4 ms·

As a kid I thought of the Bay Area & San Francisco as progressive & environmentally friendly. When it comes to the cities themselves and not just which Presiden

As a kid I thought of the Bay Area & San Francisco as progressive & environmentally friendly. When it comes to the cities themselves and not just which President they voted for, was it that way in decades past, or was this never the case?

tinokid 9y ago
Never. In decades past they voted for Nixon.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
TulliusCicero 9y ago
Every demographic has ideological blind spots. For example, Republicans are generally for reduced government spending...except that when it comes to cars, they favor extremely expensive infrastructure.
geebee 9y ago
The San Francisco board of supervisors and most of the voting public would almost certainly declare themselves to be progressive and environmentally friendly, and I don't think they are cynical or manipulative here. They really mean it, and believe they mean it. The problem is where policy becomes enforcement. San Francisco, I believe, isn't good at translating intent into reality. Pave overs are actually a good example. San Francisco has very specifically illegalized front yard pave-overs, and the board of supervisors voted to increase the fines. However, very little budget (in a massive, massive city budget for a city SF's size) is allocated to enforcement. They're also in a bind now, as they have allowed the practice to go on so long, with such light enforcement, that it's going to be difficult to roll it back. Another experience I had was replacing my windows with energy efficient, double pane, insulated windows. The Bush administration (George W) created a tax credit for energy efficient home improvements. Gavin Newsom, SF's liberal mayor at the time, talked quite a bit about about the importance of "Green" San Francisco. Gavin Newsom's San Francisco collected permit fees that more or less confiscated George W Bush's federal tax incentives to encourage energy efficiency. Savor that for a moment. Ironic, isn't it? But to me, this story, along with the pave-over debacle, kind of gets at how SF goes wrong on so many things.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  Thanks. That makes it sound like this is all yet another victim of budget failures. Good intentions, but never enough money for basic programs, and a government always hungry for more revenue.
- mateo411 9y ago
  San Francisco also has the Front Yard Ambassador Program. This encourages homeowners to replace concrete in their front yard with plants. The City helps defray the costs. The goal of this program is to reduce runoff. http://sfbos.org/supervisor-tang-front-yard-ambassadors-program http://sfbos.org/supervisor-tang-front-yard-ambassadors-prog...
  - geebee 9y ago
    I have reservations about this program even though I hope it is a success. The program provides partial funding and reduced permit fees if homeowners arrange for at least four houses on a block to remove the concrete. Citizens are encouraged to become “ambassadors” and knock on neighbors doors and try to convince them to remove it. If the citizen fails to get enough neighbors on board? No funding. To me, this program takes an issue of permit enforcement of critical importance to the infrastructure and pushes it out to people with zero authority, and asks them to knock on doors, explain the law, and ask if they’ll please consider complying with permits. The government gets to duck the awkward business of enforcing a law that turned into an entitlement, while pretending to do something ang getting a smiling feel good photo op (win win!) Meanwhile, where I live, pave overs continue apace with no apparent enforcement at all. Houses flood with raw sewage. In one recent storm, a dog was electrocuted in the flooded garage. This area is one of the few parts of sf with a high percentage of children, including lower income children. It turns out the government does need to establish and enforce sensible laws.
abritinthebay 9y ago
As is often the case - the truth is more complex. That said: it’s often that the Bay is more socially progressive than fiscally or infrastructurally. Plus they’re just shit at getting things done (often due to NIMBYism).
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  Hah, I had not thought to separate out social progressiveness from infrastructure progressiveness. That's a good point, they in no way have to go hand in hand.

tinokid 9y ago

Never. In decades past they voted for Nixon.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

TulliusCicero 9y ago

Every demographic has ideological blind spots. For example, Republicans are generally for reduced government spending...except that when it comes to cars, they favor extremely expensive infrastructure.

geebee 9y ago

The San Francisco board of supervisors and most of the voting public would almost certainly declare themselves to be progressive and environmentally friendly, and I don't think they are cynical or manipulative here. They really mean it, and believe they mean it. The problem is where policy becomes enforcement. San Francisco, I believe, isn't good at translating intent into reality. Pave overs are actually a good example. San Francisco has very specifically illegalized front yard pave-overs, and the board of supervisors voted to increase the fines. However, very little budget (in a massive, massive city budget for a city SF's size) is allocated to enforcement. They're also in a bind now, as they have allowed the practice to go on so long, with such light enforcement, that it's going to be difficult to roll it back. Another experience I had was replacing my windows with energy efficient, double pane, insulated windows. The Bush administration (George W) created a tax credit for energy efficient home improvements. Gavin Newsom, SF's liberal mayor at the time, talked quite a bit about about the importance of "Green" San Francisco. Gavin Newsom's San Francisco collected permit fees that more or less confiscated George W Bush's federal tax incentives to encourage energy efficiency. Savor that for a moment. Ironic, isn't it? But to me, this story, along with the pave-over debacle, kind of gets at how SF goes wrong on so many things.

sliverstorm 9y ago
Thanks. That makes it sound like this is all yet another victim of budget failures. Good intentions, but never enough money for basic programs, and a government always hungry for more revenue.
mateo411 9y ago
San Francisco also has the Front Yard Ambassador Program. This encourages homeowners to replace concrete in their front yard with plants. The City helps defray the costs. The goal of this program is to reduce runoff. http://sfbos.org/supervisor-tang-front-yard-ambassadors-program http://sfbos.org/supervisor-tang-front-yard-ambassadors-prog...
- geebee 9y ago
  I have reservations about this program even though I hope it is a success. The program provides partial funding and reduced permit fees if homeowners arrange for at least four houses on a block to remove the concrete. Citizens are encouraged to become “ambassadors” and knock on neighbors doors and try to convince them to remove it. If the citizen fails to get enough neighbors on board? No funding. To me, this program takes an issue of permit enforcement of critical importance to the infrastructure and pushes it out to people with zero authority, and asks them to knock on doors, explain the law, and ask if they’ll please consider complying with permits. The government gets to duck the awkward business of enforcing a law that turned into an entitlement, while pretending to do something ang getting a smiling feel good photo op (win win!) Meanwhile, where I live, pave overs continue apace with no apparent enforcement at all. Houses flood with raw sewage. In one recent storm, a dog was electrocuted in the flooded garage. This area is one of the few parts of sf with a high percentage of children, including lower income children. It turns out the government does need to establish and enforce sensible laws.

abritinthebay 9y ago

As is often the case - the truth is more complex. That said: it’s often that the Bay is more socially progressive than fiscally or infrastructurally. Plus they’re just shit at getting things done (often due to NIMBYism).

sliverstorm 9y ago
Hah, I had not thought to separate out social progressiveness from infrastructure progressiveness. That's a good point, they in no way have to go hand in hand.