3 ms·

What is a list of the policies of the Board of Supervisors, and now Dean Preston in particular, which people find have been destructive to SF? There's endless

What is a list of the policies of the Board of Supervisors, and now Dean Preston in particular, which people find have been destructive to SF? There's endless articles about how they've allowed criminality, they're too progressive, and so on, but I've had a tough time finding the actual specific policies that they've voted for.

next_xibalba 3y ago
How about his recent suggestion, in response to the car burglary epidemic, that people should stop keeping any possessions in their cars?
- pr0zac 3y ago
  I resided in SF for longer than any other city and in the bay area for more than two decades, over half my life. However I moved away a bit more than five years ago. While I like to think my experience is still relevant and I try to keep up with SF news I'm aware that my understanding of the city and its political context has drifted from reality (or reality has drifted from me). That said, it confuses me how everyone talks as if issues like open drug use, the exploding homeless population, and property crime are recent issues in the city when I know the same problems existed during my time there. I saw people smoking and injecting drugs on the street and homeless people struggling with mental illness sleeping or relieving themselves anywhere. I had friends get mugged, my girlfriend's car window got smashed twice, and my roommate's Subaru got hot-wired, stolen, stripped and then dumped in Oakland. I agree those problems and how common they are need to be addressed and that the government is doing a terrible job doing so, but it feels like they are framed as new and on the rise when I don't think they are. A year or so ago I looked at crime stats for the city currently compared to when I was there and they didn't seem hugely different in either direction. On the specific topic you mentioned, I agree the comment was tone deaf and unhelpful, but its not particularly unusual or unexpected or only "recent", its one of the most common pieces of advice I'd hear about car break-ins. When I first moved to SF people were saying never leave valuables in your car, there were news reports and PSAs giving the advice. People already victim-blamed anyone that accidentally forgot a backpack or purse in the back seat. I don't understand why the same brain-dead, empty platitude is getting discussed now as some new low or blunder. Yes its worthless advice from someone who should be trying to improve things, but the city has been saying the same things and being bad at their jobs in the same way for decades. Am I missing discussion that includes the city's history with these issues and an inability to solve them? Are there better news or communities I should be following? Does SF's largely transient population mean most current residents moved in recently while previous ones familiar with that history have left? Am I being a hackneyed "back in my day" hipster focusing on how a discussion "feels" instead of the topic being discussed? Am I just wrong and SF is actually way worse off now than it was when I was there?
jeffbee 3y ago
You're going to get a big list from a variety of perspectives, I think. To me the root cause of SF's current problems is the 1978 downzoning. Everything else stems from the consequent housing crisis. Dean Preston is only a latter-day bit player, perpetuating the crisis instead of reversing it. The environmental impact report for the downzoning, written by and from the point of view of the proponents, states that the purpose of the action was to "stem the out-migration of current residents without attracting large numbers of new residents." So if you ever feel like SF's policies exist to enrich heirs while irritating newcomers, you're right.

next_xibalba 3y ago

How about his recent suggestion, in response to the car burglary epidemic, that people should stop keeping any possessions in their cars?

pr0zac 3y ago
I resided in SF for longer than any other city and in the bay area for more than two decades, over half my life. However I moved away a bit more than five years ago. While I like to think my experience is still relevant and I try to keep up with SF news I'm aware that my understanding of the city and its political context has drifted from reality (or reality has drifted from me). That said, it confuses me how everyone talks as if issues like open drug use, the exploding homeless population, and property crime are recent issues in the city when I know the same problems existed during my time there. I saw people smoking and injecting drugs on the street and homeless people struggling with mental illness sleeping or relieving themselves anywhere. I had friends get mugged, my girlfriend's car window got smashed twice, and my roommate's Subaru got hot-wired, stolen, stripped and then dumped in Oakland. I agree those problems and how common they are need to be addressed and that the government is doing a terrible job doing so, but it feels like they are framed as new and on the rise when I don't think they are. A year or so ago I looked at crime stats for the city currently compared to when I was there and they didn't seem hugely different in either direction. On the specific topic you mentioned, I agree the comment was tone deaf and unhelpful, but its not particularly unusual or unexpected or only "recent", its one of the most common pieces of advice I'd hear about car break-ins. When I first moved to SF people were saying never leave valuables in your car, there were news reports and PSAs giving the advice. People already victim-blamed anyone that accidentally forgot a backpack or purse in the back seat. I don't understand why the same brain-dead, empty platitude is getting discussed now as some new low or blunder. Yes its worthless advice from someone who should be trying to improve things, but the city has been saying the same things and being bad at their jobs in the same way for decades. Am I missing discussion that includes the city's history with these issues and an inability to solve them? Are there better news or communities I should be following? Does SF's largely transient population mean most current residents moved in recently while previous ones familiar with that history have left? Am I being a hackneyed "back in my day" hipster focusing on how a discussion "feels" instead of the topic being discussed? Am I just wrong and SF is actually way worse off now than it was when I was there?

jeffbee 3y ago

You're going to get a big list from a variety of perspectives, I think. To me the root cause of SF's current problems is the 1978 downzoning. Everything else stems from the consequent housing crisis. Dean Preston is only a latter-day bit player, perpetuating the crisis instead of reversing it. The environmental impact report for the downzoning, written by and from the point of view of the proponents, states that the purpose of the action was to "stem the out-migration of current residents without attracting large numbers of new residents." So if you ever feel like SF's policies exist to enrich heirs while irritating newcomers, you're right.