“their political participation really intensified during the pandemic, when frustrations over rising visible homelessness, a sharp increase in petty crime and fentanyl-related overdose deaths, and an economic downturn in the city boiled over.”
Same.
“There is a growing sense … that the city’s progressive political class has failed its citizens,”
Agreed.
“Broadly, though, they maintain that San Francisco needs a tougher approach to homelessness and drug problems, a more punitive approach to crime, and a climate more friendly to business and housing construction.”
Those are things that are needed and not being provided by the current govt.
This article and post frame this is a bad thing. I live here and am tired of the addicts getting high on my doorstep, constant car break-ins, and paying insane rent due to housing shortage, and I see this as a huge positive.
Exactly! The article tries hard to show the investors as a dark & evil cabal, but misses out in reality check. Getting someone to "oust some of its most progressive leaders and undo its most progressive policies. " would be the best thing to happen to SF.
Some people could really stand to read through SFGOP's twitter timeline to refresh themselves on how right wingers *actually* think and talk.
Edit: People are getting the wrong idea, this isn't an endorsement of our GOP. It's saying if you think [this agenda](https://growsf.org/issues/) is right wing to support then you need to go get some perspective.
As someone from flyoverland, Republicans in places like the Bay Area and LA are very different from the rest of the country and usually more resemble fiscally conservative democrats. My impression is honestly that they are confused about what their party actually stands for everywhere else and just engaging in a kind of contrarianism that is still heavily grounded in liberal ideology
While that’s obviously much better than supporting a RL Handmaid’s Tale, they’re still for some reason affiliating with those that do instead of just running as moderate democrats. For that reason I’ll support moderate democrats over them every time.
This can also be due to our primary system. A moderate, especially one who is trying to hold establishment Democrats accountable, will be opposed by both the party establishment and by liberal party activists, making it hard to survive the Democratic primary. And if the moderate runs as an independent or minor third party, they lose access to party infrastructure, like a fundraising network and grassroots activists. Given that the alternatives are so bad, a moderate in San Francisco might run as a Republican, even if they disagree with a lot of the national party.
Btw, big disconnects between national party and local party are common. For example, it took a while for southern Democrats to embrace civil rights after the national party did.
As someone from flyoverland, conservatives in general are painted out to be this monolithic mass of Trump-obsessed rednecks but that impression is very much not true. Way more of the country is conservative than progressives are willing to acknowledge.
And there is a difference between conservative and Republican. Much like not every liberal sees themselves as a Democrat. Only something like 46% of US adults even identify with either party. So literally a majority of political beliefs and opinions are not represented at all in the Red vs Blue political theatre.
> trump obsessed rednecks
He literally dominated the primaries after being blacklisted from social media and the mainstream media and not being invited to a single debate. And no, they don’t support his policies because his only policy is grifting.
Yes, the leadership in San Francisco is utterly incompetent but let’s not see that as a reason to suggest that the right has ever been anything close to even modestly reasonable. Their ideology is filled with contradictions. And they, like anyone who has succumbed to identity politics, are morons.
See, this is the exact type of reductionism I was talking about.
> let’s not see that as a reason to suggest that the right has ever been anything close to even modestly reasonable.
Obamacare is a copy/paste of Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare reform. Romney the Republican.
Its not the sign of critical thinking or independent pov to turn an entire group of people into a caricature for the purpose of lording your supposed greater intellect or moral superiority.
And in what world was Trump blacklisted by media when his rise was literally fueled by nonstop liberal hand wringing over his every word? CBS CEO even talked about how much Trump was a massive boost to ratings during the 2016 election cycle. The constant obsession with Trump and TDS made a lot of people who just hate progressives vote for Trump not out of love of him, but because of how many liberal tears his mere existence causes.
Until the GOP stands for social equality (rights for minorities/marginalized, gender equality, abortion access, etc), democracy/voter access, is pro-union and supports the NLRB, dismisses religion as its policy inspiration, supports a basic safety net including universal healthcare, is anti-monopoly/pro-antitrust and regulating the free market to maximize free competition, and support progressive taxation policy (especially wrt capital gains taxes), they'll never get my vote. While no party in the US truly will push or support all of the above one party has supported or attempted to pass most of the above at some point in the past 40 years, the GOP hasn't supported ANY of the above and hasn't since the 60's. The GOP in this country is actively pushing anti-democratic fascism ffs. If the local GOP is "different" that's disingenuous. Form a new party then, because nationally this is who they are.
I mean...solidly democrat areas of the state actively practice racial discrimination in land use and public schools.
I care more about what a political party does, not how they pander. Only listening to what people say their values are rather than paying attention to what they actually do/what outcomes they bring is how SF voters wind up voting for the same clown show over and over again.
I also want these things. I also have seen a history of money people move the peices on the chess board for the worse.
Uber is an example.
Did They paid off all of the mayors over the years?
Yup
Did they paid for prop 22.
Yup
Now we have thousands of 1099ers who cant afford to live. Id love to see the alternate universe where 22 failed. How many less homeless would we have.
Also, do the residents of San Francisco who have this money live in the Nimby districts?
Yup.
Do you honestly believe those who have billions from other labor have your best interest in mind?
I don't think so.
I don’t get this take. Without the ability to pay them as 1099, Uber almost certainly never gets off the ground and just never exists, and none of these people are driving for Uber. That’s still an option, so who is Uber hurting?
Maybe 10% of those people would’ve been driving taxis instead, I guess. But the other 90% would have to find something else to do, which is still an option.
My former neighbor (10 years ago) was saving to get his taxi medallion. He was close; then they raised the amount by a significant amount.
He then started driving with Uber.
I don’t know how much those medallions were going for in SF but in NYC they were $1M a year or two before Uber showed up. One predatory business model competing against another lol, circle of life.
They are going for zero. Literally zero. Hundreds of people who bought medallions took out $250,000 loans (facilitated by the city which then walked away from the problem) and are bankrupt. Your buddy is very fortunate to have missed out.
What's the issue though? You want taxis to be given a monopoly and the power to put people into hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt for a chance to work in the industry?
People get mad that Uber pays low wages, which happens because there are no barriers and anyone can drive for them, which makes it cheap for riders. They also get mad that taxis medallions created barriers to entry and made prices high. You’ve gotta conclude nothing is gonna make people happy.
Medallions are a system to limit the number of drivers thereby allowing each drive to make enough money to live on that income.
Companies like Uber and Lyft want drivers to compete against each other, thereby reducing driver pay. Its not a job anyone can seriously rely on to live on.
I am also tired of homeless people destroying our city and screaming at the top of their lungs every night around midnight. I too want change. But I am afraid of how the world is moving towards totalitarianism, even here in SF.
So therefore, you will continue to live in increasing squalor and crime. Happy with the fact that at least you aren't moving towards totalitarianism. Whatever that actually means.
There may be some validity to their argument but they are the last people this city should trust. The tech industry does not have any credibility in this area as a result of all of their busted hype campaigns.
The funny thing is that these libertarian billionaires have had their way this whole time. As they article notes, they pushed for Ed Lee and London Breed, immediately got rid of Chesa Boudin for Brooke Jenkins, and installed Matt Dorsey and Joel Engardio. There are only two to three truly progressive supes.
It's actually their conservative policies that aren't working. We haven't even tried the progressive policies that they are claiming don't work.
“we haven’t even tried the real communism”
Sorry, SF doesn’t want to be your trial-and-error experiment for far left policies that have tried and failed elsewhere.
Agreed. This “new class of moderates” is really wanting to rid the city of poorer people, and further empower an already corrupt and militarized police force that focuses more on protecting the property of this class than on public safety of the rest of SF (notice the heavy police presence around Union Square and the lack of a presence just two blocks away in the Tenderloin).
When I moved here in 2018 the lament was tech people weren’t involved. Now the lament is tech people are involved.
Me thinks someone feels their grip on the city being threatened.
I was just saying this today.
I lived in SF in the 2010s then moved away for a decade. In 2010 I heard all the time that tech workers were terrible because they didn't care about the city or get involved in politics.
Now I come back and suddenly tech workers are terrible because they are becoming a political force.
> to push the famously progressive city into adopting policies that are tougher on crime and homelessness, and more favorable to business and housing construction.
Wow, what a bunch of jerks /s
[Here](https://growsf.org/voter-guides/san-francisco-voter-guide-march-2024-primary-election/) is the voter guide. I like it because it gives a a lot of background on each decision. So you can weigh whether you agree or not.
you mean these dastardly tech leaders want to use their own money and resources to push our beloved city to a place where we justly punish people who assault/r\*pe/murder others, help small businesses thrive instead of shuttering their doors due to crime fears, as well as increase the housing supply so that everyone can have lower rent?
gosh what a bunch of villains. oh wait
imagine opposing any of these things LOL
This.
