11 ms·

The Worst-Run Big City in the U.S. – San Francisco (2009)

148 points by anemitz 14y ago

pbreit 14y ago
From 2009 but a good read and I'm sure as valid as ever.
rayiner 14y ago
San Francisco's budget last year was $6.8 billion. Chicago's was $6.3 billion San Francisco has 800,000 people. Chicago has 2,700,000 people. Oh, and this is a map of the Muni: http://0.tqn.com/d/sanfrancisco/1/0/U/N/-/-/sanfranciscomunimap800.jpg http://0.tqn.com/d/sanfrancisco/1/0/U/N/-/-/sanfranciscomuni... This is a map of the CTA elevated line: http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/maps/ctatrainmap.png http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/maps/ctatrainmap.png This is a map of Caltrain: http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/maps/Caltrain+Zone+Map.jpg http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/maps/Caltrain+Zone+Map.jpg This is a map of Metra: http://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/~yopopov/rrt/us/chicago/rr_chicago_metra.gif http://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/~yopopov/rrt/us/chicago/rr_chicago_m... I found this quote interesting: "For all its scotch-soaked flaws, the city of yore did not suffer from these problems. While archaic and stridently antidemocratic by today's standards, the system of government cobbled together by a citizens' commission in 1931 largely did what our forebears wanted it to do — mind the store and eliminate rampant corruption." I think municipal governments should be run by benevolent dictators. If you leave everything up to the market, you get disasters like Northern Virginia. If you go to the ballot for everything, you end up with disasters like San Francisco. No, benevolent dictators are the way to go. I'm a huge fan of Guilliani and Bloomberg's work in NYC. Love them or hate them, you'd rather live in NYC circa 2013 than NYC circa 1993. I have high hopes for Rahm Emmanuel in Chicago. He apparently came up with his last budget using a process for soliciting input from others in the government that boiled down to "fuck you!"
- mmanfrin 14y ago
  Not quite an apples to apples comparison, though. Chicago is a prime example of purely flat, grid design; whereas SF has to contend with a geography of nightmares for public transit. It is tremendously easier to build transit systems in Chicago.
  - DrJ 14y ago
    wanting SF to be flat but to be able to have the view seems to be a dual view of residents of SF.
    - snogglethorpe 14y ago
      Flat cities with a rigid grid are kinda boring and often downright depressing (standing on a street in some of Chicago's neighborhoods, with ticky-tacky little houses marching uninterrupted into the distance as far as you can see, is a soul-sucking experience)... Limited horizons and change make things interesting. You don't want complete chaos, because things also have to "make sense" to some degree (so complete randomness, like a stereotypical suburban cul-de-sac maze, tends to be bad), but variation is a good thing. [A nice city to look at for interesting approaches to urban structure which are both somewhat regular, but more interesting that a grid, is Edinburgh, which has seen successive waves of fairly successful urban renewal over centuries, resulting in one of the most beautiful and fascinating cities in Europe. In the "new" parts (150-250 years old as opposed to the older and more organic medieval parts), Edinburgh streets have such features as small localized grids, sized as to with care to avoid large-scale monotony, occasional "circuses" acting as focal points, streets in gentle arcs which are practical for transportation, and yet maintain a constantly evolving street view and horizon, terraces along the sides of parks, etc.]
      - bjacokes 14y ago
        In defense of Chicago, its grid is amazing for being able to efficiently travel around the city. The street numbering makes it trivial for any local to find their way to an address like "X00 W Belmont" without a map, and obviously the lack of hills makes for easier biking and public transit. It skews more towards beautiful architecture than beautiful landscapes, and has its share of decrepit neighborhoods (as does SF), but I don't think many people would describe it as a "soul-sucking" place. Different strokes.
        snogglethorpe 14y ago
        I didn't say Chicago was a soul-sucking place, but rather that certain areas in it are (apologies if that wasn't clear), and one of the main reasons they're that way is the incredible sense of monotony due in large part to the regularity of the grid (there are other reasons for monotony in those areas too, of course, e.g. the rather extreme lack of variation in housing stock, the complete lack of anything except houses, and the very flat geography). It's a localized example of the effect urban structure can have, not a denigration of the entire city. So, please, don't take it as a dig against Chicago; I rather like Chicago in many ways, and much of my family lives there. I used the above example only because it's one of the more extreme cases I've encountered. As for the "it's easy to find addresses!" argument in favor of large-scale grids, well, yes, but in my experience this is fairly unimportant for the actual residents of a city. Most people don't spend any significant amount of time travelling to completely random locations, and to the extent they do, every city evolves methods of way-finding that suit it. I think it's much more important for the residents that the city actually be a nice place to live, and part of that is being beautiful / interesting. [For tourists, yeah, extremely simple way-finding can be a significant advantage, but I don't think cities should be designed for tourists over the needs of those who live there...]
- simoncion 14y ago
  I am aware that you were making an like-to-like comparison with your selection of those Muni and CTA graphics. However, for those who don't know, Muni is more than just the light rail lines shown in that picture. Here's a complete system map: http://transit.511.org/static/providers/maps/SF_1222201021110.gif http://transit.511.org/static/providers/maps/SF_122220102111... The equivalent CTA system maps seem to show just as much bus coverage as Muni's bus coverage. (Now, how many of those bus lines keep running after 23:00 is another question, entirely.)
- rndmize 14y ago
  Benevolent dictators strike me as the best form of government at any level so long as they are capable, just, and benevolent - a rare combination it seems. National geographic had an article a few years ago on Singapore that provides some perspective on this - http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/01/singapore/jacobson-text http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/01/singapore/jacobson... . All that aside, I don't see why SF can't move in a more technocratic direction. There was apparently no lack of Google/Facebook/startup engineers and programmers willing to jump in and help out the Obama campaign on a massive scale - do those same people have no interest in local politics?
  - gyardley 14y ago
    In my admittedly anecdotal experience, long-term San Franciscans can't stand startup employees -- the dot-com crowd is blamed for gentrification and high rents. Getting involved in local politics would be like hanging a 'vilify me, I'm an oppressor' sign on your back.
    - gojomo 14y ago
      Indeed. The local SF Bay Guardian – mouthpiece of the local progressive left – ran this hit-piece against Ron Conway, for his growing involvement, recently: http://www.sfbg.com/print/2012/11/27/plutocrat http://www.sfbg.com/print/2012/11/27/plutocrat Its ham-handed propagandizing is kind of funny. Look at the rapacious black eyes on the Conway cartoon monster we've drawn! Despite being born and raised in SF, he's a rootless carpetbagger! He's involved in "a long list of other shadowy [investment] businesses, all incorporated in Delaware for its lax tax and regulatory policies"! He supported measure E's tax breaks for tech companies! (Unmentioned: SFBG itself endorsed that same measure.)
    - spitx 14y ago
