The Atlantic on SF: is DC too a failed city or about to be one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If you agree with the premise of the article, you have to point blame at Silicon Valley. The apps, the money changed made it very difficult for the middle class to live in SF. And no, not everyone who works at tech is a Democrat/Progressive.


I’m sorry, but this is nonsense. SF had always been ludicrously expensive. The city government has more money than it has ever had, thanks in part to tech. But what has failed are progressive policies. Even with all the money to implement programs, excessive progressivism is a failure.

Yep. Excessive ANYTHING is a failure. Those deep red states in the middle of the country who cut their taxes and defunded education to the point that they could only operate 4 days a week? That's a similar failure on the other end of the spectrum. The 80% of the population who are pragmatic moderates needs to start voting out the nuts at each end.

[Anonymous]

Lol talk about progressives leading to failure. Jeff literally deletes critiques of the WTU on the DCPS board - believes that we should all just "get over it" and that "many factors led to the school closures." Congrats, this kind of thinking will be directly responsible for Trump II.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
problem 2 - utopia policies

The problem with the policies that SF tried like so many other liberal policies is the outcome is utopia which can never be achieved when you add in real people in the real world. Programs that address poverty, education, health - billions of dollars have been poured into them over many years but very few have ever produced results. Heck even Head Start isn't really helpful. The past 20 years have brought an explosion of technology growth that was not experienced ever. The speed of change and the rapid rise of technology made obsolete many employment sectors at one time in a very short span of time. Even more jobs could and will eventually be eliminated. But 20 years isn't even long enough for one generation to have come and gone. So programs are going to be needed to prop up the current generation and the next to just give them the basics. And yes the dreaded "personal responsibility" is going to have be considered because as technology becomes even more pervasive more, more responsibility is shifted to the individual and away from institutions. No longer will someone be able to say I didn't know or couldn't get access. Technology eliminates a gatekeeper and when the gatekeeper is gone the responsibility shifts.

+1 Yep.. I said this before.

Progressives are a bit too polllyanna. Their ideas are like a utiopia commune -- great in theory, but doesn't actually work. Why? Humans.

When the pendulum swings too far right, guess what happens... it then swings too far left. On and on, until, it swings back to the middle. That's what we need.. the middle.

I would also argue that their ideas often don't work because they don't think about process AT ALL. They don't think about unintended consequences, or about how something would work in practice, or about how much it would cost.

I'm not sure they think about process any less than Republicans. The problem is that they are more effective in getting their policies in place than Republicans, and their policies impose more new requirements on areas that impact people. And the policies are increasingly very knee-jerk and based on rigid notions of "safety" or "anti-racism" as opposed to being truly informed by research and data. That's precisely how we ended up with school closures. And of course, Democrats have their interest groups they have to feed just like any other political party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
problem 2 - utopia policies

The problem with the policies that SF tried like so many other liberal policies is the outcome is utopia which can never be achieved when you add in real people in the real world. Programs that address poverty, education, health - billions of dollars have been poured into them over many years but very few have ever produced results. Heck even Head Start isn't really helpful. The past 20 years have brought an explosion of technology growth that was not experienced ever. The speed of change and the rapid rise of technology made obsolete many employment sectors at one time in a very short span of time. Even more jobs could and will eventually be eliminated. But 20 years isn't even long enough for one generation to have come and gone. So programs are going to be needed to prop up the current generation and the next to just give them the basics. And yes the dreaded "personal responsibility" is going to have be considered because as technology becomes even more pervasive more, more responsibility is shifted to the individual and away from institutions. No longer will someone be able to say I didn't know or couldn't get access. Technology eliminates a gatekeeper and when the gatekeeper is gone the responsibility shifts.

+1 Yep.. I said this before.

Progressives are a bit too polllyanna. Their ideas are like a utiopia commune -- great in theory, but doesn't actually work. Why? Humans.

When the pendulum swings too far right, guess what happens... it then swings too far left. On and on, until, it swings back to the middle. That's what we need.. the middle.

I would also argue that their ideas often don't work because they don't think about process AT ALL. They don't think about unintended consequences, or about how something would work in practice, or about how much it would cost.

