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

341–350 of 441 posts

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

#341

Post by reissbaker »

wahern wrote: post #293
nradov wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If SF politics is really controlled by a wealthy cabal then why have they allowed the situation to deteriorate so much? Because they can't influence supervisor elections or school board elections as well as they can elections for mayor. The reason why San Francisco mayors are always re-elected is because they're very middle of the road in terms of politics and risk tolerance. Activist policies are usually the produ…

Activist politics are the product of the Board of Supervisors and the school board for the same reason that activist politics are more popular in the House than in the Senate: the boards are elected district-by-district, and don't need to tend to the views of larger masses of people. They answer to a small group of constituents, and that's it. If you have a small voter pool, being an outspoken, controversial activist helps (as long as you don't cross the specific lines your district cares about): it raises your profile because you're controversial, and since you don't need to please everyone, you're more free to say or promote ideas that many other people — who aren't in your district! — view as outrageous.

You don't really need cabals to explain it. And it's unclear to me what mechanism the cabals supposedly have to choose the mayor; why they'd choose London Breed over say, Angela Alioto (a member of the "old money elite"); why they can choose the mayor but failed to choose their desired DA in the same election cycle; etc.

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

#342

Post by fshbbdssbbgdd »

kongin wrote: post #338
m-ee wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s more than one wealthy cabal. There’s the ultra rich power brokers like the Aliotos, Getty’s and then there’s the moderately wealthy people at the top of the government itself. Especially anyone associated with Willie Brown. Government jobs are extremely lucrative, many pay six figures and opportunities to supplement with graft are plentiful. It’s a powerful club to be in and you’re potentially set for life. M…

>Government jobs are extremely lucrative, many pay six figures and opportunities to supplement with graft are plentiful. It’s a powerful club to be in and you’re potentially set for life. My spouse is a lifelong resident and remembers rushing to city hall with other hopefuls every time the city opened up applications. Six figures in SF is literally nothing: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44725026

Not if you have prop 13 or rent control (like the majority of residents of SF).

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

#343

Post by mattmanser »

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.

Especially not the Economist.

I mean they spend paragraphs bashing the 'leftie' DA before admitting the problem is actually the police being rubbish.

I knew they were biased, but the article seems especially bad.

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

#344

Post by chrisseaton »

burnished wrote: post #295
chrisseaton wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as the homeless people have been offered help and are not harming others why do you feel the need to do anything to them? Why does a class of person need to be reduced to ‘zero’? What if someone decided people like you had to be reduced to zero?

Lets talk about harm. Street people don't have places to dispose of needles, they don't have access to sanitation or toilettes, frequently are struggling with mental health issues in loud and sometimes frightening fashions, oh and I guess if you're a woman in that position you're in incredible danger. With that in mind, is it more clear why other people wouldn't want any one to live like that?

I already said

> As long as the homeless people have been offered help and are not harming others

So I don’t know why you’re giving examples where they are causing harm.

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

#345

Post by chrisseaton »

bpodgursky wrote: post #254
srswtf123 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

We have different views about what is humane. I struggle to understand yours, but that's OK.

Yours involves forcing your world view on a vulnerable person against their will for your benefit. Theirs does not. Guess which is the moral one.

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

#346

Post by alexanderchr »

mattmanser wrote: post #343
poorjohnmacafee wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Especially not the Economist. I mean they spend paragraphs bashing the 'leftie' DA before admitting the problem is actually the police being rubbish. I knew they were biased, but the article seems especially bad.

Not exactly surprising since The Economist is owned by the ultra wealthy ruling class.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Group

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

#347

Post by srj »

WalterBright wrote: post #173
CraigJPerry wrote: post #137

I sat and chatted to a homeless fella hanging out at Fisherman’s Wharf in SF for a while. He wasn’t from CA, from Missouri IIRC. He was gay, his family disowned him, he got into drugs. He got bitter, did some nasty stuff to people he hated, did some other misguided things and basically had hit rock bottom. I asked him what he thought would be needed to bring him out of homelessness and keep him inside society. He sai…

> It’s played on my mind many times over the years, how do you help someone in that scenario? Offer them help. If they refuse, respect their rights, and move on.

How does someone have the right to take public property as their own? Maybe if the areas were designated but we are talking about people who eschew shelter.

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

#349

Post by simonebrunozzi »

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…

Which are these two rich families who controlled a fourth of FiDi in the 90s?

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

#350

Post by inglor_cz »

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…

Get people healthy by force? What does it even mean? Fitness camps for the obese?
Post reply on HN