Yeah, the article completely ignores that the voters are prioritizing other things. SF voters don't want to send so many people to prison. Yes, that means that

Yeah, the article completely ignores that the voters are prioritizing other things. SF voters don't want to send so many people to prison. Yes, that means that criminals and the homeless have more freedom than in other cities. But SF voters feel that the US prison and "justice" systems are too immoral to implement in SF. SF voters also want to keep low-rise housing and prevent making it easier to change neighborhoods by adding housing. Of course, this also has the bad tradeoff of over-constraining supply, leading to ridiculous housing costs. But this tradeoff is a response to plowing highways through and dumping toxic waste in poor neighborhood. So yeah, if you hate these tradeoffs, then you'll also feel that SF is dysfunctional. Thanks Economist for your un-insightful article.