I'm not sure they think about process any less than Republicans. The problem is that they are more effective in getting their policies in place than Republicans, and their policies impose more new requirements on areas that impact people. And the policies are increasingly very knee-jerk and based on rigid notions of "safety" or "anti-racism" as opposed to being truly informed by research and data. That's precisely how we ended up with school closures. And of course, Democrats have their interest groups they have to feed just like any other political party.

Exactly. The best conservative corollary I can think of is abstinence only education. Just all ideology - draped in a veneer of technocratic buzz words - and no evidence of effectiveness for a lot of progressive policies. The worst part is that there does not seem to be them rigor in academia for evaluating the effectiveness of these policies as there are for conservative policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/how-san-francisco-became-failed-city/661199/

This article is written by Bari Weiss’s partner who is SF old money and family is worth over a billion.

And? Is it untrue?

A lot of it seems to be embellished. While I agree with the sentiment of malaise, I don’t think the diagnosis is completely correct. I would expect that the author would have much better insight into the social problems at her country club instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
problem 2 - utopia policies

The problem with the policies that SF tried like so many other liberal policies is the outcome is utopia which can never be achieved when you add in real people in the real world. Programs that address poverty, education, health - billions of dollars have been poured into them over many years but very few have ever produced results. Heck even Head Start isn't really helpful. The past 20 years have brought an explosion of technology growth that was not experienced ever. The speed of change and the rapid rise of technology made obsolete many employment sectors at one time in a very short span of time. Even more jobs could and will eventually be eliminated. But 20 years isn't even long enough for one generation to have come and gone. So programs are going to be needed to prop up the current generation and the next to just give them the basics. And yes the dreaded "personal responsibility" is going to have be considered because as technology becomes even more pervasive more, more responsibility is shifted to the individual and away from institutions. No longer will someone be able to say I didn't know or couldn't get access. Technology eliminates a gatekeeper and when the gatekeeper is gone the responsibility shifts.

+1 Yep.. I said this before.

Progressives are a bit too polllyanna. Their ideas are like a utiopia commune -- great in theory, but doesn't actually work. Why? Humans.

When the pendulum swings too far right, guess what happens... it then swings too far left. On and on, until, it swings back to the middle. That's what we need.. the middle.

I would also argue that their ideas often don't work because they don't think about process AT ALL. They don't think about unintended consequences, or about how something would work in practice, or about how much it would cost.

I'm not sure they think about process any less than Republicans. The problem is that they are more effective in getting their policies in place than Republicans, and their policies impose more new requirements on areas that impact people. And the policies are increasingly very knee-jerk and based on rigid notions of "safety" or "anti-racism" as opposed to being truly informed by research and data. That's precisely how we ended up with school closures. And of course, Democrats have their interest groups they have to feed just like any other political party.

Exactly. The best conservative corollary I can think of is abstinence only education. Just all ideology - draped in a veneer of technocratic buzz words - and no evidence of effectiveness for a lot of progressive policies. The worst part is that there does not seem to be them rigor in academia for evaluating the effectiveness of these policies as there are for conservative policies.

I feel like there should be a camp that emulates Marxist demagoguery meetings of oppressive left states (like former USSR) that prospective politicians must attend before someone proudly declares themselves progressive and foists idiocy on others. Radical centrism here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/how-san-francisco-became-failed-city/661199/

This article is written by Bari Weiss’s partner who is SF old money and family is worth over a billion.

And? Is it untrue?

A lot of it seems to be embellished. While I agree with the sentiment of malaise, I don’t think the diagnosis is completely correct. I would expect that the author would have much better insight into the social problems at her country club instead.

It’s telling you have no real facts or reply. So you try to mock the author for having wealthy relatives? What a joke. Come back when you can prove some of the “embellishments” that you are alleging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you agree with the premise of the article, you have to point blame at Silicon Valley. The apps, the money changed made it very difficult for the middle class to live in SF. And no, not everyone who works at tech is a Democrat/Progressive.


I’m sorry, but this is nonsense. SF had always been ludicrously expensive. The city government has more money than it has ever had, thanks in part to tech. But what has failed are progressive policies. Even with all the money to implement programs, excessive progressivism is a failure.

