Unless Acting Mayor London Breed does something really bad (and she’s way too smart for that to happen), or the Board of Supes feels a lot of public pressure, it’s entirely possible that for the next five months the same person will run the legislative and executive branches in San Francisco.
That’s bad on so, so many levels. I don’t even like the idea that the mayor can appoint supervisors – the governor doesn’t appoint state legislators, and the president doesn’t appoint members of Congress. Separation of powers is a key part of American democracy; this is just wrong.
Besides: Breed is energetic and talented and experienced, but can one person really be the president of the board, the supervisor from D5, and the mayor of San Francisco – oh, and most likely a candidate for mayor in June? Nobody can do that all and do it well – unless the staff (in the case of the Mayor’s Office, the same folks who ran things under Ed Lee) are really in charge.
Nevertheless, as far as I can tell today, there is nobody who has six votes to become the interim mayor.
The last two times there was a vacancy in Room 200 – when George Moscone was murdered and when Gavin Newsom resigned to become Lite Guv – the supes quickly appointed a replacement. Both times, the result became a serious problem – but at least one person wasn’t running the whole show.
The 2018 mayor’s race is already well under way. Former state Sen. Mark Leno told me today that he’s going to be a candidate – and the $400,000 or so that he has already raised should be available for the June race. Same office, same campaign contribution limits. If the Ethics Commission rules that he can’t use that money, they will be relying on the advice of City Attorney Dennis Herrera – who is also a potential candidate.
We’re all assuming Breed files to run. I am hearing that Sup. Jane Kim is also considering a run (it’s all over Facebook) – and if she files for the office, she could have the endorsement of Bernie Sanders and the support of the well-organized San Francisco Bernicrats. The list goes on. It will be a competitive race. This opportunity doesn’t come along often.
And while everyone is (appropriately) being very respectful to the legacy of Ed Lee, the harsh political reality is that the mayor’s approval rating was very low when he tragically died. The vast majority of the voters see the city as going in the wrong direction. They see the displacement, the soaring rents, the economic inequality, the damage of the tech boom that Lee so happily promoted … and they want something different.
So one of the big tests of any candidate for mayor will be: How are you going to change things? How are you going to shift gears?
That’s a potential problem for Breed, who was largely (not always, but mostly) on the side of the mayor’s allies. When the board split 6-5 on issues that put the mayor against the progressives, she was often with Ed Lee.
Although she has an independent streak, her committee appointments reflected the will of the moderate establishment. To take on someone like Leno, who already has the support of four of the progressives on the board, or Kim, who would reach out to the left, she would have to demonstrate how she intends to break – pretty radically – from her political alliances of the past few years and offer a serious alternative to the current direction of the city.
San Francisco today is a mess. We can stipulate that Ed Lee had compassion for the homeless, the poor, the oppressed, and he did. But the situation on the streets in Tech Boom SF is ugly.
The candidates who want to be mayor are going to have to tell us how they can promote equity in a city that desperately needs it – and equity, by nature, demands redistribution of wealth. This is possibly the richest city in the history of civilization, and poor people are getting evicted, displaced, and living on the streets.
I don’t think the voters are looking for anyone who promises anything remotely close to business as usual.
For the moment, everyone wants a steady hand at City Hall. We’ve just been through a civic shock, and we all need to know that the supes can keep things stable.
But a month from now, we will be back to the existential crisis that is San Francisco today. And the politics of stability and the continuation of the policies of the past aren’t going to fly.
Doesn’t have enough tax money?
Ludicrous, when you recall the SF annual budget of $10 Billion. Then look at someplace like Austin TX. More people, much more infrastructure to manage and they do it with annual budget around $3 billion.
Ah, the illegal/immoral demands of the bigots. There is a reason those things are not done. Lawsuits that could cripple the City. And just to please hater like you.
and to whom would venture capitalists sell their second yachts to? perhaps those buying them could “use the money on education or housing for those in need”, no?
would it help? Help what or whom exactly? The city and county’s budget now exceeds ten billion per year, in a city / county of less than 1 million residents. What would the extra go to? the dilapidated infrastructure? Muni? More homeless programs? pensions?
And that was not in the middle of a major city, and was served with an hourlong train ride or hour in rush hour traffic if you wanted to commute. Lots of children grow up in rowhouses or apartment complexes, and I don’t see why we have to reserve over half the city’s land area for Single Family Homes in the middle of spiraling housing costs just to satisfy the preferences of the wealthy.
