5 ms·
While I think SF should be able to function on a much leaner budget (There's so much waste and corruption in the city), this isn't a great take. Investing in o
by ProfessorLayton 3y ago
While I think SF should be able to function on a much leaner budget (There's so much waste and corruption in the city), this isn't a great take.
Investing in one of the most important cities in one of the most important states in the USA is in everyone's interest.
SF contributes 6.5% of California's GDP, a state that alone would rank as the world's 5th largest economy. SF's economy is higher than several other states put together [1]. Additionally, Californians pay significantly more federal taxes than they receive in return, so they are the ones subsidizing other states' budgets.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
- onetimeusename 3y agoIt's not investing. The city has gotten worse in spite of a larger budget over time. The waste and corruption need a way to be corrected and budgets need to be managed; there's no incentive if bailouts have a well established path. If you want more of something, subsidize it.
- ProfessorLayton 3y agoNot letting one of the US's crown jewel cities with a 236B economy spiral into decay over a ~.7B shortfall is financially prudent. Not doing so would certainly cost the taxpayers more than that, so it definitely meets the literal definition of investment! Again, I agree that there's plenty of corruption to stamp out, but letting one of the most important cities in the USA decay over a relatively meager amount of money is not the way to go.
- onetimeusename 3y agoThis is a reasonable point.