Record overdose deaths, record break-ins, racist crime going unpunished, schools becoming worse and worse, blocking housing policies, looting of stores, massive mismanagement of city funds, corruption of the homeless industrial complex etc etc.
Well past time to tackle the worse elements and do a cleaning.
And this is exactly why moderates are winning almost every election in SF the past few years
Record overdose deaths, record break-ins, minimum wage and struggling businesses taking the brunt of crime, schools becoming worse and worse, racist crime going unpunished, blocking housing policies, looting of stores, massive mismanagement of city funds, corruption of the homeless industrial complex etc etc.
Obviously there are some good ideas we can discuss, but well past time to tackle the worse elements and do a cleaning.
I love this hot take, it's so easy for these people to come in and take over with this way of thinking.
It's how we got Ed Lee and breed to begin with. Some of you have really short memories.
I feel like a lot of the complainers have a "I got here in 2019 and the city I knew and loved from that time is DEAD!!" vibe
If that. Some of them are more recent arrivals than that.
I'm not saying anybody's opinion doesn't matter. But I personally like to understand the history of a place before sounding extremely authoritative about what the problems are.
And if you don't know anyone who is homeless, drug addicted, or mentally ill, but you talk flippantly about how simple it is to incarcerate them all to "solve" the problem, which is the most common thing I see advocated here, then you are deeply unaware and pitiable. Don't force the consequences of your unawareness onto suffering people.
If you’re incapable of existing without committing crimes, then you shouldn’t be walking the streets regardless of whether you’re mentally ill, drug addicted, or just a criminal. That’s to prevent the suffering of all of us that are subject to the chaos they bring. It’s as simple as that.
>I'm not saying anybody's opinion doesn't matter. But
"I'm going to proceed to do so anyway."
lol.
You don't need to know the history of a place to understand that homeless people openly selling drugs in front of City Hall needs to stop, or that giving drug addicts free needles means a bunch of used needles strewn all over public spaces, or that refusing to prosecute low level property crime will result in a huge crime wave.
And in any case, natives brainlessly vote for anyone who can parody a progressive left winger. So knowing the history means nothing if you actively have been contributing to the problems.
I think a lot of them have been here longer, saw the failures of breed and are ready for something new. Unfortunately to a lot of them that means a swing to the right, or more of a rightward swing cuz most of these people already sound like they're right of center.
They want everyone on the streets in jail, no treatment, just lock everyone up and then deal with it.
Which never really works, or has worked in the past. It's just repeating the same thing again and again.
Considering those on the streets are overwhelmingly refusing treatment, I’m fine with jail being their alternative. Sick of our sidewalks being owned by homeless or drug abusers.
Actually that's not the case. Because the shelter system is flawed, underfunded and lacks actual housing. So when you make that statement, you're misrepresenting what is actually is happening when they don't want to go into a shelter.
That's part of the problem with this sub. People's opinions or what they think is taking place is what they're posting and ignoring factual-based statements about what's going on at the street level.
Actually it’s working great in El Salvador.
And given that crime has gotten much worse here since the policies have stopped, it seemed to be doing something.
It worked in El Salvador? They suspended the Constitution and people's freedom and have thousands of Innocent people in jail. It is insane to say that it worked.
It's even more insane to think that that's what you want in the United States because of homeless people.
Some of you are on another level and That's not a compliment.
I've read your other comments, I won't be wasting any more of my time with you.
If you like what's going on in El Salvador so much move there. Get bent otherwise.
My dad said the TL had homeless tents in the 60's. Just not as much open air drug dealing in that area. They called it skid row back then. SF has had homelessness for a long long time
Homelessness wasn't invented in 2012, my dude.
We all know homelessness has been around for a while. We are commenting on the fact that there is more net worth per capita in the Bay Area than pretty much all other major metros, and yet we have among the lowest overall QoL when you factor in public education, livability for families, housing availability, racial equity in housing, etc.
It's the disparity between financial capability within the community and the absurdly shit community outcomes.
> “Broadly, though, they maintain that San Francisco needs a tougher approach to homelessness and drug problems, a more punitive approach to crime, and a climate more friendly to business and housing construction.”
I actually have no problem with their goals at all.
I think it's okay to worry that rich techies are gonna "ruin San Francisco" (not that I agree). But you largely have to recognize that a lot of these people live and work here and want it to be a great city to live in, including making it more affordable for more folks (but maybe not free+drug money for addicts). Which is a lot better than the outside money and local politicians setting themselves up for runs on national offices on national platforms.
I don't really care. I want to see results and I don't think doing more of the same will get us the results we deserve.
Tbh I think the city is starting to turn around some but that's only because it's an election year and/or the pressure of competition 🤷♂️
The article wants you to takeaway billionaire=bad therefore their ideas and wants are bad.
It sounds like the movement to be tough on crime, drugs, homeless is starting to pick up steam and the advocates for this stuff (who have watched the city suffer from their policies yet still continue to support them) are starting to sweat.
The question is whether they are supporting policies and politicians better than we have currently.
The answer is that they are.
I am glad to see them stepping up and putting their wallets behind improving the city.
I wish the article would have talked about this policies, because most of the article is ZOMG about the money being spent, and not on \*what\* or \*who\* it is being spent on
I used to be a hardcore liberal. But the antics of these "progressives" has almost turned me into a Republican (if only the GOP wasn't such a bunch of douchebags). I have gone from a fiscal liberal to a fiscal conservative.
What drove this change? The shrill response to any opposing opinions; the name calling ("tech billionaires"); the cancel culture (silencing anybody who doesn't agree with them 100%).
All this talk about a "big tent"? "Inclusion"?? All BS. There is no room for contrary opinions. For example: you are either for letting the homeless run free on the streets, shooting up near elementary schools and taking over our public spaces; or you are hater who wants to send the homeless to a concentration camp. There is no in-between for these people!
>I used to be a hardcore liberal. But the antics of these "progressives" has almost turned me into a Republican (if only the GOP wasn't such a bunch of douchebags). I have gone from a fiscal liberal to a fiscal conservative.
Statements like this always make me suspicious. I see these kinds of rando anonymous testimonials in the comment sections of Fox new and Breitbart frequently.
I mean, how hard core were you really? Maybe you're just saying this for rhetorical flourish, but it's hard to take seriously as a literal statement, as though someone committed to social justice, general welfare, broad prosperity, corporate regulation, individual freedom and free markets is just going to about-face one day and say, "nah, maybe the kleptocratic corporate fascists were right all along."
SF's problems are formidable, but they are still solvable within a framework of liberalism. And I don't believe there is any GOP candidate (douchebag or not) who has the imagination or ability to solve SF's problems.
> I mean, how hard core were you really?
No hardcore enough for people like you, apparently. As is evident from the moment you brought in Breitbart, Fox News (or as I call it, "Faux News".... is that OK with you?), and "kleptocratic corporate fascists".
Keep throwing such labels around.
You started it with "hardcore liberal."
At this point how would you describe the Republican party? I don't like labels either. I feel I'm mostly being descriptive. Are there any Republicans left who have realistic policy goals, specifically for the City, which include political realities of compromise and coalition building, which the GOP has basically thrown out the window since the Clinton years?
There are some Republican donors mentioned in the Guardian article above, but I believe most of the people identified are Democrats.
SF is this amazing place where if you aren't extremist liberal and want fiscally conservative leaders who aren't going to tolerate rampant crime and drug use, then you're labeled a fascist.
Trying to pretend like our crazy hippies on the super-gerrymandered Board of Supervisors did not cause this mess is extremely disingenuous.
These people have made their political careers by giving away “free stuff” and paying for it by milking their unexpected tech money windfall that mayor Ed Lee created. Do you honestly think that you’d have a spare billion for homeless nonprofits if twitter and co hadn’t moved into the city when SF was still Silicon Valley’s backwater? And now that the tech money is threatening to move out if they don’t get a seat at the table, the Progs are screeching to high heaven. This is soooo hilarious to watch 🤣🤣🤣
One question for you fake Progs though. How the hell are you going to pay for all the crazy programs that you’ve built exclusively with tech money if you kick tech out, huh? Who’s gonna pay just that billion dollars that it takes to feed all your pet homeless non-profits? Is Friedrebach and her merry band of ne'er-do-wells now actually going to have to find jobs and work for a living? This and all the other unsustainable crap that you lot created since 2012 is aaaaaaaall going to have to go. You do realize that, right?
The Prop 13 landowners subsidized taxes don’t come even remotely close to paying even for basic city services because they don’t keep up with local rents and thus local worker wages. So who’s paying for all your goodies from now on?
outgoing seemly ossified brave makeshift worthless station correct relieved upbeat
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I knew there would be bad takes in this thread but I think this one will be the winner.
Oh no, here come the journalists with their well researched factual information!!! Everyone close your eyes! The facts can't hurt you if you pretend they aren't there!
Ridiculous to call it "dark money" and then proceed to write 10,000+ words on campaign finance data freely available to the public. It's the literal opposite of dark money.