Not a word about crime. Typical.
I am not sure what numbers you are referring to. What numbers based on race and income? All numbers are from the census bureau population and economic surveys. The population surveys are on American Fact Finder. The economic survey shows the data by census tract. The link to economic data is below. There has been an increase of steadily employed Blacks and Hispanics in high income census tracts. That data can be also broken down by age, income, and industry sector. You can also look at the population survey (American Fact Finder) by census tract by race and income.
https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/
Could you provide a citation to support these numbers? I’m not knocking you, but you’re playing apples and oranges with the other posters.
They’re posting numbers based on race alone, you’re posting numbers based on race and income. I’d love to know how you were able to break that out.
I recall hearing the it is cheaper to build a single-family home and the profit is higher. But there are many variables. Depending on how high you go, there is more extensive foundation work with steel framing that is much more expensive than foundation work and wood framing for a single family home. In any case, families with children prefer single family homes and will leave the City if they can’t find one here. Weren’t you raised in a large single family home in a low density neighborhood?
I also see from that data that the poverty rate has come down. Was 12.5 now 10 percent. The Black and Hispanic unemployment rates have also come way down.
The other question is will Chinatown, gentrified or not, continue to be Chinese. North Beach still has Italian restaurants but most of the Italians moved to Main. Without a steady supply of fresh blood, all ethnic enclaves eventually disappear. It could be that gentrified Chinese will want to move to a gentrified Chinatown. In other cities where Black neighborhoods have been gentrified, upper middle-class Blacks move back.
Chinatown will not be spared gentrification because of the ‘subway to nowhere’ currently under construction which will make Chinatown real estate far too valuable to continue housing current residents. Look forward to expensive condos and office buildings.
It has been the case for at least 40 years that young educated people have been flocking to SF. Employers with high paid jobs followed and replaced employers with lower paid jobs. I don’t know about elite, but the entire City is becoming more gentrified. Since people are free to live where they what to, not much can be done about that. And gentrification is better than urban decay.
It is true that Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to have the job skills or the ability to do highly technical jobs; doctors, lawyers, scientists etc. If you look at the public-school test scores there is a very large performance gap that explains the reason. Although a lower percent, there are highly skilled, Blacks and Hispanics with those skills, and are likely the ones moving to more affluent SF neighborhoods.
Highly-skilled, highly-paid workers demand service jobs that Blacks and Hispanics are able to do. And the good economy has benefited Blacks and Hispanics. Their unemployment rates have never been lower.
In November 2010 the Black unemployment rate was 16.2% and November 2015, 9.4%; the 2017 rate is down to 7.3%.
Hispanic November 2010 unemployment rate 12.9%; November 2015 6.4%; 2017 down to 4.7%.
Blacks and Hispanics are not the two largest minority groups. And while Blacks have declined, not so for Hispanics.
Hispanic Population: 2015 – 128,619 (15.3%) and 2010 – 116,075 (14.7%), a gain of 12,544
Black Population: 2015 46,825 (5.6%) and 2010 49,071 (6.2%) a loss of 2,246.
Hispanic workers: 2015 – 53,027 (12.8%) and 2010 – 45,420 (13.1%) a gain of 7,607
Black workers: 2015 – 23,633 (5.7%) and 2010 – 19,130 (5.5%) a gain of 4,503.
Many of the Black and Hispanic workers in 2015 were living in SF in 2010 but unemployed or not in the labor force.
More and better restaurants is one of the benefits of Sonoma gentrification; 30 years ago you could not find a place that sold cappuccino in Sebastopol. I can recall when BMW’s and aging hippies with Volvo’s started to replace pickups with gun racks.
You are incorrect about the Latino population. The Latino population has not been shrinking.
Since 2010, San Francisco’s Latino population has been stable. Barely stable, but stable at 15% of the population. The black population has indeed declined.
Data: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanfranciscocountycalifornia/PST045216.
The big picture story is that, as a percentage of the whole, yes the black population has fallen by half since the 1970s while the Asian population has grown by about a third.
It’s also true that the white population has declined quite a bit since the 1970s; only recently has it started to stabilize. In 1980 SF was 59% white. Last year, non-hispanic whites were 41% of the population.
