3 ms·

Don't forget, every time a bribe changes hands, there are _two_ criminals: the one who paid the bribe, and the one who received it. SF city bureaucracy is notor

Don't forget, every time a bribe changes hands, there are _two_ criminals: the one who paid the bribe, and the one who received it. SF city bureaucracy is notorious for using flimsy pretexts to destroy projects, which is exactly what you would expect to see if they've designed a system to extract bribes, and are making examples of people who fail to pay.

lazide 3y ago
Kinda. That the projects get destroyed under flimsy pretexts is also because the general voter direction is anti-development (really, don’t change anything). Plenty of places extract bribes while being pro-development too (they just generally more directly ask for bribes - or ‘planning fees’ - and are more consistent with it, so that it actually functions). Very few places with the type of control a city planning department has don’t end up corrupt.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > because the general voter direction is anti-development The problem seems more that most San Franciscans are civically uninvolved. There are elections where less than a third turn out [1]. From what I hear, most voters never bother reaching out to their electeds. So you have a naïve, ignorable centre. And vocal minorities who engage. Most San Franciscans are reasonable; the problem is they’re electorally irrelevant. [1] https://sfelections.sfgov.org/historical-voter-turnout https://sfelections.sfgov.org/historical-voter-turnout
  - lazide 3y ago
    They’re not reasonable voters if they never vote. Especially not when it’s a secret ballot system!
  - InSteady 3y ago
    FYI that's actually pretty decent turnout for local elections. The national average for large cities in recent years is 15%, and cities like Las Vegas and Fort Worth had turnouts below 10 percent. [1] Note these are mayoral elections. When the mayor is not up for election and it's mostly councilors and local initiatives, turnout may be even lower. It's ironic, given that local issues actually tend to impact us more directly and immediately, while at the same time local elections are where your vote has proportionally the most impact (aside from a few unique situations thanks to screwy districting and the electoral college). [1] - http://whovotesformayor.org/ http://whovotesformayor.org/
    - lazide 3y ago
      When you look at who gets the press attention/OMGWTF treatment, it’s a clear association imo. Most people in a large city probably get more info on their mayor and local elected officials from friends than from the press, and few of the big omgwtfbbq type headlines have much to do with them unless it is some kind of huge scandal. Which is unfortunate for the reasons you mention. And most people just tune out. About the only people who will consistently turn out for those are local activists and retirees/local property owners, of which a big city has a proportionally small number.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

lazide 3y ago

Kinda. That the projects get destroyed under flimsy pretexts is also because the general voter direction is anti-development (really, don’t change anything). Plenty of places extract bribes while being pro-development too (they just generally more directly ask for bribes - or ‘planning fees’ - and are more consistent with it, so that it actually functions). Very few places with the type of control a city planning department has don’t end up corrupt.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> because the general voter direction is anti-development The problem seems more that most San Franciscans are civically uninvolved. There are elections where less than a third turn out [1]. From what I hear, most voters never bother reaching out to their electeds. So you have a naïve, ignorable centre. And vocal minorities who engage. Most San Franciscans are reasonable; the problem is they’re electorally irrelevant. [1] https://sfelections.sfgov.org/historical-voter-turnout https://sfelections.sfgov.org/historical-voter-turnout
- lazide 3y ago
  They’re not reasonable voters if they never vote. Especially not when it’s a secret ballot system!
- InSteady 3y ago
  FYI that's actually pretty decent turnout for local elections. The national average for large cities in recent years is 15%, and cities like Las Vegas and Fort Worth had turnouts below 10 percent. [1] Note these are mayoral elections. When the mayor is not up for election and it's mostly councilors and local initiatives, turnout may be even lower. It's ironic, given that local issues actually tend to impact us more directly and immediately, while at the same time local elections are where your vote has proportionally the most impact (aside from a few unique situations thanks to screwy districting and the electoral college). [1] - http://whovotesformayor.org/ http://whovotesformayor.org/
  - lazide 3y ago
    When you look at who gets the press attention/OMGWTF treatment, it’s a clear association imo. Most people in a large city probably get more info on their mayor and local elected officials from friends than from the press, and few of the big omgwtfbbq type headlines have much to do with them unless it is some kind of huge scandal. Which is unfortunate for the reasons you mention. And most people just tune out. About the only people who will consistently turn out for those are local activists and retirees/local property owners, of which a big city has a proportionally small number.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]