5 ms·

>> I don't see why any of those desires should be in conflict with my progressive ideals > This is precisely the origin of the problem. And, WHY, exactly is t

>> I don't see why any of those desires should be in conflict with my progressive ideals > This is precisely the origin of the problem. And, WHY, exactly is this the origin of the problem? The poster said they'd be willing to pay drastically higher taxes to fund the programs that should benefit many people forced onto the streets and also wants a city appropriately staffed to handle criminals and those still on the street causing problems (i.e. mentally ill). The parent comment didn't suggest rounding them up and getting rid of them or to act in any way that was discompassionate. How's this conflict with progressive ideals? It's not progressive to have a shit filled city that's so poorly staffed it can't keep its streets cleaned and safe to an acceptable level. Since you seem to know where the problem starts, what's your solution?

refurb 11y ago
San Francisco has the 2nd highest spending per person of all cities in the US at almost $10K per person. Only DC is higher at $15K and that probably has something to do with the way the district is funded. It's not a lack of money that causes all of SF's problems, it's how the city is run.
- bluejekyll 11y ago
  > it's how the city is run One issue is that the City is basically run by a single party. I'm proud that the City has ranked voting now, which should support third parties, but that hasn't translated into that yet... The fact that we hold elections in off years, means that there is lower voter turnout and increases the chances that party faithful will elect the same people each year. The election rules encourage the current political situation in the City.