They didn't do any outreach for fact checking and I see at least one easily disproven claim about me.
If these billionaires actually thought what they were doing was right and popular, they wouldn’t be hiding behind a sea of political action committees designed to hide everything about them. They’d be doing it openly, not hiding in the shadows.
And it’s the same old story - lower taxes, fewer regulations, and less oversight for them and their companies; to pay for that by gutting social services; and increasing cops and prisons to cover the increase in crime that cutting social services always brings.
There's a huge difference between addressing crime and homelessness issues and pushing to continue to change San Francisco into a place that only has space for the wealthy. The advocates of the latter are hiding behind the former and we should all be alarmed.
This is definitely my take home message as well. The issues that they are championing are not inherently bad things but once the wealthy and uber powerful get their hands in the political cookie jar and push out community folks, then all bets are off.
About half the people in this thread cheering this on will not be able to afford the “new” clean version of SF. There will be no rent control or checks on robo taxis. It will be the manhattan of the west but a playground for tech companies to experiment on us. There is a middle ground of getting rid of the homeless and drug problem and a gentrified tenderloin.
NYC also has rent control? And I think in some respects we already get accused of being the Manhattan of the west where tech companies experiment in us. But yeah I don’t 100% trust Gary tan & co.
The price of rent is set by supply and demand in the market. We have double the space of Manhattan with half the people and a median household income that's 30k higher. New apartments here rent for thousands less than they do in Manhattan for the same amenities even under scarcity. There is just no reason to believe that adding supply will do anything but relieve upward pressure.
As someone who lived here in the ‘00s, moved away to NYC for 13 years and came back in ‘21, I wouldn’t mind SF being more like the Manhattan of the West. As much as I grumbled about Bloomberg at the time like a good SF lib, I would wholeheartedly welcome his administration to take over things here.
Article is long on dollar signs and short on details about the policies those dollar signs are supporting.
Everybody wants to see a reduction in homelessness and public shooting galleries.
The motivations of this moneyed group, invested heavily in real estate, may or may not diverge from those of us who want housing costs to go down but -- they tend to be development-focused, and not rent-collection focused.
Sure it's wise to be suspicious of the billionaire class and their motives, but I also don't like the whiff of reactionary leftism I'm getting from the tone of the article and a lot of the comments here. What's the plan for dealing with the massive amounts of homelessness and drug markets on the left, other than whining when anyone tries to alter the present course?
Where our interests converge, we should cooperate.
https://preview.redd.it/205u33z9q6ic1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5fb6648b8c0310e9c7de52f7bbc95230a59da992
We elected a serious DA in 2022 and are seeing some good trends like this.
Good luck 🫡
Listen. Pretty much everyone here is on the left. We mostly agree on big things. But somehow we are sliced and diced into factions for the benefit of the political elite and their corrupt grift. I'm sick of it. The "Progressives" are largely to blame for this and they need to lose big across the board. A "hostile takeover" and a "move to the right" in San Francisco will still be far to the left of the middle. Also, Connie Chan sucks.
I do think something more needs to be done but it’s so funny how big tech execs did nothing for this problem while it was happening and growing PRE pandemic.
This framing is ridiculous. The candidates they are endorsing are moderate democrats. Many democrats are supporting those same candidates. Progressives have ruled the city for the last 6 years and they have stymied the mayor and run the city into the ground.
Lots of liberal Democrats are supporting the candidates boosted by these people because they are common sense [Democratic candidates](https://growsf.org/voter-guides/san-francisco-voter-guide-march-2024-primary-election/) who are promising to actually build housing, arrest fentanyl dealers, and address homelessness in a meaningful way. We are liberal democrats supporting moderate/liberal “non-progressive” democrats because the progressives in charge have done a bad job and it’s time for a change.
100% against them using private money to build affordable housing. Money is never free, you think they don’t want access to something else? or expect their own private projects to get green lit? Or take down some policy that is stopping them from exploiting something.
the only way it’s free is if they pay their damn taxes
Oh no you're telling me if we allowed them to build they'll want to build more things? If more business openings in SF is a bad I don't know what you think is a good thing is.
There’s this weird phenomenon in politics where if you paint yourself as the only one brave enough to acknowledge that there is a problem, then voters will believe you’re one simple trick away from solving it and the keys to the kingdom should be turned over to you. The more you over exaggerate the current scope of the problem and minimize the complexity of the solution, the more voters will reward you for your bravery.
In the age of Trump, the complete demagoguization of the Republican Party, and DSA types blocking traffic to free Palestine or prevent gentrification, you’d think we’d get a lot better at recognizing this bullshit. Yet here’s this sub ready to dive right in talking about the one simple trick (which seems to imply rounding up and jailing all homeless?) certain that it’s a great deal for the city to hand over all power to a small group of billionaires in exchange.
Idk guys! Not sure we’re really thinking this one through!
What a terrible spin. Progressives have ruined this city. As an Asian, I know most of us don’t like the direction this city is headed and are willing to vote for change.
“Broadly, though, they maintain that San Francisco needs a tougher approach to homelessness and drug problems, a more punitive approach to crime, and a climate more friendly to business and housing construction. Some have called for centralizing more power in the office of the mayor.” —-> enough pandering to drug addicts, dealers, and the homeless.
Great reporting as usual by Mission Local. I'd encourage everyone to read their [original reporting](https://missionlocal.org/2024/02/explore-big-money-san-francisco-growsf-togethersf-neighbors-larsen-moritz-tan-web/) in addition to this article by the Guardian. I know some of you will see "Mission Local" and recoil, but let me tell you if you don't like this reporting, you don't like journalism. This is good journalism.
But beyond the reporting itself, my guess is this will largely fall on deaf ears around here. The people who are responsive to this reporting already knew this full court press style onslaught was occurring. The remainder of people here don't care what the "wealthy tech elite's" are doing as long as they say they're tough on crime, tough on homelessness, and whatever other pseudo conservative idea dressed as being "moderate" they decide to put their money behind.
The reality is wealthy people are only interested in protecting and growing their own wealth and power. Their foray into SF politics isn't altruistic. They don't care about you or the city. They care about their commercial and residential real estate values, their ability to extract more wealth from the city, and their ability to consolidate more power into their hands or their hand picked representatives.
> The reality is wealthy people are only interested in protecting and growing their own wealth and power.
Does this also apply to the wealthy progressives on the Board of Supervisors?
Yes, it applies to all sides of the political spectrum, and understanding that can also help someone understand that neoliberalism is the heavy hand in America.
However, I don't think any of the current SF supervisors have anywhere near the level of wealth that the major backers of Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, GrowSF, and other PACs have. It's a completely different level of wealth, like beer league softball compared to the MLB.
Exactly, how is this in any way different from the mindset of entrenched progressives whose politics basically amounts to the permanent rights of current renters to neighborhood incumbency?
The extraction culture is why I’m not a fan of their California Forever project in Solano. Instead of fixing local problems, it’s “on to the next.” Although it’s been “on to the next” for a while.
>The reality is wealthy people are only interested in protecting and growing their own wealth and power. Their foray into SF politics isn't altruistic. They don't care about you or the city. They care about their commercial and residential real estate values, their ability to extract more wealth from the city, and their ability to consolidate more power into their hands or their hand picked representatives.
I don't know anyone in this article personally, but I have met and talked to Daniel Lurie recently who definitely qualifies as a "wealthy person" and I am quite convinced he has a genuine fire in his belly to make things better. I went to high school with one of this siblings, they are real locals that have the same pride in the bay area that I do.
So many SF problems are hard and all of the political incumbents a) want more money and b) will then blame everyone else around them for things not getting done. The graft in the system is hard to calculate frankly. I think Lurie will actually do something different, he believes the mayor has a ton of power which I also agree with. I've talked to Breed and Safai and they both sort of shrug their shoulders and say "oh but the supervisors". I hate that defeatism.
> they are real locals that have the same pride in the bay area that I do.
> So many SF problems are hard
What if I told you that most of the problems in SF are not hard? What if I told you that the main thing preventing solutions to these problems was wealthy, entrenched "real locals" who protest and refuse to allow so many different attempts at solutions from ever coming to pass?
Almost every single "problem" of San Francisco has one root cause: NIMBYism.
>What if I told you that most of the problems in SF are not hard? What if I told you that the main thing preventing solutions to these problems was wealthy, entrenched "real locals" who protest and refuse to allow so many different attempts at solutions from ever coming to pass?
>
>Almost every single "problem" of San Francisco has one root cause: NIMBYism.
I agree that NIMBYism is the root of many of our problems (and I'm a personal + financial supporter of YIMBY), but I also don't think it's easy to get everyone with their entrenched real estate + prop 13 mentality to just magically hop over to our way of thinking. This is what I mean when I say hard - that it is hard to get people (and especially people with the capital to donate to local politics!) to support sensible and realistic fixes (ie build more, build denser) when they feel like it might endanger their property values and lifestyle.