I would agree that Billionaires can pay more, but as your income goes up so does the tax rate. I believe that 45% of low income household pay no federal income tax. In any case, a mayor can’t redistribute wealth.
The original article was this one from the Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/san-francisco-diversity-migration/481668/
This article was followed by many other articles looking at the Atlantic study and interpreting it and/or expounding on it.
The Atlantic study shows a decrease in hispanics between 2010-2015, there had been an increase in the previous 5 year census. This was unique to San Francisco, if I remember correctly.
San Francisco showed some alarming trends 2010-2014. It’s not business as normal.
Asians have represented themselves well in the current SF climate, I don’t know that they are considered a minority.
If you can put multiple residences the same size on the same land as one, the multiples are cheaper. Building costs don’t increase that much.
There are positive aspects to having wealth and being gentrified, unfortunately it is not unilateral. But again, we are undergoing an elite-gentrification. It’s not just blacks – who you repeatedly mention in regards to employment surveys – the vast majority of people moving here, regardless of ethnicity,
are young, educated, and well employed.
We’ve had a decline in blacks and hispanics between 2010-2015, SF’s two largest demographics representing minorities. It would seem they are not as included in the elite gentrification. Any guesses as to why that is?
Yes, I like west county Sonoma and have a place i stay, but I don’t own anything and my residence is SF. There’s a golf course on the river now, and a Michelin restaurant. The Fisher family is the largest redwood forest owner in the world. Are those some of the positives of gentrification?
Poverty in the US went up during the recession and has come down since the recovery. But it is 12.5% in San Francisco, not 20%. In any case, I doubt you could build enough housing in SF to make much of a difference for very low-income persons. The high housing prices are caused by a growing economy. Where the economy improves so does the standard of living for poor and middleclass families.
There have been several news articles interviewing poor persons often photographed at home. Most have big screen TVs, computers cell phones. I think I recall reading that the standard of living of a poor person is about a decade behind the average middleclass person. Most poor families have conveniences that were unaffordable to the middle class not too long ago. The typical average poor American has more living space in his home than the average (non-poor) European has.
No, it’s because single family homes make inefficient use of a limited supply of land. SF should be a city of nearly 3 million people.
That could be since the supply of single family homes is in short supply. However, have you factored in price per square foot?
If more diverse means fewer non-Hispanic Whites, then SF is getting more diverse based on the percent of the total population. The number
of Whites has increased but the percent of total has decreased.
There are two census measures, a population survey that includes everyone, and an economic survey that includes only those with steady employment. The population survey shows a decline in Blacks, but the economic survey shows in increase. It would appear that Blacks
are a small part of the “elite” gentrification. Their numbers have increased in more affluent neighborhoods in SF. This does suggest the decline in the Black population may stop and even go into reverse.
I see gentrification on balance as good. It is better than urban decay.
You are a resident of Sonoma? I have a second home (inherited)
in West Sonoma and have been coming up there for 75 years. I don’t like the population increase but there has been some positive aspects of gentrification up there as well.
That holds also for owning units (which is possible: it’s called a condo)
I don’t want Billionaires paying a lower % of income than everyone else. That is what we have now, and that is why we need a redistibution of wealth via taxes. Flat rate – treat everyone the same.
In a world where there are only landlords and tenants.
Sure I’m not in any rush.
I’m on my cell phone .. is it cool if I get back to you tomorrow? I’ll check then.
Where can I find the methodology of this projection?
That’s not how the projected data has it slated. Call it imaginary if you like, but it’s not true to say we are on the same overall demographic trend as Marin, or any other greater area bay area county. We have a unique situation on our hands.
Marin County is in the same boat as San Francisco, a non-Hispanic white population is growing but not as fast as the county as a whole. Again, while some may have projections that San Francisco will become “less diverse” in the future, that imagined trend does not yet show up in any of the ACS data (at least if you measure “less diverse” by the percentage of the population that is non-Hispanic white).
Good points Don, but I still think you’re painting an inaccurate picture and making it sound as if SF is aligned with CA and US trends – which were not.
We are the only county in the greater area trending toward less diversity. My view of Marin is that it is a well heeled place where affluent families like the Pritzkers own large swaths of land – but granted I am slanted because I hang out in Sonoma County and we talk shit on Marin.
Bad is the hyper-elite gentrification SF has taken on. Not very well said I realize, but that is my reference.