      I think it is a step in the right direction that the "tech transients", long deplored by the high priests of SF, are starting to talk about this unwarranted animosity toward them. For too long, tech players - in denial - have swept this under the rug.
    - homosaur 14y ago
- benmaraschino 14y ago
  While I wouldn't deny that there's a lot of bloat in the SF city government, I think it's important to take into account that SF is both a city and a county (a "consolidated city-county".) Hence, the SF budget has to make room for the functions would usually be left to the county, e.g., sheriff+jails, public works, parks, assessor, coroner, etc., and probably a whole bunch of other stuff I'm missing. That could explain some of the apparent budget inflation w/r/t Chicago.
- seivan 14y ago
  Singapore! Best damn country in the world.
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    Careful. Some in San Francisco might get off on the caning.
- etherael 14y ago
  What disasters in Northern Virginia? I'm curious to hear what you hold up an example of the failures of markets, being as you're about the most strident statist I can think of here.
  - Tloewald 14y ago
    I was curious about that too. Having moved from Santa Barbara to Tuscaloosa to Arlington, Northern VA seems OK to me.
    - ImprovedSilence 14y ago
      Yeah, I was curious about which areas he was referring to as well. Arlington and Alexandria are very well set up. My guess is he is talking about the sprawling surburbian hell-hole known as Fairfax and beyond.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        Its not just the suburban aspect though. I was shocked to find that the suburbs in Chicago were a lot less "suburby" than Fairfax. Good commuter transit, walkable downtowns in many places. Grid streets all over. My wife grew up in a town of 2000 people in Iowa. She hates Fairfax County for being so isolated. Her town was small and rural, but it had a walkable downtown with a little street grid. The town planners long ago made it that way in case it ever became a bustling megalopolis.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Northern Virginia is pretty much all a disaster. There is zero urban planning. The streets are built randomly, not in a quaint way, which makes getting around impossible. The commercial areas are built as far as possible from residential ones, which makes running to the store for milk or going out to lunch a huge time sink. The traffic is horrible as a result, even though the area isn't really that densely populated. Compare: Westchester County to Fairfax County, roughly similarly sized suburbs. Westchester has all these cute little downtowns with grid streets (ish) built around Metro North stations. Traffic is kept under control because a large fraction of people commute to the city by rail. Fairfax County sucks in comparison. No transit to speak of, awful traffic, etc. Its the result of urban planning that basically consists of (mark of a subdivision and let the developers do whatever they want). Arlington is tolerable, but only because development sprung up around Metro lines. Ditto Alexandria, which at least has a centrally planned downtown core.
- ry0ohki 14y ago
  When people compare public transit systems, one thing to keep in mind. The ones you usually compare as world class: NYC, Chicago, London were all originally built by private companies (and later made public), while the crappier ones out there SF, Atlanta, Baltimore were built with public money from the start. The DC subway is one of the few decent ones I can think of that was built with public money from the get-go, but it had an incredible budget, and still fell way short of it's original plan.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    I don't think this is because private companies are inherently more competent. I think the reason for the discrepancy is that private companies aren't going to build in places where there isn't a very good chance of the project turning a profit. The public ends up funding projects that might be valuable to society, but that won't turn a profit. Of course, this tendency needs to be monitored to make sure that the projects actually are of value, but I would say that public transit in San Francisco-- if nothing else, it brings down real estate prices-- is clearly in that category. I do not intend to say that public projects are always well-managed, because that's demonstrably false. However, there are a large number of badly-managed private projects as well. In terms of turning a profit, though, the private sector almost always has better material to work with, because it takes the projects that are visibly likely to be profitable.
    - ry0ohki 14y ago
      Yep, that's definitely part of it. Also government funded systems are still built by private companies, but instead of figuring out the best way to save money (as they would do if self-funded) they pad their margins and make the systems incredibly expensive to be built with public dollars.
    - mc32 14y ago
      Also, with publicly funded systems, there are always questions about alignment. Some local rep wants it to go thru her neighborhood, another thru theirs so they end up all sinuous/cicuitous (ala Seattle) whereas private entities don't have this issue.
- dalke 14y ago
  How do you get from liking Guilliani and Bloomberg to thinking that "benevolent dictators are the way to go"? You say you didn't like NYC as much pre-1993, which is when Koch left office after 12 years. But didn't the mayor then have much of the same powers as the mayor now? Doesn't that suggest that the 'benevolent dictatorship' then was the source of the problems? In any case, and quoting Wikipedia: "Most major and large American cities use the strong-mayor form of the mayor–council system, whereas middle-sized and small American cities tend to use the council-manager system." And yes, San Francisco uses a 'strong mayor' system. Which seems to imply that a benevolent dictatorship system can also lead to disaster. (You suggest that the alternative is to leave things up to the market. That is not the case. There are other forms of municipal government.) Therefore, I don't understand how your observations of recent NYC history can be applied to other large cities in the US.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    It's not the form of government, it's the willingness and ability of the mayor to rule with singular vision without getting bogged down with the concensus building. Not every mayor uses his power in that way.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    > "But didn't the mayor then have much of the same powers as the mayor now? Doesn't that suggest that the 'benevolent dictatorship' then was the source of the problems?" His train of thought is consistent. The idea is that benevolent dictatorships can either be a great force for good, or wildly incompetent. As compared to a market or ballot-based governments that are practically guaranteed to be incompetent. Lesser of the evils, if you will. > "(You suggest that the alternative is to leave things up to the market. That is not the case. There are other forms of municipal government.)" OP specifically cited North Virginia, with a market-based government, as a failure. How does that interpret as an endorsement of market-based government?
  - raldi 14y ago
    Dinkins came between Koch and Giuliani.
- rdl 14y ago
  I thought the big gains for NYC were 1970s to end-of-Koch, not 1993 to 2012. I still am confused how NYC became "escape from NY" in the 1970s and early 1980s.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I didn't visit New York until the early 1990's, so I'm not sure what it was like in the 1980's, but my understanding is that violent crime peaked in 1990.
- jstalin 14y ago
  No one seems to be bothered by the call for dictators. I'm shaking my head. Perhaps it's a problem with city governments trying to do everything under the moon. Cities that keep to the basics are usually well run and effective.
  - sp332 14y ago
