Live data from Hacker News

Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional

economist.com

411–420 of 441 posts

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

#411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is rather uncommon to believe that people in a society where everyone can publish their opinions must be artificially manipulated into conflict and dissent. I’d think that harmony and consent must instead be artificially manufactured. I’m curious about your life experience here. > that everyone forgets about the most significant problem in the USA - the top 5% of the country own over 80% of the wealth I’ve heard t…

That belief is actually really common in the US. Particularly among the upper middle class (the top 10%, and 90% of HN readers) to convince themselves that when they disagree with people in the working class, who outnumber them by far, that it's really not them vs the majority, but rather them vs a few evil billionaire puppet masters. And of course the only way to fight these evil billionaires (on behalf of the poor,…

As I said above, this sounds exactly like you are a shill for the big money billionaires. This is exactly what they would want you to say. Shift the blame from them, sow doubt. Muddle things up. Set up groups to fight other groups. Divide and conquer.

From the 1930s to 1986, the top income tax bracket was 70-90%. Now it is 37% on income of $518,401 or more. This does not include wealth like stock, which is not taxed until sold. However, it can be used as collateral, and get the billionaires as much cash as they need, without having to declare that money as income.

What does any billionaire need that much money for? I guess they could get a really, really big closet and buy 10 million pairs of $100 shoes for every billion dollars.

The top 10% of the USA own 70% (SEVENTY PERCENT!!!) of all wealth in the USA. This was NOT the case in the 1940s and 1950s, where the MAGA fans want to bring us back to.

.

Here is another way billionaires are f-ing the rest of the country:

Right now, REITS and corporation recently started hoovering up apartments and homes. As a result, rental prices have been skyrocketing. Do a search on it. Don't take my word. There was a small town or city in Tennessee, where people bought up a lion's share of the real estate market, and as the mayor said, you could rent a home for $1,000 five years ago, and now it costs over $2,000.

This is why people can't buy homes - the wealthy, through REITS and corporations are buying up homes by the hundreds of thousands. To make a nation of renters (except for the wealthy, of course, of course). The wealthy want us to go back to medieval England where the rich own all the land and we are all serfs.

There is not one county, in the entire USA, that is affordable to people in the lower class. Not one.

"In January, D.R. Horton Inc. purchased an entire subdivision in Conroe, Texas, built 124 houses, and then put the entire neighborhood on the block. The winning bid for $32 million dollars came from Fundrise LLC, an online real estate investing platform that lets you invest in commercial real estate through real estate investment trusts. A combination of investors swooping up single-family houses to rent out or flip, some of the lowest interest rates in history, and a housing shortage has caused home prices to surge, pricing normal people out of being able to purchase a home."

"Billionaire B. Wayne Hughes dispatched deputies to buy tens of thousands more across the U.S. Hughes’s company American Homes 4 Rent now owns about 53,000 suburban houses in 22 states and collects about $1 billion in annual rent from tenants. His plan paid off big. While millions of Americans were underwater – owing more on their mortgages than their homes were worth – investors accounted for about a third of sales in many markets."

"In 2012, the federal government launched a program that allowed corporations to easily purchase foreclosed homes by the thousands from Fannie Mae. The corporations then rented out the homes, creating more housing in areas heavily hit by foreclosures. Between 2011 and 2017, some of the world’s largest hedge funds spent billions of dollars on almost a quarter of a million homes. In parts of Atlanta, they bought almost 90 percent of the 7,500 homes sold between January 2011 and June 2012."

"Rather than protecting communities and making it easy for homeowners to restructure bad mortgages, the government facilitated the transfer of wealth from the American people to private-equity firms. By 2016, 95 percent of the distressed mortgages on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s books were auctioned off to Wall Street investors."

"Private-equity firms have developed new ways to secure credit, enabling them to leverage their equity and acquire a nearly endless amount of homes."

"During the current housing bubble, more than 200 corporations and investment firms are in the housing hunt. J.P. Morgan Asset Management and BlackRock Inc are among the biggest players, competing against everyday Americans in search of their first home. Most are being priced out easily by billion-dollar companies. Builders like LGI Homes Inc are wholesaling thousands of homes to bulk buyer investors. Investment manager PCCP LLC – which typically goes after commercial property – recently bought several rental-home communities throughout the Southeast."

Madison Realty recently closed on a $110 million project in Los Angeles, and nearly one third of the 700 home sites are being sold to investors.

“A lot of things that would have been for-sale housing are going to be for-rent housing,” Josh Zegen, Madison’s managing principal told the Wall Street Journal.

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

#412
post #182
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sunset, Parkside, and Marina are all wealthy areas in the north/west of the city. Richmond is not in SF city. Presidio is right next to the pier and thus I would consider it a "touristy area". You're living under a (perhaps bejeweled) rock if you've lived in SF and never seen human shit, someone peeing between some cars, dead animals, homeless literally everywhere, disheveled buildings, trash piles lining the gutters…

You don't even live here. Your twitter bio says you live in Germany... "Homeless literally everywhere" - no, not literally at all. "Trash piles lining the gutters" - you don't even know what you're talking about.

People can move. Crazy concept.

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

#413
post #159
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sunset, Parkside, and Marina are all wealthy areas in the north/west of the city. Richmond is not in SF city. Presidio is right next to the pier and thus I would consider it a "touristy area". You're living under a (perhaps bejeweled) rock if you've lived in SF and never seen human shit, someone peeing between some cars, dead animals, homeless literally everywhere, disheveled buildings, trash piles lining the gutters…

Someone who doesn't know that the Richmond is a district of San Francisco doesn't get to pompously lecture me on not knowing about the city I lived in for seven years. Also, the Sunset is not a particularly wealthy district and it's not in the northwest. I never claimed that these problems don't exist, but the idea that they're part of life in every part of the city is simply false.

