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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This quote really resonates:

In February 2021, board members agreed that they would avoid the phrase learning loss to describe what was happening to kids locked out of their classrooms. Instead they would use the words learning change. Schools being shut just meant students were “having different learning experiences than the ones we currently measure,” Gabriela López, a member of the board at the time, said. “They are learning more about their families and their cultures.” Framing this as some kind of “deficit” was wrong, the board argued.

The gaslighting on the harms of the school closures from progressives is unreal.

Holy crap. That quote is pure insanity.

If i didn’t know better I would have thought it came from an article of The Onion.

Man, you don't know how many times parents in DC have heard crap completely erasing what was going on last year. There were/are people that argue that there is no such thing as "learning loss" -- that to posit such a thing is a right-wing effort to hurt the teachers union and kill black people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


+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.


I think some more sanctimonious chanting of defund the police would help. Calling them racist is a terrific morale booster, too. I’m sure everyone will be clamoring to be a police officer momentarily.

The way to fix it---is---like most intractable issues in the US---going to need people to agree to compromise. What was going to happen to crime and lack of policing was completely predictable based upon the enormous vilification of police officers in 2020. Everyone posting about how that poor teacher at JR shouldn't have to endure epithets and abuse from students should stop and consider what the average police officer encounters day in/day out and maybe not make gross generalizations demonizing the people we depend upon to keep order. At the same time, police unions need to be a lot quicker to toss out bad apples.

You know, actually have some nuance and compromise in public policy discussions? Neither the progressive left nor the radical right have any talent or inclination to engage in that way and it is harming us all.

Well generally speaking, sure I agree with this.

But over the past 5 years, I would say that there is a different problem that needs to be fixed first and only then can we move on to compromise.

problem 1 - There are hoards of liberal progressives that need to accept and admit that they allowed the media to take over and control their ideas and perceptions and they stopped critically examining what the media was feeding them. They went by screaming headlines and they believed every single "professional" trotted out even if they were not in fact professionals. These people - many of them posting here on the daily - were really just the same as the Q anon people they criticized but at the other end of the spectrum. Just like those Q people, they got caught up and enjoyed the argument, it was fun to see the next screaming headline, the next tweet.

Maybe it's because I have spent my whole live living in the DC area but I take all political mudslinging with a grain of salt. I no longer absolutely believe anything about politics. I have seen far too many times things that seem outrageous turn out years later to be true. So now I fall in the middle and think might be true, might not. There is no one involved in politics above corruption. And even if you don't see it, no one ever reports it, and the person seems to be the greatest, rest assured, it's happening. 99% of the time it will never effect the average citizens daily life too much which is the good thing.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The criticism of covid school closure on this thread is a breath of fresh air. Where were all of you when every other comment was "school isn't childcare!" when working parents were saying they were at their breaking point?

I was advocating for school reopening but my suspicion is that a lot of people who were mad about closures and didn't say anything were dealing with two factors:

1) Parents, teachers, and admin within their school community who were arguing closures were necessary to protect vulnerable kids and families -- it's very hard to speak up when the argument is "you are trying to get poor people of color killed"

2) They were so burned out from overseeing remote education while trying to hold down a job and solve an impossible childcare problem that they had nothing left to advocate for school reopening.

I think both of these are true. I would add that a lot of teachers would have quit, and schools - public or private - didn’t want to have to deal with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


+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.


I think some more sanctimonious chanting of defund the police would help. Calling them racist is a terrific morale booster, too. I’m sure everyone will be clamoring to be a police officer momentarily.

The way to fix it---is---like most intractable issues in the US---going to need people to agree to compromise. What was going to happen to crime and lack of policing was completely predictable based upon the enormous vilification of police officers in 2020. Everyone posting about how that poor teacher at JR shouldn't have to endure epithets and abuse from students should stop and consider what the average police officer encounters day in/day out and maybe not make gross generalizations demonizing the people we depend upon to keep order. At the same time, police unions need to be a lot quicker to toss out bad apples.