I’m not sure why you keep referencing gainfully employed blacks. This whole conversation is weird, but as always I appreciate your perspective and tenure in the city.
2016 is 33.9% basically no change from 33.5% in 2010. I wonder what the impact of anti-immigrant policies will be.
The percent of foreign investment in real estate has not changed in decades, only the groups have changed. I recall when the Japanese were buying the Bay Area.
Could be true but urban planner projections are usually wrong. The effect of the current anti-immigrant policies is unknown. 35% of SF residents are foreign born, 55% in Daly City. If you factor in their American born children, the impact of immigration on the population is large. All ethnic enclaves eventually disappear without a steady supply of fresh blood. Given that immigrant Chinese are generally higher skilled than before, and they are not coming through Chinatown but going directly to the Peninsula, Chinatown will not be spared gentrification.
Asians are the new Whites?
You missed my previous posts where I said that the number of SF Blacks have been in decline since 1970 as part of a national migration trend. And that the Bay Area Blacks have been in decline since 1990. But at the same time some formerly White Bay Area cities have seen a significant increase in Blacks. Between 2000 and 2010, Antioch and Brentwood alone gained as many Blacks as SF lost. The Blacks remaining in the Bay Area are more dispersed thanks to housing discrimination laws.
The number is small, but SF has gained in the number of gainfully employed Blacks overall and in some affluent SF neighborhoods. Of course, that does not count non-working spouses, children and retired persons. Along with talented young people coming to SF are talented Black people. What impact that will have on the total is unknown. The total number of Blacks did decrease by 3,469 between 2010 and 2016.
The objective data mentioned was the downward trend in the percent of non-Hispanic Whites, now at 41.2%. That was selective but was in response to the claim that in SF there are a lot less minorities than 5-10 years ago. If the percent of non-Hispanic Whites has gone down, then there cannot be a lot less minorities. So far, we are getting more, not less diverse. But that could change.
Latino’s are not leaving in droves. Between 2010 and 2016 SF gained 13,823 Latinos and the percent of the total population went up from 14.7% to 15.3%. The Chronicle did a survey of Restaurant workers along Valencia. 65% lived in SF. That is higher than the typical SF worker where 40% live in SF. And higher paid workers were more likely to commute than lower paid workers.
How is Marin making SF look bad? And what does bad mean? The percent of Marin Blacks has declined, and was not high to begin with. But is true, non-Hispanic Whites in Marin is down to 72%. But compared to 41% in SF how is Marin looking good? Assuming Whites are bad
The cost of living in a single family home as a renter is far higher than the cost of living in a unit of a multiunit building as a renter.
You confuse home ownership for the purpose of residing vs Investment Property, which is owned solely for making money.
By allowing unfettered conversions of Single Family homes into multi-unit investments, we have allowed homes to be priced as commercial properties – which in part is why homes are overpriced in SF.
In your scenario, there are only landlords and tenants. There is a bigger world out there, but it is being squeezed out.
Do you honestly think that more multi-unit buildings, owned by investors who want to maximize profit, protects poor people?
It’s been awhile since I’ve read those articles and you may be correct.
However it’s sliced, we are a destination for the elite.
The non-Hispanic White population has been continuously declining as a proportion of the city’s population as long as the Census has been keeping track of it, and was declining in absolute terms until 2010. That is, the non-Hispanic White population has started growing again recently but is proportionally growing less rapidly than the city’s population is.
San Francisco may get less diverse in the future but it hasn’t started yet.
You are providing selective census data in a not so objective manner.
To read your comment would have someone believe the black population is increasing. It’s definitely not. San Francisco is a boom town and our unemployment is epically low. Blacks and Latinos in menial jobs and unsecured housing have left in droves.
Yes, SF is the most diverse we have ever been. But we are also the ONLY county in the greater Bay Area that is getting less diverse. Even Marin is making us look bad. When you look at current demographic trends state and nation wide, and then look at SF’s, it paints a different picture than the data you’ve presented.
The OP seems a bit naive, but might as well give them all the dirt.
Tech workers tend to be white or asian for sure. That is part of why the population of asians hasn’t been as affected as other non-white groups.
But, the distribution of asian tech workers is much more pronounced on the peninsula and in the South Bay.
If you visited a tech company in San Jose, you would find it predominantly asian, where as in SF they would be in much smaller numbers in comparison.