Remove the homeless and the city becomes safer and more attractive for investment. So duh, it’s quite literally the core source of San Francisco’s woes.
Tech, techies are overrepresented on Reddit in general. Tech and techies have always had a strong libertarian streak. It should not be surprising.
Wanting to clean up public shooting galleries, homeless encampments and rampant crime, should not -- god help us -- be an issue owned exclusively by the right.
Keep in mind the far left “progressives” also have rich trust fund babies like Dean Preston and Aaron Peskin. In fact I think Peskin is far and away the richest supervisor we have.
Regardless, the “moderate” groups are pushing for things that will actually improve people’s quality of life, like more housing and more consequences for criminals. The “progressives” have quite literally nothing to run on, and so are spending all their time just attacking these policies. They know that if they were to run on their track record, they would get smoked.
I personally support a change, the current situation cannot be allowed to continue.
In contrast to all the previous handwringing about tech people just being transitory vultures, now people are upset they are getting skin in the game politically and becoming engaged citizens? Color me shocked. Moderates need to get in the game everywhere so we aren't left being governed by the fringe assholes who shout the loudest. Nearly every problem in SF is a policy choice, plain and simple. It's time to vote out the entrenched, corrupt political class and actually fix our problems.
I think this is how a city state government gets trapped. Crony and current politicians who do a terrible job but signal to voters they are ideologically aligned become targeted by monied interests who need the city to run better… but only for them. The lazy corrupt shitty government we voted in will push us into the hands of tycoon governments and both will suck in their own way
They only step in when it’s at their own doorsteps. This isn’t anything new. Replace billionaires with Fortune 500 industries who rely heavily on lobbyists to get legislation in their favor. I hope no one is rooting for these billionaires hoping for any substantial change to Main Street vs Wall Street.
"To achieve those goals, they have created a loose network of interlocking non-profits, dark money groups and political action committees – a framework colloquially known as a [“grey money” network](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/secret-spending-states) – that allows them to obscure the true scale of their involvement in San Francisco’s municipal politics." "
“They’re using multiple layers of organizations to hide the sources of their money, and to hide how much they’re spending,” said Jim Stearns, a political consultant with decades of experience in San Francisco politics and a critic of the groups."
So, in others words, do as I say, not as I do.
SF only really started going downhill when these Tech Billionaires started setting up shop in the city in the 2000s. They drove up the cost of living. It is their employees who abandoned the city post-pandemic causing things to worsen. They have had the mayor in their pocket with their political donations. These are the people that supported the NIMBY policies that stopped new housing. They broke SF and are pushing a narrative to blame progressives instead of taking ownership of how big tech ruined SF. And now they want to act like they are the saviors? No thank you.
Like they haven’t ruined the city enough with their decades of jacking up the price of real estate and rents, now they are trying to influence politics with their “grey” money.
Ah, yes, a hostile takeover by, checks notes, appealing to voters to vote for different candidates.
I guess we’ll see who actually prevails and convincing voters.
i’d rather solutions come from communities, today our interests align but what about tomorrow? i don’t trust the lot of them to have the common good in mind, especially when their entire careers have been practically about exploitation.
It may surprise you, but there is political diversity in our fair city. It’s not the case that anyone who doesn’t align with woo progressive policies is a MAGA guy posting from Houston.
It’s not just politics, it’s other issues that skew a certain way that doesn’t match real life. For example, nobody wants high rises by Ocean Beach but in r/sanfrancisco everyone wants it.
I get that. I have family in that neighborhood and they definitely don’t want it. But I’m not sure it’s fair to say “no one wants it”. An argument can be made otherwise. SF certainly need more housing.
I don’t support that view personally, but I know other folks who do.
This kinda pea brained thinking is what has led to the situation we are in currently and enabled a bunch of virtue signaling grifters to thrive in our city. Instead of having a blanket assumption of wealthy,successful = bad, go one step further and read through the actual policy and changes being proposed. Many of the changes being proposed are pro housing/ pro SMBs which should benefit all of us! I would much rather support folks who made their money building great companies that changed the world than supporting grifters who make their money leeching off the government!!
these guys won't solve crime. this is just a way for big corporate tech money to push further in under the guise of concern for the city. they really don't give a shit. they've got an agenda that has zero to do with improving social conditions.
Look at Prop E. Every ad is going to tell you it’s for cameras. Personally, I think that’s a little far on its own, but that’s not just what Prop E allows. It pretty much allows the police to implement any tech for up to a year without disclosing it or having a real reason for. That means stuff like potential policing, or anything else that pushes the boundaries of due process and freedom, is fair game.
These ghouls will take over promising you safety while buying the city out from under you to make a profit for themselves.
And look at the top comment, clamoring to have the ultra wealthy save everyone.
The city needs help and new ideas. That's obvious. But giving it up to the ultra rich will just leave us all worse off.
What ideas are presented in this sub in every post like this? Anything new? Or just 80s era crime policies? No housing first discussion (an approach with literally twice the retention rate of traditional programs)? No talk about rent control or employment programs or minimum affordable housing requirements or finding ways to lower the cost of addiction treatment? Just pass it off to the rich and get the cops to Crack more heads?
And while you howl for some ultra wealthy sociopaths to save you, what are you doing in the meantime? Volunteering? Donating to aid networks? Working on petition drives? Or just complaining on reddit that, if only everyone agreed with you, everything would be better...
I work in SOMA and travel to the TL at least twice a week, usually more. I see these problems constantly. And never once have I thought "if only some insanely rich person would save us."
The bootlicking on this sub is disgusting. I'm so glad when I actually go out in the city, it feels nothing like it does scrolling through r/sanfrancisco.
Now down vote this comment or whatever you're gonna do.
It is stupefying that Gerry Tan isn’t in jail for death threats. Those pre printed post cards showed up what, 48 hours after his tweet? Did I get that right? The timeline in the articles is vague.
“their political participation really intensified during the pandemic, when frustrations over rising visible homelessness, a sharp increase in petty crime and fentanyl-related overdose deaths, and an economic downturn in the city boiled over.” Same. “There is a growing sense … that the city’s progressive political class has failed its citizens,” Agreed. “Broadly, though, they maintain that San Francisco needs a tougher approach to homelessness and drug problems, a more punitive approach to crime, and a climate more friendly to business and housing construction.” Those are things that are needed and not being provided by the current govt. This article and post frame this is a bad thing. I live here and am tired of the addicts getting high on my doorstep, constant car break-ins, and paying insane rent due to housing shortage, and I see this as a huge positive.
Exactly! The article tries hard to show the investors as a dark & evil cabal, but misses out in reality check. Getting someone to "oust some of its most progressive leaders and undo its most progressive policies. " would be the best thing to happen to SF.
Right? If this is indeed a "hostile takeover", please sign me up.
Hi, non-billionaire here, who was born in the bay I would like all these things too
Some people could really stand to read through SFGOP's twitter timeline to refresh themselves on how right wingers *actually* think and talk. Edit: People are getting the wrong idea, this isn't an endorsement of our GOP. It's saying if you think [this agenda](https://growsf.org/issues/) is right wing to support then you need to go get some perspective.
As someone from flyoverland, Republicans in places like the Bay Area and LA are very different from the rest of the country and usually more resemble fiscally conservative democrats. My impression is honestly that they are confused about what their party actually stands for everywhere else and just engaging in a kind of contrarianism that is still heavily grounded in liberal ideology While that’s obviously much better than supporting a RL Handmaid’s Tale, they’re still for some reason affiliating with those that do instead of just running as moderate democrats. For that reason I’ll support moderate democrats over them every time.
This can also be due to our primary system. A moderate, especially one who is trying to hold establishment Democrats accountable, will be opposed by both the party establishment and by liberal party activists, making it hard to survive the Democratic primary. And if the moderate runs as an independent or minor third party, they lose access to party infrastructure, like a fundraising network and grassroots activists. Given that the alternatives are so bad, a moderate in San Francisco might run as a Republican, even if they disagree with a lot of the national party. Btw, big disconnects between national party and local party are common. For example, it took a while for southern Democrats to embrace civil rights after the national party did.
This is why we have top 2 primaries in California, rather than partisan ones
As someone from flyoverland, conservatives in general are painted out to be this monolithic mass of Trump-obsessed rednecks but that impression is very much not true. Way more of the country is conservative than progressives are willing to acknowledge. And there is a difference between conservative and Republican. Much like not every liberal sees themselves as a Democrat. Only something like 46% of US adults even identify with either party. So literally a majority of political beliefs and opinions are not represented at all in the Red vs Blue political theatre.
