of land use policy.

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

#280
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in San Francisco for 16 years. Yes, I have experienced the homeless problem. I had my car broken into once when I left my backpack inside. I have never been mugged or robbed or had any physical violence occur, or be threatened. We have many lovely friends who live here. San Francisco is under a lot of pressure: population, finance, environmental. It is not a dystopia. It is a community where people build t…

> I have never been mugged or robbed or had any physical violence occur, or be threatened. You're lucky (and not that I want to intentionally bring up this card, but I bet you're a burly caucasian male). I saw a guy jump over the Bart ticket gate on literally my first night in SF. I've witnessed multiple retail theft incidents. I've been spat on, literally out of nowhere. A coworker had his garage broken into and a b…

> You're lucky (and not that I want to intentionally bring up this card, but I bet you're a burly caucasian male).

Stop this. I'm a non-burly non-caucasian male and this (being mugged, robbed, or undergoing physical violence) has never happened to me even once. Maybe you're unlucky? Drawing from your personal anecdotes gets tiring.

> I've witnessed multiple retail theft incidents. I've been spat on, literally out of nowhere.

I've seen this in SF. I've also seen it in LA, Dallas, Houston, Salt Lake City, and Chicago. I've seen it in NYC also, but not in Manhattan. The difference is that in most other big cities in the US, everyone drives around everywhere, so you're insulated from the folks on the street, or you clearly know which neighborhoods to avoid.

> A coworker had his garage broken into and a bike stolen. Another mentioned a friend whose backpack was snatched. (All asians)

A garage is race-blind, come on. I've lived in a house full of East Asians in the Sunset and this never happened to me. I lived in SOMA with caucasians and this happened to me (well us, nothing of mine was stolen).

I think what you're seeing is that SF is physically a lot less class-segregated than other US cities and that folks drive around here a lot less than they do in other cities. In LA, the crazies mostly hang around Skid Row and the Arts District and if you spend most of your life outside these places (or in a car, as Angelenos are won't to do) you'll never encounter them. In Chicago if you stick to the Loop and downtown. you'll only see gleaming apartments. In Houston, Austin, and much of Salt Lake City (and honestly almost everyone in LA), most everyone just zooms around in a car and only interacts with the homeless or panhandlers as they drive around. As such most affluent folks know to avoid low-income or run-down neighborhoods and so never really interact with the homeless.

In SF you can walk down Valencia between 17th and 22nd and it'll look shiny and fancy, like something out of a promotional poster about "Modern Living". Then you walk a block over to Guerrero and you'll see someone with scabs all over lying on the street naked. You walk down 7th or 8th and see fancy new cafes, but then you walk down 6th and see folks shooting up in broad daylight. Some of this is SF's more tolerant atmosphere for the mentally-ill homeless; in other cities they just get harassed until they accumulate in a part of town that doesn't have the residents, police funding, or political capital to push them out.

I'm not saying SF is a bed of roses and I do think the police here need to take a much harder line on property crime, but I think a lot of the negative experiences here are motivated by SF's lack of physical segregation and its walking-first culture. America has historically just relegated the poor and homeless to the streets and used cars to literally and figuratively zoom away from them. Now that cities are coming back into vogue, the US will have to confront the fact that it never fixed its poverty problem but just shoved it out of sight.

Post reply on HN