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that asians are a minority group that has been adversely affected like the other minority groups by what has happened over the last 5-10 years.
In fact, I am disturbed that so many mainland Chinese are using SF real estate to launder money to the US. Being that I am Chinese American, I can say that without being accused of being a racist.
I don’t know where the projections come from but the measured Census data shows the opposite. San Francisco was 30.8% Asian in 2000, 33.3% Asian in 2010, and estimated at 35.4% Asian in the 2016 ACS.
Similarly, the technology industry is absolutely full of Asians (Asian men, anyways). Google’s US tech workforce is 40% Asian.
I am providing objective census data, not my personal observations. Non-Hispanic Whites are in the minority and the trend has been down. It could change. But if Whites get higher than 41%, that may not be disaster.
Steadily employed upper middle-class Blacks and Hispanics have increased in upper income areas. As I said, higher-skilled jobs (not just tech), have been replacing lower-skilled jobs; for many decades now. Many of the Blacks were blue collar, so there is an overall decrease.
You are correct, you will find more Whites (and Asians) in tech. Of all workers living in SF, 6.7% are information workers (it was only 4% in 2005), and 16.8% are professional, scientific or technical. If you look at academic performance, math scores in SF schools, a very small percent of Blacks have the ability to do high tech work, so you will find fewer in tech. It is shocking and the education folks are aware of it. But until they can get academic performance up, the problem will persist.
The economy is more diverse than tech, so we will survive, but the tech bubble burst would make a difference and housing prices would come down. We do get an economic downturns. There have been many in the past. If you are still employed it would be a buying opportunity.
In America, people are free to live and work where they want to. Not much can be done about the City getting more affluent and more educated. I don’t see it as a problem, the change has been good as well as bad. Gentrification is better than urban decay.
Actually, the asian population in SF is decreasing as a percent of the population.
I am asian, and I don’t see that as a bad trend at all.
From KQED…
By 2040, San Francisco County is projected to have a non-Hispanic white majority — jumping from 42 percent in 2013 to 52 percent in 25 years. The percentage of Asians is expected to fall from 34 percent to 28 percent. The Latino population is forecast to shrink from 15 percent to 12 percent. The city’s dwindling number of African-Americans, currently down to 6 percent, should remain the same.
https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/10/26/san-francisco-could-be-a-lot-whiter-in-25-years-predicts-a-new-profile-of-bay-area/
Unless Asians are not “minorities” I don’t know how anyone could say this with a straight face.
If you only inhabit certain sections of the City, you view will be woefully slanted. Try going to some different, other neighbohoods; you might find yourself easily outnumbered and alone.
lolz.
lol.
Net-Net, I think it is pretty obvious that there are a lot less minorities in SF then there were 5-10 years ago.
If you are comparing your observation based on your particular neighborhood then perhaps that is an exception.
if you are only counting upper income residents instead of all residents that skews the number, too.
In fact, that is the point. SF has become a city of elites. We have lost businesses that cater to middle income people or those of more modest means who can’t live here any more.
I work in tech and the lack of minorities in regards to race, age and gender is shocking.
In this town, that is where the wealth is going. That is where the jobs are. This dynamic is imbalanced and will come to haunt us when the tech bubble pops. The benefits are not shared amongst most SF residents who were here before the boom started unless they owned real estate.
Perhaps in your neighborhood you have seen a slight uptick in diversity. But, if you walk around town and go for an interview at a tech company, you will see something completely different.
Because some of those multi-units are occupied by people paying 1985/95/05 rents – so maybe they should by paying 1985/95/05 taxes?.
“The next mayor has to promise real, dramatic change”
… just as long as none of that change occurs in the built environment.
I should have stopped with the fact that California spends more State and Local tax money per capita on welfare than other states, re the prop 13 argument. But a $9 billion spent for a quarter of the population by comparison seemed significant.
Yes the 1940’s.
The Black increase from the 1940 to the 1970 and the decline after 1970 is not unique to San Francisco; it is part of the “second great migration” a national trend. Many northern and western cities had the same pattern. It is related to the rise and fall of the defense industry. Over the years SF has lost working class and middle-class jobs replaced by higher skilled higher paid jobs.
