4 ms·

>As it is, the city has been safely Democratic for 40 years and seems allergic to choosing a Bloomberg-type figure from one of the big tech companies to try som

by TMWNN 5y ago

>As it is, the city has been safely Democratic for 40 years and seems allergic to choosing a Bloomberg-type figure from one of the big tech companies to try something different. San Francisco is what New York City would be like if it only had the UWS, Village, and Wall Street/Midtown. To put another way, if the Bay area had been unified a century ago as "San Francisco" including the Peninsula and East Bay, things wouldn't be so dysfunctional there. Heck, just the Peninsula would be sufficient.

dayyan 5y ago
The logic here implies an already dysfunctional government would fair better with more to govern.
- TMWNN 5y ago
  No, I'm saying that NYC is a very large city (speaking geographically, by population, or by politics). It has the super-liberal UWS and Greenwich/East Village, but also the UES, Staten Island, eastern Queens, Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn, old-line Italians in Arthur Avenue, Howard Beach, and a lot of ordinary middle-class areas. All those areas balance out the nutty leftism of other parts of the city. San Francisco doesn't have anything like that. As the article discusses, the middle class has been fleeing San Francisco for decades. it's never going to elect a Bloomberg, let alone a Giuliani.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jackcosgrove 5y ago
  That assumes SF city politics would take over the suburbs. The city of Indianapolis years ago merged itself with its surrounding county, to unify city and suburbs. This was instigated by the Republican suburban leadership so that the metro region would remain under Republican control. Indianapolis has been a more politically moderate city than peers as a result.
gsnedders 5y ago
There's definitely dysfunction caused by lack of planning at a metro level; many of the problems are arguably burdensome for any one county to address, but aren't high enough priority to attract attention to force coordination at a state level. Merging all the counties into one is certainly one approach to solving it, and would make the governance more addressable to a larger number of people who work in the area, versus the much smaller number who live there.
- babesh 5y ago
  No city on the Peninsula in their right mind would want to merge with SF. SF has close to 10x the crime, worse schools, etc... What is there to gain?
babesh 5y ago
The Peninsula is generally much better run than SF. It kind of helps that it isn't one big city. It forces the cities to compete and makes the democracy more direct and participatory. It also limits the blast radius of bad decisions. Also, because of the greater percentage of kids, the parents often vote based on what is best for their kids. The issues are much more mundane. Better roads, funding for schools, etc...
- manderley 5y ago
  The housing crisis is perpetuated by a lack of coherent planning. It's also why transit is suboptimal. It definitely doesn't help that it isn't one big city, it's actively detrimental.
  - babesh 5y ago
    It definitely helps the quality of life of the Peninsula to not be embroiled in SF politics. Tons of SF natives moved to the Peninsula for those reasons. You don't need a large city to coordinate transportation. By that logic, the whole Bay Area should be one city. After all, you have BART running to the East Bay, South Bay, and a tiny part of the Peninsula.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Maybe the best solution is some sort of regional association or federation of governments working on multi-jurisdictional concerns. Representing an entire area you could say.
    - babesh 5y ago
      You mean like the ones they already have? Like the Bay Area Regional Transit authority also known as BART?
  - babesh 5y ago
    There is planning. Each city is obligated to increase housing by a given amount. There are transit villages being developed. The proximal problem is that the SF government is too inefficient and slow. BART is actually more efficient than SF is at building stations. Why would you want drag more SF politics into something that runs better than it?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by TMWNN 5y ago

dayyan 5y ago

The logic here implies an already dysfunctional government would fair better with more to govern.

TMWNN 5y ago
No, I'm saying that NYC is a very large city (speaking geographically, by population, or by politics). It has the super-liberal UWS and Greenwich/East Village, but also the UES, Staten Island, eastern Queens, Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn, old-line Italians in Arthur Avenue, Howard Beach, and a lot of ordinary middle-class areas. All those areas balance out the nutty leftism of other parts of the city. San Francisco doesn't have anything like that. As the article discusses, the middle class has been fleeing San Francisco for decades. it's never going to elect a Bloomberg, let alone a Giuliani.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jackcosgrove 5y ago
That assumes SF city politics would take over the suburbs. The city of Indianapolis years ago merged itself with its surrounding county, to unify city and suburbs. This was instigated by the Republican suburban leadership so that the metro region would remain under Republican control. Indianapolis has been a more politically moderate city than peers as a result.

gsnedders 5y ago

There's definitely dysfunction caused by lack of planning at a metro level; many of the problems are arguably burdensome for any one county to address, but aren't high enough priority to attract attention to force coordination at a state level. Merging all the counties into one is certainly one approach to solving it, and would make the governance more addressable to a larger number of people who work in the area, versus the much smaller number who live there.

babesh 5y ago
No city on the Peninsula in their right mind would want to merge with SF. SF has close to 10x the crime, worse schools, etc... What is there to gain?

babesh 5y ago

The Peninsula is generally much better run than SF. It kind of helps that it isn't one big city. It forces the cities to compete and makes the democracy more direct and participatory. It also limits the blast radius of bad decisions. Also, because of the greater percentage of kids, the parents often vote based on what is best for their kids. The issues are much more mundane. Better roads, funding for schools, etc...

manderley 5y ago
The housing crisis is perpetuated by a lack of coherent planning. It's also why transit is suboptimal. It definitely doesn't help that it isn't one big city, it's actively detrimental.
- babesh 5y ago
  It definitely helps the quality of life of the Peninsula to not be embroiled in SF politics. Tons of SF natives moved to the Peninsula for those reasons. You don't need a large city to coordinate transportation. By that logic, the whole Bay Area should be one city. After all, you have BART running to the East Bay, South Bay, and a tiny part of the Peninsula.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Maybe the best solution is some sort of regional association or federation of governments working on multi-jurisdictional concerns. Representing an entire area you could say.
  - babesh 5y ago
    You mean like the ones they already have? Like the Bay Area Regional Transit authority also known as BART?
- babesh 5y ago
  There is planning. Each city is obligated to increase housing by a given amount. There are transit villages being developed. The proximal problem is that the SF government is too inefficient and slow. BART is actually more efficient than SF is at building stations. Why would you want drag more SF politics into something that runs better than it?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]