3 ms·

> How is any of this progressive? To me it looks like a lot of elitism plus general political incompetence and corruption coated with a superficial veneer of lo

> How is any of this progressive? To me it looks like a lot of elitism plus general political incompetence and corruption coated with a superficial veneer of low-effort progressive rhetoric to sell it to naive young liberals who vote for mere words and don't pay attention to outcomes. You're right. SF isn't very progressive. It does occasionally have a progressive policy or candidate, but mostly it chases big tech money and just pretends to be progressive. The politicians are mostly mainstream dems, who are just as corrupt as other politicians. The cops aren't as bad as NY or LA or Chicago, but they're not better than average in terms of competence or racism. Boudin is progressive, but he's being recalled. SF likes to pretend that it's better than other cities, but for the most part, it isn't. It is richer, and a lot of SF's problems are attributable to it being richer without being more equal. The GOP angle that SF proves progressivism turns places into shitholes is also a complete lie. The city isn't very progressive, and it also isn't actually a shithole. (I mean yes it's literally dirty, but not nearly at the level the media likes to rant about.) Similarly with the whole "Boudin caused SF to have a crime wave" thing. SF's crime stats during the pandemic were not especially different from other major cities, and the DA doesn't have much of an impact on crime stats anyway, especially not in the short term. > We've created a political environment where we give far, far too much weight to words and not nearly enough to deeds or outcomes. Ultimately only outcomes matter and when measured by outcome SF's policies are not progressive. Right. And some people try to argue against progressive policies, by saying that "progressive" deeds don't lead to the desired outcomes. But SF isn't a good example of this. It has progressive words but NIMBY deeds, so of course it isn't getting progressive outcomes.

api 4y ago
Is there anywhere in the country that you think is an actual poster child for progressive ideas implemented well? Colorado and Massachusetts come to mind as possibilities. I've lived in the latter and it did not seem too badly run, certainly much better than SF. It did still have the unaffordable housing problem that dogs every "blue" city and state, but nowhere near as bad as SF. The unaffordable housing problem is not just because of NIMBYs. It's also because of a lot of regulation in general including endless environmental reviews that add tons of cost and uncertainty to housing development. When you increase the up-front cost of building anything by tacking on a bunch of compliance and regulatory requirements, you bias the market heavily toward luxury high-end developments in which the builder can recoup the cost. You can't build affordable housing in a high-cost environment because it doesn't deliver the margins. As a rule any regulation with difficult or costly compliance is a tax, and usually a regressive one since huge corporations and/or high-margin products are less impacted.
- less_less 4y ago
  > Is there anywhere in the country that you think is an actual poster child for progressive ideas implemented well? Colorado and Massachusetts come to mind as possibilities. I don't know of any one place that does a great job. Different places have tried different components of progressive policies, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. Like Salt Lake City isn't overall progressive, but it's done a good job building housing for homeless people. Berkeley has a reputation for being more legitimately progressive than SF, but I haven't looked into the details on that and I'd bet there are still serious issues. Massachusetts and Colorado have done well at some things. And at least SF, like Massachusetts, makes health care relatively accessible even to poor people. > The unaffordable housing problem is not just because of NIMBYs. It's also because of a lot of regulation in general including endless environmental reviews that add tons of cost and uncertainty to housing development. When you increase the up-front cost of building anything by tacking on a bunch of compliance and regulatory requirements, you bias the market heavily toward luxury high-end developments in which the builder can recoup the cost. You can't build affordable housing in a high-cost environment because it doesn't deliver the margins. Agreed. And it's tough because you do want environmental reviews and building codes, especially in an earthquake zone. But Cali in general definitely goes overboard on these and other red tape. Also the land is expensive, labor is expensive because the workers need to live in or near SF, etc. And SF has rent control. This is sort of a progressive policy, and it's basically the only way that less-than-rich people can still afford to live there, but it also skews the market and makes the remaining places even more expensive.

api 4y ago

Is there anywhere in the country that you think is an actual poster child for progressive ideas implemented well? Colorado and Massachusetts come to mind as possibilities. I've lived in the latter and it did not seem too badly run, certainly much better than SF. It did still have the unaffordable housing problem that dogs every "blue" city and state, but nowhere near as bad as SF. The unaffordable housing problem is not just because of NIMBYs. It's also because of a lot of regulation in general including endless environmental reviews that add tons of cost and uncertainty to housing development. When you increase the up-front cost of building anything by tacking on a bunch of compliance and regulatory requirements, you bias the market heavily toward luxury high-end developments in which the builder can recoup the cost. You can't build affordable housing in a high-cost environment because it doesn't deliver the margins. As a rule any regulation with difficult or costly compliance is a tax, and usually a regressive one since huge corporations and/or high-margin products are less impacted.

less_less 4y ago
> Is there anywhere in the country that you think is an actual poster child for progressive ideas implemented well? Colorado and Massachusetts come to mind as possibilities. I don't know of any one place that does a great job. Different places have tried different components of progressive policies, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. Like Salt Lake City isn't overall progressive, but it's done a good job building housing for homeless people. Berkeley has a reputation for being more legitimately progressive than SF, but I haven't looked into the details on that and I'd bet there are still serious issues. Massachusetts and Colorado have done well at some things. And at least SF, like Massachusetts, makes health care relatively accessible even to poor people. > The unaffordable housing problem is not just because of NIMBYs. It's also because of a lot of regulation in general including endless environmental reviews that add tons of cost and uncertainty to housing development. When you increase the up-front cost of building anything by tacking on a bunch of compliance and regulatory requirements, you bias the market heavily toward luxury high-end developments in which the builder can recoup the cost. You can't build affordable housing in a high-cost environment because it doesn't deliver the margins. Agreed. And it's tough because you do want environmental reviews and building codes, especially in an earthquake zone. But Cali in general definitely goes overboard on these and other red tape. Also the land is expensive, labor is expensive because the workers need to live in or near SF, etc. And SF has rent control. This is sort of a progressive policy, and it's basically the only way that less-than-rich people can still afford to live there, but it also skews the market and makes the remaining places even more expensive.