The SF Black population started to decline in the 1970’s and decline in the Bay Area started in 1990, from 8.9% to 6.7% in 2010, a decrease of 51,827 Bay Area Blacks. However, at the same time formerly White Suburban Bay Area cities saw a significant increase in Blacks; San Leandro, Hayward, Dublin, Livermore, Antioch, Brentwood, Concord, San Ramon, Santa Clara, Gilroy, Moraga, etc. It is possible we would have seen more Blacks leave SF for the suburbs earlier if not for housing discrimination, which was outlawed in 1964. Middle class Blacks left the City for the same reasons others do, better, newer, larger homes, better weather, better schools, nicer environment, less crime. And of course many may have followed their jobs out of the City.
I worked in Contra Costa County for a short time in 1970. Antioch was redneck where a Black person would not be caught on the street after dark. There were 42 Blacks living in Antioch at the time. In 2010, there were 17,667 Blacks living in Antioch.
Upper-middle class Blacks are starting to return to San Francisco. Among Blacks with steady employment living in SF it was 18,935 in 2009 and 23,507 in 2015, a 24% increase. However, many of these may be young people who will leave the City when they have children. But some will stay. In the West of Twin Peaks owner-occupied single-family neighborhoods there has been in increase in employed Blacks.
Most states let retirees defer property tax payments. Of course, they own millions of dollars in the form of those homes, and could always cash out and go to Florida if they really felt squeezed.
Lovely how the YIMBYs ignore all the middle-class, working class and fixed income retirees from middle and working class careers who own homes in SF and would be screwed if Prop 13 were completely abolished. YIMBY’s live in a fantasy us-and-them land that makes them victims due to cognitive dissonance.
95% White in SF? When was that… in the 1940’s?
Looking at trends in more recent history paints a different picture.
Perhaps no aspect of the annual migration in and out of San Francisco is as notable as the outflow of African Americans. San Francisco was 13.4 percent African American in 1970, but its population as of 2016 is less than 6 percent black. The population has steadily declined, and the trend seems likely to continue. From 2010 to 2014, there was annual net out-migration of around 2,000 African Americans from the city. That represents a 4.6 percent decline of the population every year.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/san-francisco-diversity-migration/481668/
There is a downward trend in non-Hispanic Whites in SF from 44% in 2000 to 42.0% in 2010 to 41.2% in 2016. Black SF residents with steady jobs increased by 4,632 from 5.5% in 2009 to 5.7% in 2015. In the single-family, owner occupied neighborhoods West of Twin Peaks there has been an increase in both Black and Hispanic upper middle class workers. The Black upper middle class are among the gentrifiers in the Mission. When I was born the City was 95% White. It would appear the City has never been more diverse.
We need a candidate who supports real diversity. That includes diversity in race, income and political thought.
Minorities are being gentrified out of this city faster than a Tesla Roadster, our income divide is the worst in the nation and political thought is too liberal and unpractical (why not get someone who embraces an even split of Democrats, Republicans and Independents?).
But, we don’t want to do that. Because we might actually come up with practical solutions!
Why should millionaire landlords not be taxed on the value of their landholdings?
Eliminate the Corporate Loophole that allows Corporations (only) to sell property without reassessment.
No homeowner should want Prop 13 repealed. The year before Prop 13 went into effect, my parents property tax increased by 400%. That is why there is Prop 13.
A local income tax would not be felt by the stinking rich. They’d just claim residence at another one of their mansions.
An income tax would hit the middle class and upper middle class.
We are already taxes extraordinarily more than most other states and cities. If there’s never a limit to spending, there will never be a limit to the need for taxes.
And California has the highest poverty rate (20%) in the entire United States due to the unnecessarily high cost of housing because — as Watson Ladd points out — NIMBYs have stymied the creation of sufficient amounts of housing over the past 4 decades.
Tim is conflating “voters say they want change” with “all those voters want my kind of change”.
Apples and oranges. States, cities and counties spend money on different things.
(Nevada’s budget is $14bn and its population is 3.5x San Francisco.)
You have any numbers to back any of that up?
Redmond has advocated for changing state law to allow cities to levy income tax. Lee and Breed were against it. That would help, too.
California spends more State and local tax money per capita on welfare the all other “states” except Alaska and DC. SF has a $9 billion budget which is equal to the State of Nevada which has three time the number of residents.
One thing that was amazing about the Zarate case — someone broke into a car and made off with a high powered government issued gun, and the SFPD didn’t know squat about it. They just said they didn’t know if it was Zarate or not.
