I think that's a really condescending response. I'm happy to live here; that doesn't mean that I don't get to take issues with the actions of our government. And you don't get to pretend that SF "isn't for" people who disagree with your specific views, nor do you get to claim that I don't value books, music or art (which is nowhere indicated in my prior posts).
I did not say anything about cutting services for the homeless, and I think it's in poor form for you to try to ascribe any belief to me which I have not actually expressed. When I say that the safe sleeping sites cost more per tent than market-rate 1BDs, it's because it's pretty stupid that during the pandemic we didn't actually just put people in apartments -- it's not the services that we've rendered but the cruel and inefficient way we've insisted on delivering them. It's also stupid that we pay cops to do street sweeps, we pay DPW to install boulders on sidewalks to prevent people sleeping there, both of which are only moving symptoms. It's also stupid that Breed prematurely started shutting down the room-key program when there was still plenty of _federal_ funding available for it. If anything, I would say that SF is being simultaneously inefficient and lacking in empathy.
What we should cut is anyone in municipal government who has come within a 3 meters of parties involved in the ongoing corruption revelations. We should cut out any future work with the contracting firms involved in the Twin Peaks tunnel retrofit that had to be done twice, or the Central Subway project blew past all timeline and budget expectations, and we should seriously look at the relationships between specific people in city hall and the firms that get lucrative contracts. When the city is over-paying, I think it's frequently because someone in city government has something to gain.
If you don't think there's stuff we can prune easily, I think you're not looking.
- SFUSD needs to support actual teachers, but it seems like there's plenty of room to cut administrators. I wonder how many of those administrators had a personal connection inside the system prior to landing their role?
https://48hills.org/2022/03/sfusds-big-administrative-expens...
- How about stopping the Cultural Districts program which lacks a basic ability to engage with the cultures it claims to honor? The Leather & LGBT district commissioned art from queer artists which it refused to even display. The whole thing arrived after most of the relevant businesses had folded. Largely the result is some land+hardscaping by The Eagle.
- What about stuff that we spend money on that the city just can't do competently regardless of resources? I think the federal reaction to the conditions at Laguna Honda is heavy-handed, but given that there have been problems for multiple years, the administration can't credibly promise to resolve them in any pre-stated timeline. Maybe there's a reason other cities don't try to run long-term nursing facilities.
And frankly, a bunch of the stuff you listed earlier is pretty regressive. There's a strong relationship between neighborhood, income, and who goes to the legion of honor or De Young. Most of the people who enter the botanical garden for free as SF residents could easily pay for entry. Why should Bayshore residents subsidize Sunset residents spending their day in a garden? And other stuff could be means tested without destroying the primary benefit. I think the Free City program at City College is a great idea for giving people access to college -- but there's no compelling reason that a well-paid techie who wants to do a language or arts class on the side needs to be subsidized.
Don't try to put words in my mouth, and don't try to act like you get to be a gatekeeper on who belongs in this city.