You know, actually have some nuance and compromise in public policy discussions? Neither the progressive left nor the radical right have any talent or inclination to engage in that way and it is harming us all.

Well generally speaking, sure I agree with this.

But over the past 5 years, I would say that there is a different problem that needs to be fixed first and only then can we move on to compromise.

problem 1 - There are hoards of liberal progressives that need to accept and admit that they allowed the media to take over and control their ideas and perceptions and they stopped critically examining what the media was feeding them. They went by screaming headlines and they believed every single "professional" trotted out even if they were not in fact professionals. These people - many of them posting here on the daily - were really just the same as the Q anon people they criticized but at the other end of the spectrum. Just like those Q people, they got caught up and enjoyed the argument, it was fun to see the next screaming headline, the next tweet.

Maybe it's because I have spent my whole live living in the DC area but I take all political mudslinging with a grain of salt. I no longer absolutely believe anything about politics. I have seen far too many times things that seem outrageous turn out years later to be true. So now I fall in the middle and think might be true, might not. There is no one involved in politics above corruption. And even if you don't see it, no one ever reports it, and the person seems to be the greatest, rest assured, it's happening. 99% of the time it will never effect the average citizens daily life too much which is the good thing.

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.

You mean hordes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a failed city, it pretty impossible to buy a house there. When do all these people fleeing actually flee?

When they have kids. There are very few kids in SF.

When does that reflected in real estate prices? For some wacky reason all of these places that people are fleeing seem to have incredible demand

SFH prices are high because they are a preferred housing type everywhere in the US and they are rare in SF and the quantity is decreasing.

Condo prices in SF haven’t increased since 2017.

source? Rent prices, including condos, is insane in a lot of CA. My parents own a tiny condo in a somewhat industrial area of SoCal. I was looking at renting it out at some point.


A 2br apt in that area will go for over $2300.
3 br condo will go for over $3000.

And these are not newly built, nice condos/apts.

You could just use Google or is that too difficult?

https://wolfstreet.com/2021/07/10/condos-v-houses-san-francisco-house-prices-do-holy-moly-spike-condo-prices-flat-for-3-years/

Yes, condo prices never keep up with SFH, anywhere. Shrug. It's not specific to SF.

Same source, btw. That wasn't difficult to find, either. But, I know you have a special in your heart for SF

What’s your point? You’re just arguing for the sake of it without even a point.

Maybe read through the thread to understand the point. Or, maybe you have reading comprehension issues, hence your response.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Yup, it's because all the ideas are from grad programs in left leaning universities.

It would be nice if before you became a policy wonk you actually had to make something work in the real world first.

[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.

To be fair, it's not just the progressives that have this problem. Trump's administration had the same problem. Too little thinking and unintendend consequences.

[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.

To be fair, it's not just the progressives that have this problem. Trump's administration had the same problem. Too little thinking and unintendend consequences.

Accurate.

[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.

Yup, it's because all the ideas are from grad programs in left leaning universities.

It would be nice if before you became a policy wonk you actually had to make something work in the real world first.

Which universities would these be? Like Yale.. a college where people like Kavanugh went to school?

[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.

Yup, it's because all the ideas are from grad programs in left leaning universities.

It would be nice if before you became a policy wonk you actually had to make something work in the real world first.

Which universities would these be? Like Yale.. a college where people like Kavanugh went to school?

My perspective is that you are getting policy proposals from BAs with incredible hubris. I would prefer to have at least ideas from people at graduate schools.

Honestly, I just want you to sit and think about things for a month, talk to experts, talk to the entities to which the policy would impact, talk to the people that would have to implement the policy. Listen to those people.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Don’t see how you could come to that conclusion from the article. Unfortunately, you would probably support the politicians and legislation that got SF in this mess to begin with.

It’s pretty obvious that the money and effort spent on the homeless has made it work. SF has encouraged homelessness and lawlessness. If you want more homeless then simply spend more on providing for the homeless. If you build it, they will come.

[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.