Richmond is not in SF City. It's in the greater SF area. Just like Oakland isn't in SF city.

You're dodging the argument at this point.

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

#414
post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Drawing from your personal anecdotes gets tiring. Perhaps that says more about the impact of high crime stats on real people than my individual luck. The reality remains that various forms of crime are deeply intertwined with various forms of inequality (be it correlation between race/gender/etc and violence/harrassment, or geographic segregation and property crime) I've lived in Toronto and Sao Paulo, so I have qu…

> huge slum in a 3rd world city with a ridiculously high crime rate. If you think Sao Paulo is a 3rd world city, then I don't know what you'd bin Naypyidaw or Monrovia into. 4th world maybe? You'd probably enjoy living in a South Bay suburb. There's lots of pockets of different races and you'd never have to meet anyone outside of that community and you'd have total local control of police response and other things. C…

I try to avoid postulating about places I've not been to. I was born in Sao Paulo, under the reign of military dictatorship, at that (look up its relationship w/ the US if you feel like filling your daily dose of WTFs).

The "3rd world" denomination is not something I came up with, and I certainly don't want to be the one drawing more classist lines as some attempt to distance myself from folks in Liberia or Myanmar or Afghanistan or whatever, as I'm sure they're already going through enough crap as is.

South Bay is, as far as I can tell (I only lived there for a few months), quintessential North American suburbia. It's not that different from Toronto suburbia, to be honest; my wife wants to move to South Bay if we end up settling around these parts. The house prices though :/

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

#415
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me explain. The authorities there made it ok for people to do that. Police will not arrest you. You can use the streets as your bathroom. They even announced it on the local news (around 2014-2015). Either they are too stupid to realize people would take advantage of that, or they are malevolent and wanted to destroy SF for whatever political reason.

Alternative solution: have bathrooms available.

Right, that would be a huge help, yet so many years and elected officials keep trying the same solutions of building full blown housing.

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

#416
post #293

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? 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…

The situation makes a case for a return to back room politics.

Where as long as you voted for your constituents' priority issues, you were free to strike deals on everything else.

Sunlight and transparency carry responsibility with them... and I'm not sure what we, the public, have done with the additional information (to wit, being outraged about everything, all the time) has been for the best of the entire system.

We don't look kindly on managers who micromanage their employees' work, and yet we're essentially doing the same thing to our politicians. Especially at the local level.

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

#417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That belief is actually really common in the US. Particularly among the upper middle class (the top 10%, and 90% of HN readers) to convince themselves that when they disagree with people in the working class, who outnumber them by far, that it's really not them vs the majority, but rather them vs a few evil billionaire puppet masters. And of course the only way to fight these evil billionaires (on behalf of the poor,…

As I said above, this sounds exactly like you are a shill for the big money billionaires. This is exactly what they would want you to say. Shift the blame from them, sow doubt. Muddle things up. Set up groups to fight other groups. Divide and conquer. From the 1930s to 1986, the top income tax bracket was 70-90%. Now it is 37% on income of $518,401 or more. This does not include wealth like stock, which is not taxed…

> As I said above, this sounds exactly like you are a shill for the big money billionaires

Billionaires, if you are reading this, please contact me with offers!

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

#418
post #413
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone who doesn't know that the Richmond is a district of San Francisco doesn't get to pompously lecture me on not knowing about the city I lived in for seven years. Also, the Sunset is not a particularly wealthy district and it's not in the northwest. I never claimed that these problems don't exist, but the idea that they're part of life in every part of the city is simply false.

Richmond is not in SF City. It's in the greater SF area. Just like Oakland isn't in SF city. You're dodging the argument at this point.

San Francisco has an Inner/Outer Richmond district. It’s the area north of Golden Gate Park. Inner/outer Sunset is south of Golden Gate Park. How can you be such an authority on SF and not know this? Yes there’s a Richmond city but it’s not what’s being referred to here…

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

#419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said above, this sounds exactly like you are a shill for the big money billionaires. This is exactly what they would want you to say. Shift the blame from them, sow doubt. Muddle things up. Set up groups to fight other groups. Divide and conquer. From the 1930s to 1986, the top income tax bracket was 70-90%. Now it is 37% on income of $518,401 or more. This does not include wealth like stock, which is not taxed…

> As I said above, this sounds exactly like you are a shill for the big money billionaires Billionaires, if you are reading this, please contact me with offers!

Yep, this is exactly what I would say if I was a shill. Obfuscate, mock, downplay. You got it down.

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

#420

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.

Well, I think there are some good reasons for that. It's traditionally been an antisemetic trope, and often smoothly blends into antisemitism (Rothschilds, etc). It's also one of those things where the evidence is by necessity weak, and you really can't write weakly-evidenced critical articles about rich people without getting sued. Personally, I'm very glad that this isn't a mainstream way of understanding problems.…

> about the same range of politics as everybody else

We're not talking about "rich people", that's fine and well. We're talking about classes with .5B+ levels of wealth, where it's not about subscribing to politics, it's about literally having the ability to influence politics, should they wish to. Fyi every country and civilization, ever, has had powerful interest groups that seek to control politics to further secure their position and interests. This is not surprising to anyone that this exists. Maybe the main difference today is that in this era of shell companies and the anonymity that comes with mass, global societies, it's able to be less public than before, e.g. way less public than when societies actually had open aristocracies not that long ago.

Post reply on HN