2 ms·

Mainly because these comparisons are never apples to apples - SF is a City/County so the budget includes normal County expenses where many other city budgets do

Mainly because these comparisons are never apples to apples - SF is a City/County so the budget includes normal County expenses where many other city budgets don’t (eg the entire Sheriffs office and jail system). Also SF’s budget includes the Port of San Francisco and one of busiest airports in the country - both of which are net profitable to the city but whose expenses should be backed out if you’re doing a $$$ spent per capita calculation. I’m too lazy to do it myself but I’d love to see “cleaned up” numbers that take this stuff into account.

refurb 6y ago
I don’t disagree that’s not an apples to apples comparison, but Philadelphia is an “ok” comparison since they cover county costs and an airport (but not ports). They are ~50% of SF’s per capita spending. Regardless, I think the argument that SF just “needs more money” isn’t a particularly strong one.
- mikeyouse 6y ago
  I think a large part of California's issues come down to an inflationary spiral led by the absurd housing costs. I don't think it's unreasonable for city workers to want to be able to afford to live in the city that they work in. E.g. the average SF police officer should be able to afford to live in SF. What this has meant in practice though is that we keep giving city employees raises on raises on raises to keep up with housing costs which means everything else is crowded out and the long-term pension costs of these now inflated salaries is astronomical. If a 2-bedroom apartment were $1,500/month instead of $3,500/month, the 'fair' cost to a city worker would be much lower and by virtue our entire tax base could shrink. As they say though, wages are sticky in the downward direction, so even if California were to flip a switch and do a 180 with their housing policies, these costs will be with us for a very long time. Property tax reform paired with lowered income taxes would be a good first step though.

refurb 6y ago

I don’t disagree that’s not an apples to apples comparison, but Philadelphia is an “ok” comparison since they cover county costs and an airport (but not ports). They are ~50% of SF’s per capita spending. Regardless, I think the argument that SF just “needs more money” isn’t a particularly strong one.

mikeyouse 6y ago
I think a large part of California's issues come down to an inflationary spiral led by the absurd housing costs. I don't think it's unreasonable for city workers to want to be able to afford to live in the city that they work in. E.g. the average SF police officer should be able to afford to live in SF. What this has meant in practice though is that we keep giving city employees raises on raises on raises to keep up with housing costs which means everything else is crowded out and the long-term pension costs of these now inflated salaries is astronomical. If a 2-bedroom apartment were $1,500/month instead of $3,500/month, the 'fair' cost to a city worker would be much lower and by virtue our entire tax base could shrink. As they say though, wages are sticky in the downward direction, so even if California were to flip a switch and do a 180 with their housing policies, these costs will be with us for a very long time. Property tax reform paired with lowered income taxes would be a good first step though.