    An occasional dictator is not bad. They are legitimate as long as they rule "by the consent of the governed". Sometimes you just need a Cincinnatus to get things done. I wouldn't generally recommend a hereditary monarchy though :)
- xxpor 14y ago
  The budget comparison is totally not fair. SF is also a county, so I bet say Muni is in SF's budget. OTOH, Chicago is just a city. How much does Cook County spend in Chicago?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Fair point. Cook County's total budget is $3 billion. Half the population of Cook County is in Chicago, so add another 1.5 billion (total 7.8 billion).
- king_jester 14y ago
  > No, benevolent dictators are the way to go. I'm a huge fan of Guilliani and Bloomberg's work in NYC. Love them or hate them, you'd rather live in NYC circa 2013 than NYC circa 1993. You wouldn't be saying this if you were a person of color living in the Bronx or parts of Brooklyn, because things have gotten worse for those folks due to policies of selectively enforcing vice laws and programs like stop and frisk that have become popular under Guilliani and Bloomberg.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    When New York City's murder rate peaked at 2,262 homicides in 1992 (versus 414 in 2012), who do you think was getting killed? It wasn't white people on the upper east side.
    - king_jester 14y ago
      That is true, but constantly policing populations of people who are predominantly not white isn't a great solution to lower the homicide rate. Of course, why crime rates have generally fallen over the last couple of decades in cities like NYC isn't well understood and no one person or administration can claim that they are responsible. However, we do know that NYPD policies are enforced in a way that promotes racism and class disparity and that Bloomberg has been a supporter of those policies. It is important to realize that a benevolent dictator doesn't really exist and having balance in government is necessary, otherwise the people who do get shafted by any given administration get even less of a voice and support.
    - eor 14y ago
      Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Murder rates have declined comparable amounts in lots of cities that aren't systematically targeting minority residents for harassment.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - rayiner 14y ago
nestlequ1k 14y ago
Worst run transportation system in the country. But on the good side, it's what has enabled Uber and Sidecar to thrive. In SF, even the disfunction is startup friendly.
- codewright 14y ago
  Dysfunction! The prefix comes from dys- which is the Greek for adding a "bad" sense to the word. Dis- is from the Latin for "apart, between". You like this? On-demand editing services: chris@edithero.com Clickable: http://www.edithero.com/ http://www.edithero.com/
  - davelocity 14y ago
    Do a Show HN post instead of spamming in the comment section
dmckeon 14y ago
The url for all 6 pages of the article in one is: http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-city-in-the-u-s/full/ http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-ci...
- raldi 14y ago
  How'd you find it?
spc476 14y ago
I find it hard to believe that any city could be run worse than Detroit.
- marcosvm 14y ago
  Well, there's São Paulo.
  - negrit 14y ago
    Damn Sao Paulo is now in the US. Expansion goes fast.
- cloudwizard 14y ago
  They both do a crappy job but Detroit does it more efficiently.
- saturdaysaint 14y ago
  It doesn't help that it's much poorer than any of the other cities mentioned yet is far bigger than SF and Chicago combined...
  - refurb 14y ago
    But it didn't start out poor.
- geogra4 14y ago
  Detroit is extremely poor. It's not in the same class as cities like SF, Chicago or NYC in the sense that these cities have money and can spread it around to functional services. For what it has, Detroit isn't run THAT poorly. Trash still gets taken out.
- dionidium 14y ago
  Detroit has the land area, housing stock, and general infrastructure for a peak population of 1,849,568. Only 713,777 people live there today. Consider for a minute that that's a very difficult problem.
Cushman 14y ago
> You can't get San Francisco running efficiently, because that would require large numbers of unionized city workers to willingly admit their redundancy and wastefulness. Inefficiency pays their salaries. I predict we will all have this problem before too long. Every time you hear a politician talk about "creating jobs", this is what they are talking about: work as welfare. Gotta right to live, gotta work to live, so you gotta right to work-- never mind if, by working, you're actually damaging the economy. Right now it's only a few obsolete unions and they sound crazy, but the robots will come for all of us eventually. We need to start working yesterday on a society that can conceive of supporting even those who contribute nothing, or I fear that the era of free food will see us all starve to death.
- capisce 14y ago
  I think a lot of people will be more productive under basic income by working on things they're actually passionate about rather than compromising (with a 9-5 office job where they're paid mostly to show up and play the game of appearances) to pay the bills.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    Yeah, my prediction in that scenario is we would see less nominal growth, but more actual innovation in the things people care about.
beatpanda 14y ago
We actually do this on purpose. It's a hazing ritual. And it's how we keep the city weird. You are free to leave!
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- spitx 14y ago
  This won't last for long. The influx of "tech transients" will force changes on the landscape and the machinery. http://www.missionmission.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/fuck-off-yuppies-560x560.jpg http://www.missionmission.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/fuc... http://www.missionmission.org/2012/08/22/fuck-off-yuppies-says-new-graffiti-on-299-valencia-condo-complex/ http://www.missionmission.org/2012/08/22/fuck-off-yuppies-sa... So I'd say, count your days. They're numbered. Your anti-gentrification rage is pointless.
  - beatpanda 14y ago
    Right, until they all move away to the suburbs in < 10 years because 'It's just a lot nicer out there, you know what I mean? Not so many homeless people.' If you think this bubble is going to force any permanent change on San Francisco, youre delusional.
tyang 14y ago
Why is this 2009 article trending now? People want to live in San Francisco in spite of the city government, just like the summers there.
spitx 14y ago
Richly pertinent here is a recent post on the Muni by Bryan Goldberg. "As I’ve written before, and will write more about in the future, California and San Francisco suffer from “The Italian Complex”. Our state is a lot like the nation of Italy. It has a beautiful natural landscape and weather that most people would envy. It is geographically diverse — we enjoy great sunshine and great skiing in relatively close proximity. The people are culturally pleasant, love life, and you can strike up conversation with gentle strangers. We are intellectual and passionate about both arts and science. They gave us the Renaissance, and we gave the world the Digital Age. But for all the natural and cultural brilliance, we are held down by an incompetent and pathetic government. And if the city of San Francisco is at the heart of our political incompetence, then the Muni system is like the left and right ventricle. The problems with Muni are so tremendous and infuriating that I don’t even know where to begin. But here are a few points off the top of my head (with a little help from Google). Muni generates a mind-bogglingly small proportion of its own funding… Muni charges people fares to ride, and you would think that these fares could cover at least a meaningful portion of their immense operating costs. But no. They cover a measly $198 million of the $821 million budget. That’s not even one quarter of the cost. The biggest contributor to Muni’s budget is parking tickets and fines, which should surprise nobody. But this is really just an accounting gimmick to charge taxpayers for