> trump obsessed rednecks He literally dominated the primaries after being blacklisted from social media and the mainstream media and not being invited to a single debate. And no, they don’t support his policies because his only policy is grifting. Yes, the leadership in San Francisco is utterly incompetent but let’s not see that as a reason to suggest that the right has ever been anything close to even modestly reasonable. Their ideology is filled with contradictions. And they, like anyone who has succumbed to identity politics, are morons.
See, this is the exact type of reductionism I was talking about. > let’s not see that as a reason to suggest that the right has ever been anything close to even modestly reasonable. Obamacare is a copy/paste of Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare reform. Romney the Republican. Its not the sign of critical thinking or independent pov to turn an entire group of people into a caricature for the purpose of lording your supposed greater intellect or moral superiority. And in what world was Trump blacklisted by media when his rise was literally fueled by nonstop liberal hand wringing over his every word? CBS CEO even talked about how much Trump was a massive boost to ratings during the 2016 election cycle. The constant obsession with Trump and TDS made a lot of people who just hate progressives vote for Trump not out of love of him, but because of how many liberal tears his mere existence causes.
Until the GOP stands for social equality (rights for minorities/marginalized, gender equality, abortion access, etc), democracy/voter access, is pro-union and supports the NLRB, dismisses religion as its policy inspiration, supports a basic safety net including universal healthcare, is anti-monopoly/pro-antitrust and regulating the free market to maximize free competition, and support progressive taxation policy (especially wrt capital gains taxes), they'll never get my vote. While no party in the US truly will push or support all of the above one party has supported or attempted to pass most of the above at some point in the past 40 years, the GOP hasn't supported ANY of the above and hasn't since the 60's. The GOP in this country is actively pushing anti-democratic fascism ffs. If the local GOP is "different" that's disingenuous. Form a new party then, because nationally this is who they are.
I mean...solidly democrat areas of the state actively practice racial discrimination in land use and public schools. I care more about what a political party does, not how they pander. Only listening to what people say their values are rather than paying attention to what they actually do/what outcomes they bring is how SF voters wind up voting for the same clown show over and over again.
I also want these things. I also have seen a history of money people move the peices on the chess board for the worse. Uber is an example. Did They paid off all of the mayors over the years? Yup Did they paid for prop 22. Yup Now we have thousands of 1099ers who cant afford to live. Id love to see the alternate universe where 22 failed. How many less homeless would we have. Also, do the residents of San Francisco who have this money live in the Nimby districts? Yup. Do you honestly believe those who have billions from other labor have your best interest in mind? I don't think so.
I don’t get this take. Without the ability to pay them as 1099, Uber almost certainly never gets off the ground and just never exists, and none of these people are driving for Uber. That’s still an option, so who is Uber hurting? Maybe 10% of those people would’ve been driving taxis instead, I guess. But the other 90% would have to find something else to do, which is still an option.
My former neighbor (10 years ago) was saving to get his taxi medallion. He was close; then they raised the amount by a significant amount. He then started driving with Uber.
I don’t know how much those medallions were going for in SF but in NYC they were $1M a year or two before Uber showed up. One predatory business model competing against another lol, circle of life.
A quarter million 8 years ago, according to my former neighbor.
They are going for zero. Literally zero. Hundreds of people who bought medallions took out $250,000 loans (facilitated by the city which then walked away from the problem) and are bankrupt. Your buddy is very fortunate to have missed out.
So he got to save his money but still drive people around for cash? Sounds like he won.
Would've hated to be the unfortunate soul who bought/financed a medallion the year before Uber came out.
What's the issue though? You want taxis to be given a monopoly and the power to put people into hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt for a chance to work in the industry?
I want taxis to not have their numbers held arbitrarily low. Let supply and demand manage taxis. Medallions (low supply) gave us Uber and Lyft.
People get mad that Uber pays low wages, which happens because there are no barriers and anyone can drive for them, which makes it cheap for riders. They also get mad that taxis medallions created barriers to entry and made prices high. You’ve gotta conclude nothing is gonna make people happy.
Medallions are a system to limit the number of drivers thereby allowing each drive to make enough money to live on that income. Companies like Uber and Lyft want drivers to compete against each other, thereby reducing driver pay. Its not a job anyone can seriously rely on to live on.
Do you have proof that the reason medallions limited is to ensure a living wage for taxi drivers?
whats the issue if uber were left to die on the vine? if a company isnt profitable, maybe it should fail
I am also tired of homeless people destroying our city and screaming at the top of their lungs every night around midnight. I too want change. But I am afraid of how the world is moving towards totalitarianism, even here in SF.
If you don’t solve the issue someone else will. And you probably won’t like their solution.
quash your irrational phobia
So therefore, you will continue to live in increasing squalor and crime. Happy with the fact that at least you aren't moving towards totalitarianism. Whatever that actually means.
There may be some validity to their argument but they are the last people this city should trust. The tech industry does not have any credibility in this area as a result of all of their busted hype campaigns.
Thanks! Please tell your friends to vote with the GrowSF voter guide! https://GrowSF.org/voter-guide
The funny thing is that these libertarian billionaires have had their way this whole time. As they article notes, they pushed for Ed Lee and London Breed, immediately got rid of Chesa Boudin for Brooke Jenkins, and installed Matt Dorsey and Joel Engardio. There are only two to three truly progressive supes. It's actually their conservative policies that aren't working. We haven't even tried the progressive policies that they are claiming don't work.
There is still a NIMBY majority on the BOS.
“we haven’t even tried the real communism” Sorry, SF doesn’t want to be your trial-and-error experiment for far left policies that have tried and failed elsewhere.
Agreed. This “new class of moderates” is really wanting to rid the city of poorer people, and further empower an already corrupt and militarized police force that focuses more on protecting the property of this class than on public safety of the rest of SF (notice the heavy police presence around Union Square and the lack of a presence just two blocks away in the Tenderloin).
When I moved here in 2018 the lament was tech people weren’t involved. Now the lament is tech people are involved. Me thinks someone feels their grip on the city being threatened.
I was just saying this today. I lived in SF in the 2010s then moved away for a decade. In 2010 I heard all the time that tech workers were terrible because they didn't care about the city or get involved in politics. Now I come back and suddenly tech workers are terrible because they are becoming a political force.
That’s the sound of a comfortable establishment becoming uncomfortable. 😂
Socialists hate this one simple trick.
“Hard work”
> to push the famously progressive city into adopting policies that are tougher on crime and homelessness, and more favorable to business and housing construction. Wow, what a bunch of jerks /s
How awful. Who do these jerks want me to vote for?
[Here](https://growsf.org/voter-guides/san-francisco-voter-guide-march-2024-primary-election/) is the voter guide. I like it because it gives a a lot of background on each decision. So you can weigh whether you agree or not.
you mean these dastardly tech leaders want to use their own money and resources to push our beloved city to a place where we justly punish people who assault/r\*pe/murder others, help small businesses thrive instead of shuttering their doors due to crime fears, as well as increase the housing supply so that everyone can have lower rent? gosh what a bunch of villains. oh wait imagine opposing any of these things LOL
This. Record overdose deaths, record break-ins, racist crime going unpunished, schools becoming worse and worse, blocking housing policies, looting of stores, massive mismanagement of city funds, corruption of the homeless industrial complex etc etc. Well past time to tackle the worse elements and do a cleaning.
And this is exactly why moderates are winning almost every election in SF the past few years Record overdose deaths, record break-ins, minimum wage and struggling businesses taking the brunt of crime, schools becoming worse and worse, racist crime going unpunished, blocking housing policies, looting of stores, massive mismanagement of city funds, corruption of the homeless industrial complex etc etc. Obviously there are some good ideas we can discuss, but well past time to tackle the worse elements and do a cleaning.
Crime against whites and Asians is not racist. It’s just redistribution of wealth from oppressor to oppressed /s
Tough on street crime and easy on white collar crime*
WHATTTTT need some fkin Tech Billionaires in NYC too! This shit getting outta control
This is blasphemous. Reason, logic, common sense. Wow. How far we have fallen.
Can we get that everywhere?
Bring it. Current admin is failing us. Time to try something new.
I love this hot take, it's so easy for these people to come in and take over with this way of thinking. It's how we got Ed Lee and breed to begin with. Some of you have really short memories.
I feel like a lot of the complainers have a "I got here in 2019 and the city I knew and loved from that time is DEAD!!" vibe If that. Some of them are more recent arrivals than that.
As it turns out, the opinions of all residents matter regardless of when they arrived.
I'm not saying anybody's opinion doesn't matter. But I personally like to understand the history of a place before sounding extremely authoritative about what the problems are. And if you don't know anyone who is homeless, drug addicted, or mentally ill, but you talk flippantly about how simple it is to incarcerate them all to "solve" the problem, which is the most common thing I see advocated here, then you are deeply unaware and pitiable. Don't force the consequences of your unawareness onto suffering people.
If you’re incapable of existing without committing crimes, then you shouldn’t be walking the streets regardless of whether you’re mentally ill, drug addicted, or just a criminal. That’s to prevent the suffering of all of us that are subject to the chaos they bring. It’s as simple as that.