Yep. Excessive ANYTHING is a failure. Those deep red states in the middle of the country who cut their taxes and defunded education to the point that they could only operate 4 days a week? That's a similar failure on the other end of the spectrum. The 80% of the population who are pragmatic moderates needs to start voting out the nuts at each end.

So, so much this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/how-san-francisco-became-failed-city/661199/

This article is written by Bari Weiss’s partner who is SF old money and family is worth over a billion.

And? Is it untrue?

A lot of it seems to be embellished. While I agree with the sentiment of malaise, I don’t think the diagnosis is completely correct. I would expect that the author would have much better insight into the social problems at her country club instead.

I grew up next to SF and still live here. If anything the author has underplayed the issues in SF, not embellished them. It is not remotely embellished.

[Anonymous]

Collins echoed that: “‘Merit’ is an inherently racist construct designed and centered on white supremacist framing.”

If you didn’t like these changes, tough. A parent on Twitter accused López of trying to destroy the school system, and she replied with the words “I mean this sincerely” followed by a middle-finger emoji. In July, on the topic of the declining quality of life in San Francisco, she wrote, “I’m like, then leave.”

You literally cannot make this insanity up.

Look, people voted for stupid in SF and that's exactly what they got. People vote for stupid in DC and now they are seeing carjackings, ATVs, and other crimes skyrocket out of control. What's more shocking at this point is the fact that people are shocked about the S shows that unfold after they vote for progressives? What'd did they think would happen?

Progressives turn everything to S, and if you try to stand up to their insanity, you will be labeled as a racist. Gone are the days of trying to run a practical, common sense govt. That's racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A big issue is SFPD. They stopped arresting for petty crime even before Chesa was elected. This is a theme throughout many cities in the US - the police work slowdown has been real, they stop arresting (except when there’s a gun, a body, or a protest), and that ends up leading to civilians feeling helpless.

A prediction: nothing will change with Chesa gone. SFPD is still pissed off at the Mayor, the council, and the citizens who ask for respect of their rights. How do you reign in a rogue police force?

+1. Police everywhere have pulled back from doing their jobs bc they don't like being criticized. I'm not sure how to fix it.

They pulled back because you don't waste time arresting people for crimes you know the city won't prosecute. If you read the article, you would have read the part where the police streets the same guy for like 15 felonies in 18 months. If the city isn't going to prosecute, why arrest? Progressives decriminalize everything, and then when things go to hell, they try to blame cops for not arresting. That's not how it works. You're getting exactly what you want by decriminalizing everything...lawlessness and anarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A big issue is SFPD. They stopped arresting for petty crime even before Chesa was elected. This is a theme throughout many cities in the US - the police work slowdown has been real, they stop arresting (except when there’s a gun, a body, or a protest), and that ends up leading to civilians feeling helpless.

A prediction: nothing will change with Chesa gone. SFPD is still pissed off at the Mayor, the council, and the citizens who ask for respect of their rights. How do you reign in a rogue police force?

+1. Police everywhere have pulled back from doing their jobs bc they don't like being criticized. I'm not sure how to fix it.

They pulled back because you don't waste time arresting people for crimes you know the city won't prosecute. If you read the article, you would have read the part where the police streets the same guy for like 15 felonies in 18 months. If the city isn't going to prosecute, why arrest? Progressives decriminalize everything, and then when things go to hell, they try to blame cops for not arresting. That's not how it works. You're getting exactly what you want by decriminalizing everything...lawlessness and anarchy.

This is a fantasy. SFPD is notoriously corrupt. In fact, public corruption is SF has been a general problem for 100 years and shows no signs of improvement. There will be zero progress in SF towards improving quality of life until there is progress on public corruption and SFPD is reformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A big issue is SFPD. They stopped arresting for petty crime even before Chesa was elected. This is a theme throughout many cities in the US - the police work slowdown has been real, they stop arresting (except when there’s a gun, a body, or a protest), and that ends up leading to civilians feeling helpless.