Muni, because in most cities parking tickets would be used to fund an array of services. Nobody is saying that Muni should operate at profit. Or that it should come even close to profit. But how about covering half of its costs through revenue from its users? In comparison, the NYC MTA generates over $7 billion from fares and tolls, which covers more than half of its $13.4 billion annual budget. The Chinatown political machine ensures that they get the lion’s share of the benefits The epicenter of Muni is on Stockton, Powell, and the other major arteries that run through Chinatown. By ‘coincidence,’ this is also where the new super-expensive subway will run. People who ride the bus know about the “Dirty 30” and “45” lines that needlessly take Marina and Pac Heights commuters through the congestion of Chinatown en route to their jobs downtown or in Soma. This is not because such routes and investments serve the people of San Francisco. It is because the Chinatown political machine controlled by Rose Pak — who basically put our mayor into office — decrees it to be the case. The political machine keeps rolling. The big infrastructure money goes to Chinatown. Naïve hipsters with high salaries have no idea it’s going on. And the virtuous cycle continues. But I’m sure that the camera shops, trinket stands, and street-side produce markets of Chinatown are the ones providing the city with most of its tax, jobs, and commerce income. Muni is basically useless, anyhow. Walking is better. Taking Muni is basically a waste of effort and money. You will be stunned by how little time you save by riding the bus vs. just walking. Riding a bike is so much more effective than taking the bus that it’s laughable. This is a tiny city, and you can walk from any one point to another in 45 minutes most of the time. But, back to walking. Anyone who is traveling in a North-South direction to commute (i.e. Marina to Downtown) knows that by the time the 30 or 45 bus gets to Chinatown, you can get out and walk faster, plus you don’t feel like a sardine. That walk is a no-brainer. But what about East-West commuters (i.e. Lower Haight to Downtown)? To illustrate, I will use my old commute and Google Maps. I used to live at Fillmore/Hayes, which was two full miles from my office at Kearny/Sutter. By San Francisco standards, this is a fairly typical distance from work. According to Google Maps, the walk will take 34 minutes. If you take the N-Judah, the absolute fastest you can do the ride is in 20 minutes, but that assumes no wait for the bus, which is unlikely. Throw in a reasonable wait for the bus, and now you save maybe five minutes door-to-door. Plus it costs money and you get way less exercise. And you may get sick from having twenty people within two feet of you. So there’s that cost too. In short, Muni is basically useless." I agree in full. Source: http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/29/muni-is-100-years-old-too-bad-it-wont-die-like-a-human-that-age/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/29/muni-is-100-years-old-too-b...
hisabness 14y ago
yes, blame the city's problems on the head of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. is this supposed to be journalism?
ajays 14y ago
MUNI is just one of the problems with SF. There are many more. Firstly: this is a city of transplants. You'd be hard-pressed to find a native SF'an in your daily interactions. (I know just a couple, and I've been here 6 years). As a result, many of them don't vote; or if they do, they don't have the context to see through the bullshit that is put out there. They'll take a politician's word, when a long-term resident will remember that that fucker has been lying for 20 years. As a corollary to this, you can control the City if you can put together a decent-sized voting block. So, for example: the City has 25,000 employees. If you can get the City employees on your side, then their votes alone are enough to swing most elections in your favor. For example: many years ago, the MUNI drivers got the City Charter amended to guarantee that they would be at least the second-highest paid drivers in the nation! Can you even imagine the clout they had to modify a city's constitution? (Thankfully, this was repealed a couple of years ago). Secondly: the City has a lot of money to spend. The people in power stay in power via a huge game of doing (and getting) favors. For example: the City spends over $500 million/year on various "non profits". Your non-profit won't get a dollar unless you employ "consultants" who will help you write the proposal; and these consultants are very well-connected people. And they get a ton of money for a few days work (it's not uncommon to see such consultants be on payroll making $300K at a non-profit, but noone ever sees them at work). Thirdly: the City is exceedingly corrupt. If you know the right people, you can get away with anything. This is why you have leeches like (Slick) Willie Brown and Rose Pak running the show. They know how the system works, and make a living just by greasing the wheels and pulling strings. This is why, during elections, I vote for the people who are the most removed from the corridors of power. Anyone who has had anything to do with the System doesn't get my vote. It may be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but the City needs an enema.
- spitx 14y ago
  From your time observing the machinations here, what do you think accounts for the lack of any form of sustained opposition to these corrupt practices?
  - ajays 14y ago
    In one word? Apathy. Too few people are really invested in SF. If you're a resident of SF, you're busy working, partying, etc. Things aren't too bad and the money is flowing easily, so you don't care. Things could be better if there was more home ownership and people put down roots here.
ahoyhere 14y ago
Philadelphia is so much worse. Bigger, poorer, more corrupt. There is good reason to believe that the political "ruling families" trade off power, and pay each other not to run. Here's an example: City infrastructure like sewer pipes and water mains are owned by a private company, who doesn't appear to ever do maintenance. And when the 100+-year-old pipes inevitably break, causing sinkholes in major roads, the city pays the company to "fix" them. Which is why a major intersection 3 blocks from my house, in one of the busiest & most touristy parts of the city, has been closed for 4 months aaaand counting. Also… Public transit? Ha! School funding? HA! There's an epic budget shortfall for education but city hall is spending something like $40-50 million to build a park in front of city hall: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Bids-due-for-50M-rebuild-on-City-Hall-park.html http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Bids-due-... Comcast and other major corporations pay zero taxes. Still a better place to live than SF though, if you ask me, but I avoid all talk about politics like the plague, and I take taxis and donate a car payment's worth to local DonorsChoose projects every month.
- metl_lord 14y ago
  Sewer pipes and water mains in Philadelphia are owned and maintained by the Philadelphia Water Department, a government organization. SEPTA bus, trolly, and train service is not too bad. There are parts of the city that are not well covered, but with Regional Rail, it's somewhat easy to get around. I'll give you school funding, but Dilworth Plaza was a pretty awful place and the remodel looks nice. Philly's not perfect, but with it's size, age, and location in the rust belt, it's not doing too bad.
L0j1k 14y ago
This person has clearly never been to Honolulu, as our system load and human capacity problems are evident even to tourists on a weekend-long stay. And yes, folks, it's directly the fault of the city and county of Honolulu for not creating infrastructure to accommodate the growth. It's a very backwards political system; one that dreams of a long-gone Honolulu from the 1940s. This island is pushing a million people, and our systems simply cannot withstand the amount of friction being applied to them. The whole system breaks down continually.