I’ve lived in NYC and I completely agree with the Giuliani analogy. We still don’t know what he did with the ‘squeegee guys’ who would rub greasy rags on your windshield when you were stuck in traffic. And we don’t care.
The US may have income inequality, but that does not stop people from other nations wanting to come to America to have some of our income inequality. See the attached report.
“These findings cast doubt on claims that rising inequality is responsible for slowed income growth in America—and they suggest that attempts to reduce income inequality, in the U.S. and elsewhere, may not produce higher living standards among the poor and the middle class.”
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/e21_01.pdf
“Across the developed world, countries with more inequality tend to have, if anything, higher living standards.
larger increases in inequality correspond with sharper rises in living
standards for the middle class and the poor alike.
In developed nations, greater inequality tends to accompany stronger economic growth.
America’s middle class enjoys living standards as high as, or higher than, any other nation.
America’s poor have higher living standards than their counterparts across much of Europe and the Anglosphere.”
It seems the USA has a higher standard of living compared to more equal nations such as Sweden, Denmark, UK, France, Japan etc.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
True. Also, he didn’t do much about petty crime, car break-ins and bicycle theft.
In other words, Lee was far too accommodating of the pro-crime progressives who defend these behaviors.
I would probably support taxing the superrich more. Over the years my neighbors have become richer as they have replaced those who leave. Many make two or three times or more than my income. I must admit I am sometimes envious that I can’t afford what they can. And as the cost of living goes up I am probably paying more for everything.
But my richer neighbors do take really good care of their property and have generally improved the neighborhood. It would be worse if the neighborhood were decaying. Because of neighborhood improvements I have the option of selling out and leaving the City, like many I know have done.
I understand that the statistics can be misleading re the upper versus bottom 20 percent. The issue might be the standard of living of the bottom 20 percent. Other than the extremes at the bottom, how are they doing.
Not about you but about me? No compassion? How do you know that? And how is that relevant?
At the moment no, I’m not suffering from economic inequality. But it isn’t about me.
And no economic system can sustain high levels of inequality for very long, so even though you can’t show an ounce of compassion for others, which is despicable, I’m here to tell you it will eventually economic inequality WILL affect you in some way unless changes are made.
Well, economic inequality sucks. It would be great if venture capitalists would sell their second yachts and use the money on education or housing for those in need.
BUT…San Francisco gets something of a bad wrap. When you look at the income tables of top 20% vs bottom 20% you usually see that our bottom 20% is wealthier than in just about any other city. It’s just that our top 20% is so damm rich that the formula cranks out a really ugly disparity number.
If you are a clerk at a Walgreens do you deserve to get paid more because some of your neighbors are building extremely valuable 21st century businesses?
How is it that in a boom SF doesn’t have enough tax money for social services? Answer: prop 13 +NIMBYism means the wealthy landowners who benefit from a rise in rents (since we don’t build enough) don’t contribute to the city budget. Ending the tech boom won’t help much.
I am guessing from your answer you don’t know. Are you suffering from economic inequality?
Number one reason Ed Lee’s approval was low – his failure to remove tent encampments within city limits. The next mayor – regardless of how much he or she decides to spend- needs to enforce sit/lie, remove tents from the sidewalks daily, and not stop.
Help Wanted:
Qualified applicants who would be able to skillfully manage a city with a large building which will likely collapse and fall over on its neighbors in the foreseeable future, and a cost of living index which has quadrupled the national average causing widespread homelessness and poverty amid pockets of the largest wealth ever created on the planet.
Job risks include a high probability of premature death but all applicants of any gender, ethnicity, religion, or even those from other species or planets are encouraged to apply.
“What’s so bad about economic inequality?”
That questions says everything anyone needs to know about you.
How do we know that voters want equity and redistribution of wealth? I don’t think voters want the government to take their hard-earned money and give it to less able citizens. What’s so bad about economic inequality? Governments that tried to make everyone equal were failures. Personally, I want law-and-order. I would love to see a Giuliani type mayor for SF.
Do you see anything in London Breed other than that she’s a black woman?
Do you see Redmond as “scared badly” of her, or merely mentioning that she tended to vote with Ed Lee?
Is he also “scared badly”of Ron Conway because he’s “an empowered black woman”?
Tim is really banging the drum on London Breed acting as both interim mayor and chair of the board. Why does an empowered black woman scare him so badly?