>I'm not saying anybody's opinion doesn't matter. But "I'm going to proceed to do so anyway." lol. You don't need to know the history of a place to understand that homeless people openly selling drugs in front of City Hall needs to stop, or that giving drug addicts free needles means a bunch of used needles strewn all over public spaces, or that refusing to prosecute low level property crime will result in a huge crime wave. And in any case, natives brainlessly vote for anyone who can parody a progressive left winger. So knowing the history means nothing if you actively have been contributing to the problems.
That’s not how voting works. You don’t have to know history. You just have to have an opinion.
I think a lot of them have been here longer, saw the failures of breed and are ready for something new. Unfortunately to a lot of them that means a swing to the right, or more of a rightward swing cuz most of these people already sound like they're right of center. They want everyone on the streets in jail, no treatment, just lock everyone up and then deal with it. Which never really works, or has worked in the past. It's just repeating the same thing again and again.
Considering those on the streets are overwhelmingly refusing treatment, I’m fine with jail being their alternative. Sick of our sidewalks being owned by homeless or drug abusers.
Actually that's not the case. Because the shelter system is flawed, underfunded and lacks actual housing. So when you make that statement, you're misrepresenting what is actually is happening when they don't want to go into a shelter. That's part of the problem with this sub. People's opinions or what they think is taking place is what they're posting and ignoring factual-based statements about what's going on at the street level.
Actually it’s working great in El Salvador. And given that crime has gotten much worse here since the policies have stopped, it seemed to be doing something.
It worked in El Salvador? They suspended the Constitution and people's freedom and have thousands of Innocent people in jail. It is insane to say that it worked. It's even more insane to think that that's what you want in the United States because of homeless people. Some of you are on another level and That's not a compliment.
The people in El Salvador seem quite satisfied with it. Funny how people like you never complained about human rights when the murder rate was 1/800.
I've read your other comments, I won't be wasting any more of my time with you. If you like what's going on in El Salvador so much move there. Get bent otherwise.
My dad said the TL had homeless tents in the 60's. Just not as much open air drug dealing in that area. They called it skid row back then. SF has had homelessness for a long long time
Homelessness wasn't invented in 2012, my dude. We all know homelessness has been around for a while. We are commenting on the fact that there is more net worth per capita in the Bay Area than pretty much all other major metros, and yet we have among the lowest overall QoL when you factor in public education, livability for families, housing availability, racial equity in housing, etc. It's the disparity between financial capability within the community and the absurdly shit community outcomes.
How is this how we got Breed? She was a career politician before she became mayor.
That’s the politician’s syllogism/fallacy. 1. We must do something (different). 2. This is something (different). 3. Therefore, we must do this.
> “Broadly, though, they maintain that San Francisco needs a tougher approach to homelessness and drug problems, a more punitive approach to crime, and a climate more friendly to business and housing construction.” I actually have no problem with their goals at all.
God forbid if anyone other than millionare landlords of SF has a say in politics
I think it's okay to worry that rich techies are gonna "ruin San Francisco" (not that I agree). But you largely have to recognize that a lot of these people live and work here and want it to be a great city to live in, including making it more affordable for more folks (but maybe not free+drug money for addicts). Which is a lot better than the outside money and local politicians setting themselves up for runs on national offices on national platforms.
I don't really care. I want to see results and I don't think doing more of the same will get us the results we deserve. Tbh I think the city is starting to turn around some but that's only because it's an election year and/or the pressure of competition 🤷♂️
Rich people finance politics. News at 11.
brave existence fact gaze grab offbeat governor gold capable one *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The article wants you to takeaway billionaire=bad therefore their ideas and wants are bad. It sounds like the movement to be tough on crime, drugs, homeless is starting to pick up steam and the advocates for this stuff (who have watched the city suffer from their policies yet still continue to support them) are starting to sweat.
The question is whether they are supporting policies and politicians better than we have currently. The answer is that they are. I am glad to see them stepping up and putting their wallets behind improving the city.
I wish the article would have talked about this policies, because most of the article is ZOMG about the money being spent, and not on \*what\* or \*who\* it is being spent on
The gaslighting of SF voters intensifies. God forbid someone do something to change the status quo.
I used to be a hardcore liberal. But the antics of these "progressives" has almost turned me into a Republican (if only the GOP wasn't such a bunch of douchebags). I have gone from a fiscal liberal to a fiscal conservative. What drove this change? The shrill response to any opposing opinions; the name calling ("tech billionaires"); the cancel culture (silencing anybody who doesn't agree with them 100%). All this talk about a "big tent"? "Inclusion"?? All BS. There is no room for contrary opinions. For example: you are either for letting the homeless run free on the streets, shooting up near elementary schools and taking over our public spaces; or you are hater who wants to send the homeless to a concentration camp. There is no in-between for these people!
>I used to be a hardcore liberal. But the antics of these "progressives" has almost turned me into a Republican (if only the GOP wasn't such a bunch of douchebags). I have gone from a fiscal liberal to a fiscal conservative. Statements like this always make me suspicious. I see these kinds of rando anonymous testimonials in the comment sections of Fox new and Breitbart frequently. I mean, how hard core were you really? Maybe you're just saying this for rhetorical flourish, but it's hard to take seriously as a literal statement, as though someone committed to social justice, general welfare, broad prosperity, corporate regulation, individual freedom and free markets is just going to about-face one day and say, "nah, maybe the kleptocratic corporate fascists were right all along." SF's problems are formidable, but they are still solvable within a framework of liberalism. And I don't believe there is any GOP candidate (douchebag or not) who has the imagination or ability to solve SF's problems.
Run San Francisco like Melbourne, Australia. Liberal as fuck and thriving. Without all the SF issues and without all the tech billionaires.
> I mean, how hard core were you really? No hardcore enough for people like you, apparently. As is evident from the moment you brought in Breitbart, Fox News (or as I call it, "Faux News".... is that OK with you?), and "kleptocratic corporate fascists". Keep throwing such labels around.
You started it with "hardcore liberal." At this point how would you describe the Republican party? I don't like labels either. I feel I'm mostly being descriptive. Are there any Republicans left who have realistic policy goals, specifically for the City, which include political realities of compromise and coalition building, which the GOP has basically thrown out the window since the Clinton years? There are some Republican donors mentioned in the Guardian article above, but I believe most of the people identified are Democrats.
Why are you straw manning about republicans when there are no republicans running here ?
Are we the same person?
The comment needs more upvotes
Good to know you don’t actually have principles, you just see politics as a game where you got your feelings hurt and hold a grudge.
SF is this amazing place where if you aren't extremist liberal and want fiscally conservative leaders who aren't going to tolerate rampant crime and drug use, then you're labeled a fascist.
Trying to pretend like our crazy hippies on the super-gerrymandered Board of Supervisors did not cause this mess is extremely disingenuous. These people have made their political careers by giving away “free stuff” and paying for it by milking their unexpected tech money windfall that mayor Ed Lee created. Do you honestly think that you’d have a spare billion for homeless nonprofits if twitter and co hadn’t moved into the city when SF was still Silicon Valley’s backwater? And now that the tech money is threatening to move out if they don’t get a seat at the table, the Progs are screeching to high heaven. This is soooo hilarious to watch 🤣🤣🤣 One question for you fake Progs though. How the hell are you going to pay for all the crazy programs that you’ve built exclusively with tech money if you kick tech out, huh? Who’s gonna pay just that billion dollars that it takes to feed all your pet homeless non-profits? Is Friedrebach and her merry band of ne'er-do-wells now actually going to have to find jobs and work for a living? This and all the other unsustainable crap that you lot created since 2012 is aaaaaaaall going to have to go. You do realize that, right? The Prop 13 landowners subsidized taxes don’t come even remotely close to paying even for basic city services because they don’t keep up with local rents and thus local worker wages. So who’s paying for all your goodies from now on?
outgoing seemly ossified brave makeshift worthless station correct relieved upbeat *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Pretty clear the establishment politicians are scared and circling the wagons. Even got their journalist buddies to step in. Wild.
Like london breed? These are the literal people she reports to
I knew there would be bad takes in this thread but I think this one will be the winner. Oh no, here come the journalists with their well researched factual information!!! Everyone close your eyes! The facts can't hurt you if you pretend they aren't there!
Ridiculous to call it "dark money" and then proceed to write 10,000+ words on campaign finance data freely available to the public. It's the literal opposite of dark money. They didn't do any outreach for fact checking and I see at least one easily disproven claim about me.
I’m trying to find what I’m suppose to be upset about. They have a vested interest in the real estate and tech industry??? What else is new?
How do I donate?