148 points by anemitz 14y ago

From 2009 but a good read and I'm sure as valid as ever.

San Francisco's budget last year was $6.8 billion. Chicago's was $6.3 billion San Francisco has 800,000 people. Chicago has 2,700,000 people. Oh, and this is a map of the Muni: http://0.tqn.com/d/sanfrancisco/1/0/U/N/-/-/sanfranciscomunimap800.jpg http://0.tqn.com/d/sanfrancisco/1/0/U/N/-/-/sanfranciscomuni... This is a map of the CTA elevated line: http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/maps/ctatrainmap.png http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/maps/ctatrainmap.png This is a map of Caltrain: http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/maps/Caltrain+Zone+Map.jpg http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/maps/Caltrain+Zone+Map.jpg This is a map of Metra: http://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/~yopopov/rrt/us/chicago/rr_chicago_metra.gif http://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/~yopopov/rrt/us/chicago/rr_chicago_m... I found this quote interesting: "For all its scotch-soaked flaws, the city of yore did not suffer from these problems. While archaic and stridently antidemocratic by today's standards, the system of government cobbled together by a citizens' commission in 1931 largely did what our forebears wanted it to do — mind the store and eliminate rampant corruption." I think municipal governments should be run by benevolent dictators. If you leave everything up to the market, you get disasters like Northern Virginia. If you go to the ballot for everything, you end up with disasters like San Francisco. No, benevolent dictators are the way to go. I'm a huge fan of Guilliani and Bloomberg's work in NYC. Love them or hate them, you'd rather live in NYC circa 2013 than NYC circa 1993. I have high hopes for Rahm Emmanuel in Chicago. He apparently came up with his last budget using a process for soliciting input from others in the government that boiled down to "fuck you!"