A prediction: nothing will change with Chesa gone. SFPD is still pissed off at the Mayor, the council, and the citizens who ask for respect of their rights. How do you reign in a rogue police force?

+1. Police everywhere have pulled back from doing their jobs bc they don't like being criticized. I'm not sure how to fix it.

They pulled back because you don't waste time arresting people for crimes you know the city won't prosecute. If you read the article, you would have read the part where the police streets the same guy for like 15 felonies in 18 months. If the city isn't going to prosecute, why arrest? Progressives decriminalize everything, and then when things go to hell, they try to blame cops for not arresting. That's not how it works. You're getting exactly what you want by decriminalizing everything...lawlessness and anarchy.

This is a fantasy. SFPD is notoriously corrupt. In fact, public corruption is SF has been a general problem for 100 years and shows no signs of improvement. There will be zero progress in SF towards improving quality of life until there is progress on public corruption and SFPD is reformed.

Unfortunately for you, voters in SF believe otherwise.

Progressives have destroyed the city, not the SFPD. The results of the recall and the utter destruction of the liberal progressive agenda speaks for itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“I used to tell myself that San Francisco’s politics were wacky but the city was trying—really trying—to be good. But the reality is that with the smartest minds and so much money and the very best of intentions, San Francisco became a cruel city. It became so dogmatically progressive that maintaining the purity of the politics required accepting—or at least ignoring—devastating results.

But this dogmatism may be buckling under pressure from reality. Earlier this year, in a landslide, San Francisco voters recalled the head of the school board and two of her most progressive colleagues. These are the people who also turned out Boudin; early results showed m that about 60 percent of voters chose to recall him.

Residents had hoped Boudin would reform the criminal-justice system and treat low-level offenders more humanely. Instead, critics argued that his policies victimized victims, allowed criminals to go free to reoffend, and did nothing to help the city’s most vulnerable. To understand just how noteworthy Boudin’s defenestration is, please keep in mind that San Francisco has only a tiny number of Republicans. This fight is about leftists versus liberals. It’s about idealists who think a perfect world is within reach—it’ll only take a little more time, a little more commitment, a little more funding, forever—and those who are fed up.“

This quote perfectly encapsulates the debate.

I was reading a Facebook post recently on the “New Hill East” Facebook group feed. It was from the director of a non profit dedicated to implementing restorative justice policies and her post was imploring residents of the city not to seek carceral types of punishment for crimes, but to allow restorative justice to simply have more time to work. To show itself and prove itself as a better means of justice than prison for violent offenders.

I shook my head. Not because I don’t think restorative justice could sometimes be useful, but because my immediate thoughts on the post were: “lady, car jackings and puppy stealing at gun point and violent crime is up by double digit percentages in the last few years and you’re arguing for, objectively, a more lenient form of punishment for violent criminals? I get that much of the uptick could be related the pandemic, but at the same time it could also criminals knowing that city has implement criminal justice reform policies that themselves seem to promote a climate of…lawlessness. If teens know they get a slap on the wrist and are released after they steal a car, they will do it. If a 26 year old “kid” knows that the recently implemented Youth Rehabiliation Act allows for heir criminal record to be shielded so they face less consequences, then that’s a pretty progressive criminal justice problem that seems like it would exacerbate crime.”

I was also annoyed because even though, I considered or I wanted to comment on her post, which good sense told me not to, being a Hill resident, and understanding how much blow back I would receive for questioning the progressive orthodoxy of these criminal justice reform policiies from tons of other members of the group who by and large sway liberal, me commenting just would have don’t nothing other than to “out myself” as some kind of moderate political monster.

It’s gotten to the point where rigid adherence to political ideology and purity tests are the norm. I would have been crucified for saying “maybe jail is a more appropriate punishment for car jacking than restorative justice”. But doing that would have branded me
Insensitive or worse. It’s weird. This is what Fox News means by cancel culture I guess. It’s a climate where you can’t feel free to question the prevailaong group think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol, Round Table......every bartender and waitstaff from Bethesda used to hit that bar after their place closed. Great place for a late night hang out. Good live music too

True story.

I was one of 'em. It was always a wonderful feeling leaving that place at 7am.