5 ms·

> maybe the Republicans _are_ on to something: the government has become too big. Except this is SF, not the Federal Government, and part of the reason the cos

by feoren 4y ago

> maybe the Republicans _are_ on to something: the government has become too big. Except this is SF, not the Federal Government, and part of the reason the costs are so high is because PG&E is holding the city hostage. Republicans want giant corporations like PG&E to have more power to hold the government hostage and loot it. Why do you pay attention to what they say, rather than what they do? They never actually shrink the government; the bigger the government is, the more there is to loot, after all.

1024core 4y ago
> and part of the reason the costs are so high is because PG&E is holding the city hostage. One thing you'll see when you live in SF long enough (20+ years here) is that they'll come up with all sorts of crazy excuses to justify bad behavior. Blaming PG&E for the $1.7M cost is bullshit.
- Redoubts 4y ago
  It's why I left. You can't even fix this.
  - ROTMetro 4y ago
    I fled too. I miss so many aspects of the area, but the politics got so toxic when the libertarian hippies (let's all just get along) were replaced by authoritarian progressives (our way is the only truly good opinion, therefor the only opinion allowed, agree or be evil) and you could no longer have any policy discussions about anything.
- rayiner 4y ago
  The nationalization of politics is a huge problem in blue states and cities—it totally eviscerates accountability. Pointing to republicans in Texas becomes a get out of jail free card to explain why a toilet costs $1.7 million in San Francisco. It’s particularly a problem with the bread and butter of state and local governance: education and policing. Why are cops in Minneapolis—a city that has two greens on the city council and no republicans—murdering black people? Must be Trump’s fault.
  - Der_Einzige 4y ago
    Trying to imply that Greens on the city council can stop police from murdering their own constituents is also silly. They don't hire the cops, and meaningful reform of PD department's ends up being the voters job since it's usually ballot measures. Consider that in places like Portland where city government and local people are openly hostile to the cops, the cops are simply quiet quitting. Despite having the budget to hire hundreds of new cops, literally no one applies to work in Portland. Thus, if your desire is to get cops to stop murdering, you really should vote for the Democrats or greens or whatever. The issue is that the cops just through a massive hissy fit to punish you, the voter, for trying to bring in a safer society. I was just in South Korea. The cops there are not empowered. Their police stations are usually the most ghetto looking buildings in their community. I could get a cop to look for my lost bags if I needed it, because that's their role in society there. South Korea is one of the safest societies on earth. Do we have the same structural factors as south Koreans? No, but demilitarized police can still be effective. Luckily hippy blue cities tend to have low violent crime...
    - rayiner 4y ago
      The Minneapolis City Council can vote for bonuses for MPD: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/10/03/members-of-mpls-city-council-support-incentive-payments-for-high-ranking-mpd-employees https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/10/03/members-of-mpls-cit.... Don’t act like they can’t exercise other oversight. The point is that a democrat signed Derek Chauvin’s checks. A democrat has authority over the department’s training and disciplinary policies. Insofar as police unions stand in the way of reform, democrats are responsible for that too. Those democrats obviously want to shift focus to Trump voters in Kansas with “Blue Lives Matter” lawn signs. But those Trump voters are just heckling from the sidelines. They’re not the ones with actual authority over how Minneapolis runs its police department.
ALittleLight 4y ago
You know people are actually Republicans, right? You think what they want is for big companies to loot the government? That sounds like you view Republicans as the villains on Captain Planet. The Republican position is probably more like "With less regulation more companies could flourish and compete in the same space and then market forces would drive costs down" and less about wanting to steal from people. It's crazy to think ~half the country just wants to empower big business to rob them. Not least because big business tends to support Democrats.
- agalunar 4y ago
  I assumed by "Republicans" they meant Republican politicans and the wealthy entities that support them, rather than party members (the general populace).
  - throwntoday 4y ago
    You say that as though SF hasn't been run exclusively by democrats for 30+ years. Democrat politicians care as little for their constituents as republican.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      At least democrats do not want to take away women's and gay rights.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - dustymcp 4y ago
        I doubt all republicns want that either, the problem is that 2 party system makes it all the same which is insane.
        roflyear 4y ago
        Not even the majority want same-sex marriage to be illegal, but only 55% of Republicans support same-sex marriage. That's a low number. 60% of republicans want abortion to be illegal.
therealjumbo 4y ago
Democrats have a super majority in SF, have a majority in the CA state government, and PG&E is essentially a state (as in CA) controlled corporation. The democrats have had majorities at both the municipal level and the state level for a long time. PG&E is not the reason for this particular high cost, but if it was it would be the D's fault. And it's squarely a local level problem. And yet you manage to somehow blame republicans at a federal level... Why don't you demand some responsibility from your local politicians instead of blaming a caricature of the other party? If PG&E was at fault here, D's are literally doing what you're mad at the Rs for supposedly doing... Incredible.
Rebelgecko 4y ago
How much of the $1.7m is going to PG&E? Especially since their profit margin is set by the state it seems weird that they'd be able to gouge the cost of running a few light bulbs by over a million dollars. If PG&E is such a problem why not just use some cheap solar lights?

by feoren 4y ago

1024core 4y ago

> and part of the reason the costs are so high is because PG&E is holding the city hostage. One thing you'll see when you live in SF long enough (20+ years here) is that they'll come up with all sorts of crazy excuses to justify bad behavior. Blaming PG&E for the $1.7M cost is bullshit.