mmanfrin 14y ago
Not quite an apples to apples comparison, though. Chicago is a prime example of purely flat, grid design; whereas SF has to contend with a geography of nightmares for public transit. It is tremendously easier to build transit systems in Chicago.
- DrJ 14y ago
  wanting SF to be flat but to be able to have the view seems to be a dual view of residents of SF.
  - snogglethorpe 14y ago
    Flat cities with a rigid grid are kinda boring and often downright depressing (standing on a street in some of Chicago's neighborhoods, with ticky-tacky little houses marching uninterrupted into the distance as far as you can see, is a soul-sucking experience)... Limited horizons and change make things interesting. You don't want complete chaos, because things also have to "make sense" to some degree (so complete randomness, like a stereotypical suburban cul-de-sac maze, tends to be bad), but variation is a good thing. [A nice city to look at for interesting approaches to urban structure which are both somewhat regular, but more interesting that a grid, is Edinburgh, which has seen successive waves of fairly successful urban renewal over centuries, resulting in one of the most beautiful and fascinating cities in Europe. In the "new" parts (150-250 years old as opposed to the older and more organic medieval parts), Edinburgh streets have such features as small localized grids, sized as to with care to avoid large-scale monotony, occasional "circuses" acting as focal points, streets in gentle arcs which are practical for transportation, and yet maintain a constantly evolving street view and horizon, terraces along the sides of parks, etc.]
    - bjacokes 14y ago
      In defense of Chicago, its grid is amazing for being able to efficiently travel around the city. The street numbering makes it trivial for any local to find their way to an address like "X00 W Belmont" without a map, and obviously the lack of hills makes for easier biking and public transit. It skews more towards beautiful architecture than beautiful landscapes, and has its share of decrepit neighborhoods (as does SF), but I don't think many people would describe it as a "soul-sucking" place. Different strokes.
      - snogglethorpe 14y ago
        I didn't say Chicago was a soul-sucking place, but rather that certain areas in it are (apologies if that wasn't clear), and one of the main reasons they're that way is the incredible sense of monotony due in large part to the regularity of the grid (there are other reasons for monotony in those areas too, of course, e.g. the rather extreme lack of variation in housing stock, the complete lack of anything except houses, and the very flat geography). It's a localized example of the effect urban structure can have, not a denigration of the entire city. So, please, don't take it as a dig against Chicago; I rather like Chicago in many ways, and much of my family lives there. I used the above example only because it's one of the more extreme cases I've encountered. As for the "it's easy to find addresses!" argument in favor of large-scale grids, well, yes, but in my experience this is fairly unimportant for the actual residents of a city. Most people don't spend any significant amount of time travelling to completely random locations, and to the extent they do, every city evolves methods of way-finding that suit it. I think it's much more important for the residents that the city actually be a nice place to live, and part of that is being beautiful / interesting. [For tourists, yeah, extremely simple way-finding can be a significant advantage, but I don't think cities should be designed for tourists over the needs of those who live there...]
simoncion 14y ago
I am aware that you were making an like-to-like comparison with your selection of those Muni and CTA graphics. However, for those who don't know, Muni is more than just the light rail lines shown in that picture. Here's a complete system map: http://transit.511.org/static/providers/maps/SF_1222201021110.gif http://transit.511.org/static/providers/maps/SF_122220102111... The equivalent CTA system maps seem to show just as much bus coverage as Muni's bus coverage. (Now, how many of those bus lines keep running after 23:00 is another question, entirely.)
rndmize 14y ago
Benevolent dictators strike me as the best form of government at any level so long as they are capable, just, and benevolent - a rare combination it seems. National geographic had an article a few years ago on Singapore that provides some perspective on this - http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/01/singapore/jacobson-text http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/01/singapore/jacobson... . All that aside, I don't see why SF can't move in a more technocratic direction. There was apparently no lack of Google/Facebook/startup engineers and programmers willing to jump in and help out the Obama campaign on a massive scale - do those same people have no interest in local politics?
- gyardley 14y ago
  In my admittedly anecdotal experience, long-term San Franciscans can't stand startup employees -- the dot-com crowd is blamed for gentrification and high rents. Getting involved in local politics would be like hanging a 'vilify me, I'm an oppressor' sign on your back.
  - gojomo 14y ago
    Indeed. The local SF Bay Guardian – mouthpiece of the local progressive left – ran this hit-piece against Ron Conway, for his growing involvement, recently: http://www.sfbg.com/print/2012/11/27/plutocrat http://www.sfbg.com/print/2012/11/27/plutocrat Its ham-handed propagandizing is kind of funny. Look at the rapacious black eyes on the Conway cartoon monster we've drawn! Despite being born and raised in SF, he's a rootless carpetbagger! He's involved in "a long list of other shadowy [investment] businesses, all incorporated in Delaware for its lax tax and regulatory policies"! He supported measure E's tax breaks for tech companies! (Unmentioned: SFBG itself endorsed that same measure.)
  - spitx 14y ago
    I think it is a step in the right direction that the "tech transients", long deplored by the high priests of SF, are starting to talk about this unwarranted animosity toward them. For too long, tech players - in denial - have swept this under the rug.
  - homosaur 14y ago
benmaraschino 14y ago
While I wouldn't deny that there's a lot of bloat in the SF city government, I think it's important to take into account that SF is both a city and a county (a "consolidated city-county".) Hence, the SF budget has to make room for the functions would usually be left to the county, e.g., sheriff+jails, public works, parks, assessor, coroner, etc., and probably a whole bunch of other stuff I'm missing. That could explain some of the apparent budget inflation w/r/t Chicago.
seivan 14y ago
Singapore! Best damn country in the world.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  Careful. Some in San Francisco might get off on the caning.
etherael 14y ago
What disasters in Northern Virginia? I'm curious to hear what you hold up an example of the failures of markets, being as you're about the most strident statist I can think of here.
- Tloewald 14y ago
  I was curious about that too. Having moved from Santa Barbara to Tuscaloosa to Arlington, Northern VA seems OK to me.
  - ImprovedSilence 14y ago
    Yeah, I was curious about which areas he was referring to as well. Arlington and Alexandria are very well set up. My guess is he is talking about the sprawling surburbian hell-hole known as Fairfax and beyond.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Its not just the suburban aspect though. I was shocked to find that the suburbs in Chicago were a lot less "suburby" than Fairfax. Good commuter transit, walkable downtowns in many places. Grid streets all over. My wife grew up in a town of 2000 people in Iowa. She hates Fairfax County for being so isolated. Her town was small and rural, but it had a walkable downtown with a little street grid. The town planners long ago made it that way in case it ever became a bustling megalopolis.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Northern Virginia is pretty much all a disaster. There is zero urban planning. The streets are built randomly, not in a quaint way, which makes getting around impossible. The commercial areas are built as far as possible from residential ones, which makes running to the store for milk or going out to lunch a huge time sink. The traffic is horrible as a result, even though the area isn't really that densely populated. Compare: Westchester County to Fairfax County, roughly similarly sized suburbs. Westchester has all these cute little downtowns with grid streets (ish) built around Metro North stations. Traffic is kept under control because a large fraction of people commute to the city by rail. Fairfax County sucks in comparison. No transit to speak of, awful traffic, etc. Its the result of urban planning that basically consists of (mark of a subdivision and let the developers do whatever they want). Arlington is tolerable, but only because development sprung up around Metro lines. Ditto Alexandria, which at least has a centrally planned downtown core.
ry0ohki 14y ago
When people compare public transit systems, one thing to keep in mind. The ones you usually compare as world class: NYC, Chicago, London were all originally built by private companies (and later made public), while the crappier ones out there SF, Atlanta, Baltimore were built with public money from the start. The DC subway is one of the few decent ones I can think of that was built with public money from the get-go, but it had an incredible budget, and still fell way short of it's original plan.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  I don't think this is because private companies are inherently more competent. I think the reason for the discrepancy is that private companies aren't going to build in places where there isn't a very good chance of the project turning a profit. The public ends up funding projects that might be valuable to society, but that won't turn a profit. Of course, this tendency needs to be monitored to make sure that the projects actually are of value, but I would say that public transit in San Francisco-- if nothing else, it brings down real estate prices-- is clearly in that category. I do not intend to say that public projects are always well-managed, because that's demonstrably false. However, there are a large number of badly-managed private projects as well. In terms of turning a profit, though, the private sector almost always has better material to work with, because it takes the projects that are visibly likely to be profitable.
  - ry0ohki 14y ago
    Yep, that's definitely part of it. Also government funded systems are still built by private companies, but instead of figuring out the best way to save money (as they would do if self-funded) they pad their margins and make the systems incredibly expensive to be built with public dollars.
  - mc32 14y ago
    Also, with publicly funded systems, there are always questions about alignment. Some local rep wants it to go thru her neighborhood, another thru theirs so they end up all sinuous/cicuitous (ala Seattle) whereas private entities don't have this issue.
dalke 14y ago
How do you get from liking Guilliani and Bloomberg to thinking that "benevolent dictators are the way to go"? You say you didn't like NYC as much pre-1993, which is when Koch left office after 12 years. But didn't the mayor then have much of the same powers as the mayor now? Doesn't that suggest that the 'benevolent dictatorship' then was the source of the problems? In any case, and quoting Wikipedia: "Most major and large American cities use the strong-mayor form of the mayor–council system, whereas middle-sized and small American cities tend to use the council-manager system." And yes, San Francisco uses a 'strong mayor' system. Which seems to imply that a benevolent dictatorship system can also lead to disaster. (You suggest that the alternative is to leave things up to the market. That is not the case. There are other forms of municipal government.) Therefore, I don't understand how your observations of recent NYC history can be applied to other large cities in the US.
- rayiner 14y ago
  It's not the form of government, it's the willingness and ability of the mayor to rule with singular vision without getting bogged down with the concensus building. Not every mayor uses his power in that way.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  > "But didn't the mayor then have much of the same powers as the mayor now? Doesn't that suggest that the 'benevolent dictatorship' then was the source of the problems?" His train of thought is consistent. The idea is that benevolent dictatorships can either be a great force for good, or wildly incompetent. As compared to a market or ballot-based governments that are practically guaranteed to be incompetent. Lesser of the evils, if you will. > "(You suggest that the alternative is to leave things up to the market. That is not the case. There are other forms of municipal government.)" OP specifically cited North Virginia, with a market-based government, as a failure. How does that interpret as an endorsement of market-based government?
- raldi 14y ago
  Dinkins came between Koch and Giuliani.
rdl 14y ago
I thought the big gains for NYC were 1970s to end-of-Koch, not 1993 to 2012. I still am confused how NYC became "escape from NY" in the 1970s and early 1980s.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I didn't visit New York until the early 1990's, so I'm not sure what it was like in the 1980's, but my understanding is that violent crime peaked in 1990.
jstalin 14y ago
No one seems to be bothered by the call for dictators. I'm shaking my head. Perhaps it's a problem with city governments trying to do everything under the moon. Cities that keep to the basics are usually well run and effective.
- sp332 14y ago
  An occasional dictator is not bad. They are legitimate as long as they rule "by the consent of the governed". Sometimes you just need a Cincinnatus to get things done. I wouldn't generally recommend a hereditary monarchy though :)
xxpor 14y ago
The budget comparison is totally not fair. SF is also a county, so I bet say Muni is in SF's budget. OTOH, Chicago is just a city. How much does Cook County spend in Chicago?
- rayiner 14y ago
  Fair point. Cook County's total budget is $3 billion. Half the population of Cook County is in Chicago, so add another 1.5 billion (total 7.8 billion).
king_jester 14y ago
> No, benevolent dictators are the way to go. I'm a huge fan of Guilliani and Bloomberg's work in NYC. Love them or hate them, you'd rather live in NYC circa 2013 than NYC circa 1993. You wouldn't be saying this if you were a person of color living in the Bronx or parts of Brooklyn, because things have gotten worse for those folks due to policies of selectively enforcing vice laws and programs like stop and frisk that have become popular under Guilliani and Bloomberg.
- rayiner 14y ago
  When New York City's murder rate peaked at 2,262 homicides in 1992 (versus 414 in 2012), who do you think was getting killed? It wasn't white people on the upper east side.
  - king_jester 14y ago
    That is true, but constantly policing populations of people who are predominantly not white isn't a great solution to lower the homicide rate. Of course, why crime rates have generally fallen over the last couple of decades in cities like NYC isn't well understood and no one person or administration can claim that they are responsible. However, we do know that NYPD policies are enforced in a way that promotes racism and class disparity and that Bloomberg has been a supporter of those policies. It is important to realize that a benevolent dictator doesn't really exist and having balance in government is necessary, otherwise the people who do get shafted by any given administration get even less of a voice and support.
  - eor 14y ago
    Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Murder rates have declined comparable amounts in lots of cities that aren't systematically targeting minority residents for harassment.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - rayiner 14y ago