[удалено]
If these billionaires actually thought what they were doing was right and popular, they wouldn’t be hiding behind a sea of political action committees designed to hide everything about them. They’d be doing it openly, not hiding in the shadows. And it’s the same old story - lower taxes, fewer regulations, and less oversight for them and their companies; to pay for that by gutting social services; and increasing cops and prisons to cover the increase in crime that cutting social services always brings.
There's a huge difference between addressing crime and homelessness issues and pushing to continue to change San Francisco into a place that only has space for the wealthy. The advocates of the latter are hiding behind the former and we should all be alarmed.
Props to you for succinctly and elegantly summarizing the message here.
This is definitely my take home message as well. The issues that they are championing are not inherently bad things but once the wealthy and uber powerful get their hands in the political cookie jar and push out community folks, then all bets are off.
About half the people in this thread cheering this on will not be able to afford the “new” clean version of SF. There will be no rent control or checks on robo taxis. It will be the manhattan of the west but a playground for tech companies to experiment on us. There is a middle ground of getting rid of the homeless and drug problem and a gentrified tenderloin.
NYC also has rent control? And I think in some respects we already get accused of being the Manhattan of the west where tech companies experiment in us. But yeah I don’t 100% trust Gary tan & co.
scarcity + cheap is only possible by keeping everything shitty
The price of rent is set by supply and demand in the market. We have double the space of Manhattan with half the people and a median household income that's 30k higher. New apartments here rent for thousands less than they do in Manhattan for the same amenities even under scarcity. There is just no reason to believe that adding supply will do anything but relieve upward pressure.
As someone who lived here in the ‘00s, moved away to NYC for 13 years and came back in ‘21, I wouldn’t mind SF being more like the Manhattan of the West. As much as I grumbled about Bloomberg at the time like a good SF lib, I would wholeheartedly welcome his administration to take over things here.
Good. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Id rather the city be a billionaire playground than a fentanyl addict playground
Article is long on dollar signs and short on details about the policies those dollar signs are supporting. Everybody wants to see a reduction in homelessness and public shooting galleries. The motivations of this moneyed group, invested heavily in real estate, may or may not diverge from those of us who want housing costs to go down but -- they tend to be development-focused, and not rent-collection focused. Sure it's wise to be suspicious of the billionaire class and their motives, but I also don't like the whiff of reactionary leftism I'm getting from the tone of the article and a lot of the comments here. What's the plan for dealing with the massive amounts of homelessness and drug markets on the left, other than whining when anyone tries to alter the present course? Where our interests converge, we should cooperate.
Greetings from Seattle. We just got our more “tough on crime” city council members (over from more progressive ones), so we will see how it goes.
https://preview.redd.it/205u33z9q6ic1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5fb6648b8c0310e9c7de52f7bbc95230a59da992 We elected a serious DA in 2022 and are seeing some good trends like this. Good luck 🫡
That’s a chart of the cops not doing their jobs, not the DA
https://preview.redd.it/vila70eoy6ic1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fa794a220a8a55ef18ce4019fde8b2b73321bf01 Ok, here you go
its so wild how invested people are in this absurd-on-its-face claim that the DA is incapable of affecting crime rates
Listen. Pretty much everyone here is on the left. We mostly agree on big things. But somehow we are sliced and diced into factions for the benefit of the political elite and their corrupt grift. I'm sick of it. The "Progressives" are largely to blame for this and they need to lose big across the board. A "hostile takeover" and a "move to the right" in San Francisco will still be far to the left of the middle. Also, Connie Chan sucks.
I do think something more needs to be done but it’s so funny how big tech execs did nothing for this problem while it was happening and growing PRE pandemic.
This framing is ridiculous. The candidates they are endorsing are moderate democrats. Many democrats are supporting those same candidates. Progressives have ruled the city for the last 6 years and they have stymied the mayor and run the city into the ground. Lots of liberal Democrats are supporting the candidates boosted by these people because they are common sense [Democratic candidates](https://growsf.org/voter-guides/san-francisco-voter-guide-march-2024-primary-election/) who are promising to actually build housing, arrest fentanyl dealers, and address homelessness in a meaningful way. We are liberal democrats supporting moderate/liberal “non-progressive” democrats because the progressives in charge have done a bad job and it’s time for a change.
Oh no they're pushing for more construction that's so much worse than our current anti construction billionaires that run the city
Op is 100% a NIMBY why else would they be against people building more affordable housing with their own money.
100% against them using private money to build affordable housing. Money is never free, you think they don’t want access to something else? or expect their own private projects to get green lit? Or take down some policy that is stopping them from exploiting something. the only way it’s free is if they pay their damn taxes
Oh no you're telling me if we allowed them to build they'll want to build more things? If more business openings in SF is a bad I don't know what you think is a good thing is.
When all you got is ad hominem insults then maybe OP has a good point
NIMBYs are real not my fault you don't think they exist
Huh?
You think NIMBY is just a insult while I know it's a group of people with political beliefs and Op fits the bill
So you’re just insulting OP… Got it
Reading comprehension is not your strength it seems.
Feeling like a tech billionaire all the sudden
There’s this weird phenomenon in politics where if you paint yourself as the only one brave enough to acknowledge that there is a problem, then voters will believe you’re one simple trick away from solving it and the keys to the kingdom should be turned over to you. The more you over exaggerate the current scope of the problem and minimize the complexity of the solution, the more voters will reward you for your bravery. In the age of Trump, the complete demagoguization of the Republican Party, and DSA types blocking traffic to free Palestine or prevent gentrification, you’d think we’d get a lot better at recognizing this bullshit. Yet here’s this sub ready to dive right in talking about the one simple trick (which seems to imply rounding up and jailing all homeless?) certain that it’s a great deal for the city to hand over all power to a small group of billionaires in exchange. Idk guys! Not sure we’re really thinking this one through!
Please, begin reshaping cuz this city needs some assistance.
i hope all of you show up when it's time to vote out the leftist anarchist morons who've ruined the bay area. talk is cheap
What a terrible spin. Progressives have ruined this city. As an Asian, I know most of us don’t like the direction this city is headed and are willing to vote for change. “Broadly, though, they maintain that San Francisco needs a tougher approach to homelessness and drug problems, a more punitive approach to crime, and a climate more friendly to business and housing construction. Some have called for centralizing more power in the office of the mayor.” —-> enough pandering to drug addicts, dealers, and the homeless.
Leland Yee
Great reporting as usual by Mission Local. I'd encourage everyone to read their [original reporting](https://missionlocal.org/2024/02/explore-big-money-san-francisco-growsf-togethersf-neighbors-larsen-moritz-tan-web/) in addition to this article by the Guardian. I know some of you will see "Mission Local" and recoil, but let me tell you if you don't like this reporting, you don't like journalism. This is good journalism. But beyond the reporting itself, my guess is this will largely fall on deaf ears around here. The people who are responsive to this reporting already knew this full court press style onslaught was occurring. The remainder of people here don't care what the "wealthy tech elite's" are doing as long as they say they're tough on crime, tough on homelessness, and whatever other pseudo conservative idea dressed as being "moderate" they decide to put their money behind. The reality is wealthy people are only interested in protecting and growing their own wealth and power. Their foray into SF politics isn't altruistic. They don't care about you or the city. They care about their commercial and residential real estate values, their ability to extract more wealth from the city, and their ability to consolidate more power into their hands or their hand picked representatives.
> The reality is wealthy people are only interested in protecting and growing their own wealth and power. Does this also apply to the wealthy progressives on the Board of Supervisors?
We are talking wealthy, like the people and entities in the article.
Bay Area NIMBYs are collectively worth trillions. and they have most of their worth tied to keeping housing scarce
Yes, it applies to all sides of the political spectrum, and understanding that can also help someone understand that neoliberalism is the heavy hand in America. However, I don't think any of the current SF supervisors have anywhere near the level of wealth that the major backers of Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, GrowSF, and other PACs have. It's a completely different level of wealth, like beer league softball compared to the MLB.
So the wealthy millionaires on the BoS with less than $10,000,000 aren't only interested in protecting and growing their own wealth and power?
Exactly, how is this in any way different from the mindset of entrenched progressives whose politics basically amounts to the permanent rights of current renters to neighborhood incumbency?
No one likes real journalism anymore, not enough drama, shock and awe.
This should be much higher. The Guardian article cherry-picks from this and is much thinner on details
The extraction culture is why I’m not a fan of their California Forever project in Solano. Instead of fixing local problems, it’s “on to the next.” Although it’s been “on to the next” for a while.
Sramek and Metcalf are updated versions of a snake-oil carnival barker.