Redoubts 4y ago
It's why I left. You can't even fix this.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  I fled too. I miss so many aspects of the area, but the politics got so toxic when the libertarian hippies (let's all just get along) were replaced by authoritarian progressives (our way is the only truly good opinion, therefor the only opinion allowed, agree or be evil) and you could no longer have any policy discussions about anything.
rayiner 4y ago
The nationalization of politics is a huge problem in blue states and cities—it totally eviscerates accountability. Pointing to republicans in Texas becomes a get out of jail free card to explain why a toilet costs $1.7 million in San Francisco. It’s particularly a problem with the bread and butter of state and local governance: education and policing. Why are cops in Minneapolis—a city that has two greens on the city council and no republicans—murdering black people? Must be Trump’s fault.
- Der_Einzige 4y ago
  Trying to imply that Greens on the city council can stop police from murdering their own constituents is also silly. They don't hire the cops, and meaningful reform of PD department's ends up being the voters job since it's usually ballot measures. Consider that in places like Portland where city government and local people are openly hostile to the cops, the cops are simply quiet quitting. Despite having the budget to hire hundreds of new cops, literally no one applies to work in Portland. Thus, if your desire is to get cops to stop murdering, you really should vote for the Democrats or greens or whatever. The issue is that the cops just through a massive hissy fit to punish you, the voter, for trying to bring in a safer society. I was just in South Korea. The cops there are not empowered. Their police stations are usually the most ghetto looking buildings in their community. I could get a cop to look for my lost bags if I needed it, because that's their role in society there. South Korea is one of the safest societies on earth. Do we have the same structural factors as south Koreans? No, but demilitarized police can still be effective. Luckily hippy blue cities tend to have low violent crime...
  - rayiner 4y ago
    The Minneapolis City Council can vote for bonuses for MPD: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/10/03/members-of-mpls-city-council-support-incentive-payments-for-high-ranking-mpd-employees https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/10/03/members-of-mpls-cit.... Don’t act like they can’t exercise other oversight. The point is that a democrat signed Derek Chauvin’s checks. A democrat has authority over the department’s training and disciplinary policies. Insofar as police unions stand in the way of reform, democrats are responsible for that too. Those democrats obviously want to shift focus to Trump voters in Kansas with “Blue Lives Matter” lawn signs. But those Trump voters are just heckling from the sidelines. They’re not the ones with actual authority over how Minneapolis runs its police department.

ALittleLight 4y ago

You know people are actually Republicans, right? You think what they want is for big companies to loot the government? That sounds like you view Republicans as the villains on Captain Planet. The Republican position is probably more like "With less regulation more companies could flourish and compete in the same space and then market forces would drive costs down" and less about wanting to steal from people. It's crazy to think ~half the country just wants to empower big business to rob them. Not least because big business tends to support Democrats.

agalunar 4y ago
I assumed by "Republicans" they meant Republican politicans and the wealthy entities that support them, rather than party members (the general populace).
- throwntoday 4y ago
  You say that as though SF hasn't been run exclusively by democrats for 30+ years. Democrat politicians care as little for their constituents as republican.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    At least democrats do not want to take away women's and gay rights.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - dustymcp 4y ago
      I doubt all republicns want that either, the problem is that 2 party system makes it all the same which is insane.
      - roflyear 4y ago
        Not even the majority want same-sex marriage to be illegal, but only 55% of Republicans support same-sex marriage. That's a low number. 60% of republicans want abortion to be illegal.

therealjumbo 4y ago

Democrats have a super majority in SF, have a majority in the CA state government, and PG&E is essentially a state (as in CA) controlled corporation. The democrats have had majorities at both the municipal level and the state level for a long time. PG&E is not the reason for this particular high cost, but if it was it would be the D's fault. And it's squarely a local level problem. And yet you manage to somehow blame republicans at a federal level... Why don't you demand some responsibility from your local politicians instead of blaming a caricature of the other party? If PG&E was at fault here, D's are literally doing what you're mad at the Rs for supposedly doing... Incredible.

Rebelgecko 4y ago

How much of the $1.7m is going to PG&E? Especially since their profit margin is set by the state it seems weird that they'd be able to gouge the cost of running a few light bulbs by over a million dollars. If PG&E is such a problem why not just use some cheap solar lights?