nestlequ1k 14y ago

Worst run transportation system in the country. But on the good side, it's what has enabled Uber and Sidecar to thrive. In SF, even the disfunction is startup friendly.

codewright 14y ago
Dysfunction! The prefix comes from dys- which is the Greek for adding a "bad" sense to the word. Dis- is from the Latin for "apart, between". You like this? On-demand editing services: chris@edithero.com Clickable: http://www.edithero.com/ http://www.edithero.com/
- davelocity 14y ago
  Do a Show HN post instead of spamming in the comment section

dmckeon 14y ago

The url for all 6 pages of the article in one is: http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-city-in-the-u-s/full/ http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-ci...

raldi 14y ago
How'd you find it?

spc476 14y ago

I find it hard to believe that any city could be run worse than Detroit.

marcosvm 14y ago
Well, there's São Paulo.
- negrit 14y ago
  Damn Sao Paulo is now in the US. Expansion goes fast.
cloudwizard 14y ago
They both do a crappy job but Detroit does it more efficiently.
saturdaysaint 14y ago
It doesn't help that it's much poorer than any of the other cities mentioned yet is far bigger than SF and Chicago combined...
- refurb 14y ago
  But it didn't start out poor.
geogra4 14y ago
Detroit is extremely poor. It's not in the same class as cities like SF, Chicago or NYC in the sense that these cities have money and can spread it around to functional services. For what it has, Detroit isn't run THAT poorly. Trash still gets taken out.
dionidium 14y ago
Detroit has the land area, housing stock, and general infrastructure for a peak population of 1,849,568. Only 713,777 people live there today. Consider for a minute that that's a very difficult problem.

Cushman 14y ago

> You can't get San Francisco running efficiently, because that would require large numbers of unionized city workers to willingly admit their redundancy and wastefulness. Inefficiency pays their salaries. I predict we will all have this problem before too long. Every time you hear a politician talk about "creating jobs", this is what they are talking about: work as welfare. Gotta right to live, gotta work to live, so you gotta right to work-- never mind if, by working, you're actually damaging the economy. Right now it's only a few obsolete unions and they sound crazy, but the robots will come for all of us eventually. We need to start working yesterday on a society that can conceive of supporting even those who contribute nothing, or I fear that the era of free food will see us all starve to death.

capisce 14y ago
I think a lot of people will be more productive under basic income by working on things they're actually passionate about rather than compromising (with a 9-5 office job where they're paid mostly to show up and play the game of appearances) to pay the bills.
- Cushman 14y ago
  Yeah, my prediction in that scenario is we would see less nominal growth, but more actual innovation in the things people care about.

beatpanda 14y ago

We actually do this on purpose. It's a hazing ritual. And it's how we keep the city weird. You are free to leave!

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
spitx 14y ago
This won't last for long. The influx of "tech transients" will force changes on the landscape and the machinery. http://www.missionmission.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/fuck-off-yuppies-560x560.jpg http://www.missionmission.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/fuc... http://www.missionmission.org/2012/08/22/fuck-off-yuppies-says-new-graffiti-on-299-valencia-condo-complex/ http://www.missionmission.org/2012/08/22/fuck-off-yuppies-sa... So I'd say, count your days. They're numbered. Your anti-gentrification rage is pointless.
- beatpanda 14y ago
  Right, until they all move away to the suburbs in < 10 years because 'It's just a lot nicer out there, you know what I mean? Not so many homeless people.' If you think this bubble is going to force any permanent change on San Francisco, youre delusional.

tyang 14y ago

Why is this 2009 article trending now? People want to live in San Francisco in spite of the city government, just like the summers there.