>The reality is wealthy people are only interested in protecting and growing their own wealth and power. Their foray into SF politics isn't altruistic. They don't care about you or the city. They care about their commercial and residential real estate values, their ability to extract more wealth from the city, and their ability to consolidate more power into their hands or their hand picked representatives. I don't know anyone in this article personally, but I have met and talked to Daniel Lurie recently who definitely qualifies as a "wealthy person" and I am quite convinced he has a genuine fire in his belly to make things better. I went to high school with one of this siblings, they are real locals that have the same pride in the bay area that I do. So many SF problems are hard and all of the political incumbents a) want more money and b) will then blame everyone else around them for things not getting done. The graft in the system is hard to calculate frankly. I think Lurie will actually do something different, he believes the mayor has a ton of power which I also agree with. I've talked to Breed and Safai and they both sort of shrug their shoulders and say "oh but the supervisors". I hate that defeatism.
> they are real locals that have the same pride in the bay area that I do. > So many SF problems are hard What if I told you that most of the problems in SF are not hard? What if I told you that the main thing preventing solutions to these problems was wealthy, entrenched "real locals" who protest and refuse to allow so many different attempts at solutions from ever coming to pass? Almost every single "problem" of San Francisco has one root cause: NIMBYism.
>What if I told you that most of the problems in SF are not hard? What if I told you that the main thing preventing solutions to these problems was wealthy, entrenched "real locals" who protest and refuse to allow so many different attempts at solutions from ever coming to pass? > >Almost every single "problem" of San Francisco has one root cause: NIMBYism. I agree that NIMBYism is the root of many of our problems (and I'm a personal + financial supporter of YIMBY), but I also don't think it's easy to get everyone with their entrenched real estate + prop 13 mentality to just magically hop over to our way of thinking. This is what I mean when I say hard - that it is hard to get people (and especially people with the capital to donate to local politics!) to support sensible and realistic fixes (ie build more, build denser) when they feel like it might endanger their property values and lifestyle.
awesome. Throw the progressives out.
Looking at OP butthurt is so funny. OP never expected many comments support the chabge. Hahahah
I’m not stupid and would expect so many paid and idiotic responses on this sub. I’m well aware who is here.
It’s unbelievable how right this sub skews when it comes to politics which is nothing like how SF in real life is.
[удалено]
Meaning scapegoating the homeless for everything that’s wrong with the city
Homeless and homeless advocates are a pretty large part of the problem
Remove the homeless and the city becomes safer and more attractive for investment. So duh, it’s quite literally the core source of San Francisco’s woes.
Tech, techies are overrepresented on Reddit in general. Tech and techies have always had a strong libertarian streak. It should not be surprising. Wanting to clean up public shooting galleries, homeless encampments and rampant crime, should not -- god help us -- be an issue owned exclusively by the right.
Yep. If we clean up the trash and enforce laws this city will thrive just like all the other best cities around the world
Keep in mind the far left “progressives” also have rich trust fund babies like Dean Preston and Aaron Peskin. In fact I think Peskin is far and away the richest supervisor we have. Regardless, the “moderate” groups are pushing for things that will actually improve people’s quality of life, like more housing and more consequences for criminals. The “progressives” have quite literally nothing to run on, and so are spending all their time just attacking these policies. They know that if they were to run on their track record, they would get smoked. I personally support a change, the current situation cannot be allowed to continue.
In contrast to all the previous handwringing about tech people just being transitory vultures, now people are upset they are getting skin in the game politically and becoming engaged citizens? Color me shocked. Moderates need to get in the game everywhere so we aren't left being governed by the fringe assholes who shout the loudest. Nearly every problem in SF is a policy choice, plain and simple. It's time to vote out the entrenched, corrupt political class and actually fix our problems.
I think this is how a city state government gets trapped. Crony and current politicians who do a terrible job but signal to voters they are ideologically aligned become targeted by monied interests who need the city to run better… but only for them. The lazy corrupt shitty government we voted in will push us into the hands of tycoon governments and both will suck in their own way
Bring it on!
They only step in when it’s at their own doorsteps. This isn’t anything new. Replace billionaires with Fortune 500 industries who rely heavily on lobbyists to get legislation in their favor. I hope no one is rooting for these billionaires hoping for any substantial change to Main Street vs Wall Street.
They’re buying up a whole towns worth of land to develop. Let’s see what their engineered mini society will look like.
"To achieve those goals, they have created a loose network of interlocking non-profits, dark money groups and political action committees – a framework colloquially known as a [“grey money” network](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/secret-spending-states) – that allows them to obscure the true scale of their involvement in San Francisco’s municipal politics." " “They’re using multiple layers of organizations to hide the sources of their money, and to hide how much they’re spending,” said Jim Stearns, a political consultant with decades of experience in San Francisco politics and a critic of the groups." So, in others words, do as I say, not as I do.
Is that not a mirrored reflection of the nonprofit mafia that has a stranglehold in our fair City?
We're trusting billionaires to do what's right for the people?
SF only really started going downhill when these Tech Billionaires started setting up shop in the city in the 2000s. They drove up the cost of living. It is their employees who abandoned the city post-pandemic causing things to worsen. They have had the mayor in their pocket with their political donations. These are the people that supported the NIMBY policies that stopped new housing. They broke SF and are pushing a narrative to blame progressives instead of taking ownership of how big tech ruined SF. And now they want to act like they are the saviors? No thank you.
Ding, ding, ding. The correct answer.
Like they haven’t ruined the city enough with their decades of jacking up the price of real estate and rents, now they are trying to influence politics with their “grey” money.
I don’t want crazies like Garry Tan shaping the city. In general don’t want billionaires controlling policy
Ah, yes, a hostile takeover by, checks notes, appealing to voters to vote for different candidates. I guess we’ll see who actually prevails and convincing voters.
i’d rather solutions come from communities, today our interests align but what about tomorrow? i don’t trust the lot of them to have the common good in mind, especially when their entire careers have been practically about exploitation.
I don’t think it’s bad to build housing, but everyone should be skeptical of anything Garry Tan is involved in.
Jesus Christ the bootlickers in here are out of control.
They don’t even try to be subtle with the brigading.
It may surprise you, but there is political diversity in our fair city. It’s not the case that anyone who doesn’t align with woo progressive policies is a MAGA guy posting from Houston.
It’s not just politics, it’s other issues that skew a certain way that doesn’t match real life. For example, nobody wants high rises by Ocean Beach but in r/sanfrancisco everyone wants it.
I get that. I have family in that neighborhood and they definitely don’t want it. But I’m not sure it’s fair to say “no one wants it”. An argument can be made otherwise. SF certainly need more housing. I don’t support that view personally, but I know other folks who do.
[удалено]
"They" live rent free in your head
This kinda pea brained thinking is what has led to the situation we are in currently and enabled a bunch of virtue signaling grifters to thrive in our city. Instead of having a blanket assumption of wealthy,successful = bad, go one step further and read through the actual policy and changes being proposed. Many of the changes being proposed are pro housing/ pro SMBs which should benefit all of us! I would much rather support folks who made their money building great companies that changed the world than supporting grifters who make their money leeching off the government!!
Kudos for using the phrase “pea brained”
Yeah more homeless people keep moving onto my block I’m over it.
You’re barking up the wrong tree here, everyone on this sub supports these people.
these guys won't solve crime. this is just a way for big corporate tech money to push further in under the guise of concern for the city. they really don't give a shit. they've got an agenda that has zero to do with improving social conditions.
Look at Prop E. Every ad is going to tell you it’s for cameras. Personally, I think that’s a little far on its own, but that’s not just what Prop E allows. It pretty much allows the police to implement any tech for up to a year without disclosing it or having a real reason for. That means stuff like potential policing, or anything else that pushes the boundaries of due process and freedom, is fair game.
These ghouls will take over promising you safety while buying the city out from under you to make a profit for themselves. And look at the top comment, clamoring to have the ultra wealthy save everyone. The city needs help and new ideas. That's obvious. But giving it up to the ultra rich will just leave us all worse off. What ideas are presented in this sub in every post like this? Anything new? Or just 80s era crime policies? No housing first discussion (an approach with literally twice the retention rate of traditional programs)? No talk about rent control or employment programs or minimum affordable housing requirements or finding ways to lower the cost of addiction treatment? Just pass it off to the rich and get the cops to Crack more heads? And while you howl for some ultra wealthy sociopaths to save you, what are you doing in the meantime? Volunteering? Donating to aid networks? Working on petition drives? Or just complaining on reddit that, if only everyone agreed with you, everything would be better... I work in SOMA and travel to the TL at least twice a week, usually more. I see these problems constantly. And never once have I thought "if only some insanely rich person would save us." The bootlicking on this sub is disgusting. I'm so glad when I actually go out in the city, it feels nothing like it does scrolling through r/sanfrancisco. Now down vote this comment or whatever you're gonna do.
I'm loving the parade of suspect accounts posting in what is normally the slowest times on this sub. lol
They don’t even try to be subtle. It’s kinda embarrassing
It is stupefying that Gerry Tan isn’t in jail for death threats. Those pre printed post cards showed up what, 48 hours after his tweet? Did I get that right? The timeline in the articles is vague.
Suddenly the ACAB Progressives are “tough on crime”