spitx 14y ago

Richly pertinent here is a recent post on the Muni by Bryan Goldberg. "As I’ve written before, and will write more about in the future, California and San Francisco suffer from “The Italian Complex”. Our state is a lot like the nation of Italy. It has a beautiful natural landscape and weather that most people would envy. It is geographically diverse — we enjoy great sunshine and great skiing in relatively close proximity. The people are culturally pleasant, love life, and you can strike up conversation with gentle strangers. We are intellectual and passionate about both arts and science. They gave us the Renaissance, and we gave the world the Digital Age. But for all the natural and cultural brilliance, we are held down by an incompetent and pathetic government. And if the city of San Francisco is at the heart of our political incompetence, then the Muni system is like the left and right ventricle. The problems with Muni are so tremendous and infuriating that I don’t even know where to begin. But here are a few points off the top of my head (with a little help from Google). Muni generates a mind-bogglingly small proportion of its own funding… Muni charges people fares to ride, and you would think that these fares could cover at least a meaningful portion of their immense operating costs. But no. They cover a measly $198 million of the $821 million budget. That’s not even one quarter of the cost. The biggest contributor to Muni’s budget is parking tickets and fines, which should surprise nobody. But this is really just an accounting gimmick to charge taxpayers for Muni, because in most cities parking tickets would be used to fund an array of services. Nobody is saying that Muni should operate at profit. Or that it should come even close to profit. But how about covering half of its costs through revenue from its users? In comparison, the NYC MTA generates over $7 billion from fares and tolls, which covers more than half of its $13.4 billion annual budget. The Chinatown political machine ensures that they get the lion’s share of the benefits The epicenter of Muni is on Stockton, Powell, and the other major arteries that run through Chinatown. By ‘coincidence,’ this is also where the new super-expensive subway will run. People who ride the bus know about the “Dirty 30” and “45” lines that needlessly take Marina and Pac Heights commuters through the congestion of Chinatown en route to their jobs downtown or in Soma. This is not because such routes and investments serve the people of San Francisco. It is because the Chinatown political machine controlled by Rose Pak — who basically put our mayor into office — decrees it to be the case. The political machine keeps rolling. The big infrastructure money goes to Chinatown. Naïve hipsters with high salaries have no idea it’s going on. And the virtuous cycle continues. But I’m sure that the camera shops, trinket stands, and street-side produce markets of Chinatown are the ones providing the city with most of its tax, jobs, and commerce income. Muni is basically useless, anyhow. Walking is better. Taking Muni is basically a waste of effort and money. You will be stunned by how little time you save by riding the bus vs. just walking. Riding a bike is so much more effective than taking the bus that it’s laughable. This is a tiny city, and you can walk from any one point to another in 45 minutes most of the time. But, back to walking. Anyone who is traveling in a North-South direction to commute (i.e. Marina to Downtown) knows that by the time the 30 or 45 bus gets to Chinatown, you can get out and walk faster, plus you don’t feel like a sardine. That walk is a no-brainer. But what about East-West commuters (i.e. Lower Haight to Downtown)? To illustrate, I will use my old commute and Google Maps. I used to live at Fillmore/Hayes, which was two full miles from my office at Kearny/Sutter. By San Francisco standards, this is a fairly typical distance from work. According to Google Maps, the walk will take 34 minutes. If you take the N-Judah, the absolute fastest you can do the ride is in 20 minutes, but that assumes no wait for the bus, which is unlikely. Throw in a reasonable wait for the bus, and now you save maybe five minutes door-to-door. Plus it costs money and you get way less exercise. And you may get sick from having twenty people within two feet of you. So there’s that cost too. In short, Muni is basically useless." I agree in full. Source: http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/29/muni-is-100-years-old-too-bad-it-wont-die-like-a-human-that-age/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/29/muni-is-100-years-old-too-b...

hisabness 14y ago

yes, blame the city's problems on the head of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. is this supposed to be journalism?

ajays 14y ago

MUNI is just one of the problems with SF. There are many more. Firstly: this is a city of transplants. You'd be hard-pressed to find a native SF'an in your daily interactions. (I know just a couple, and I've been here 6 years). As a result, many of them don't vote; or if they do, they don't have the context to see through the bullshit that is put out there. They'll take a politician's word, when a long-term resident will remember that that fucker has been lying for 20 years. As a corollary to this, you can control the City if you can put together a decent-sized voting block. So, for example: the City has 25,000 employees. If you can get the City employees on your side, then their votes alone are enough to swing most elections in your favor. For example: many years ago, the MUNI drivers got the City Charter amended to guarantee that they would be at least the second-highest paid drivers in the nation! Can you even imagine the clout they had to modify a city's constitution? (Thankfully, this was repealed a couple of years ago). Secondly: the City has a lot of money to spend. The people in power stay in power via a huge game of doing (and getting) favors. For example: the City spends over $500 million/year on various "non profits". Your non-profit won't get a dollar unless you employ "consultants" who will help you write the proposal; and these consultants are very well-connected people. And they get a ton of money for a few days work (it's not uncommon to see such consultants be on payroll making $300K at a non-profit, but noone ever sees them at work). Thirdly: the City is exceedingly corrupt. If you know the right people, you can get away with anything. This is why you have leeches like (Slick) Willie Brown and Rose Pak running the show. They know how the system works, and make a living just by greasing the wheels and pulling strings. This is why, during elections, I vote for the people who are the most removed from the corridors of power. Anyone who has had anything to do with the System doesn't get my vote. It may be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but the City needs an enema.

spitx 14y ago
From your time observing the machinations here, what do you think accounts for the lack of any form of sustained opposition to these corrupt practices?
- ajays 14y ago
  In one word? Apathy. Too few people are really invested in SF. If you're a resident of SF, you're busy working, partying, etc. Things aren't too bad and the money is flowing easily, so you don't care. Things could be better if there was more home ownership and people put down roots here.

ahoyhere 14y ago

Philadelphia is so much worse. Bigger, poorer, more corrupt. There is good reason to believe that the political "ruling families" trade off power, and pay each other not to run. Here's an example: City infrastructure like sewer pipes and water mains are owned by a private company, who doesn't appear to ever do maintenance. And when the 100+-year-old pipes inevitably break, causing sinkholes in major roads, the city pays the company to "fix" them. Which is why a major intersection 3 blocks from my house, in one of the busiest & most touristy parts of the city, has been closed for 4 months aaaand counting. Also… Public transit? Ha! School funding? HA! There's an epic budget shortfall for education but city hall is spending something like $40-50 million to build a park in front of city hall: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Bids-due-for-50M-rebuild-on-City-Hall-park.html http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Bids-due-... Comcast and other major corporations pay zero taxes. Still a better place to live than SF though, if you ask me, but I avoid all talk about politics like the plague, and I take taxis and donate a car payment's worth to local DonorsChoose projects every month.

metl_lord 14y ago
Sewer pipes and water mains in Philadelphia are owned and maintained by the Philadelphia Water Department, a government organization. SEPTA bus, trolly, and train service is not too bad. There are parts of the city that are not well covered, but with Regional Rail, it's somewhat easy to get around. I'll give you school funding, but Dilworth Plaza was a pretty awful place and the remodel looks nice. Philly's not perfect, but with it's size, age, and location in the rust belt, it's not doing too bad.

L0j1k 14y ago

This person has clearly never been to Honolulu, as our system load and human capacity problems are evident even to tourists on a weekend-long stay. And yes, folks, it's directly the fault of the city and county of Honolulu for not creating infrastructure to accommodate the growth. It's a very backwards political system; one that dreams of a long-gone Honolulu from the 1940s. This island is pushing a million people, and our systems simply cannot withstand the amount of friction being applied to them. The whole system breaks down continually.