|
Dusseldorf posted:For a good example of NIMBY and "environmentalist" forces working together here in Berkeley they're working to revise the rules to make it harder to build tall buildings downtown. Ehh. The sad thing is, I don't disagree with about 80% of that. More public restrooms, more local and apprentice workers, more affordable housing, and getting rid of the absurd notion that dumping money into a "fund" is somehow equivalent to actually building affordable units are all noble endeavors. These are all relatively minor things that would help out and not really hinder development. There's just about 20% nimby stuff. The parking requirements are dumb, LEED Gold->Platinum can be relatively minor improvements and it isn't insurmountable unlike some claim yet it still shouldn't be an requirement but rather an incentive. I haven't read the language but "family-sized" requirement would probably be really bad.
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
Xaris posted:Ehh. The sad thing is, I don't disagree with about 80% of that. More public restrooms, more local and apprentice workers, more affordable housing, and getting rid of the absurd notion that dumping money into a "fund" is somehow equivalent to actually building affordable units are all noble endeavors. These are all relatively minor things that would help out and not really hinder development. There's just about 20% nimby stuff. The parking requirements are dumb, LEED Gold->Platinum can be relatively minor improvements and it isn't insurmountable unlike some claim yet it still shouldn't be an requirement but rather an incentive. I haven't read the language but "family-sized" requirement would probably be really bad. The problem you see repeatedly in Berkeley politics is the wealthy homeowners are thrilled to use anti-everything useful idiots that this place is ripe with to oppose any measure that would actually increase density and lower housing costs. The biggest problem I see is that people don't seem to realize that affordable housing is old housing stock. To get available old housing stock you need to build new housing stock which has been completely locked down for 40 years. Xaris posted:Ehh. The sad thing is, I don't disagree with about 80% of that. More public restrooms, more local and apprentice workers, more affordable housing, and getting rid of the absurd notion that dumping money into a "fund" is somehow equivalent to actually building affordable units are all noble endeavors. The issue is that the point of this isn't to get buildings built with those things. It's to not get buildings built. Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 20:29 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:The problem you see repeatedly in Berkeley politics is the wealthy homeowners are thrilled to use anti-everything useful idiots that this place is ripe with to oppose any measure that would actually increase density and lower housing costs. I think part of the problem is that truly affordable housing can only happen right now if (a)rents are set artificially low, such as by section 8 housing, or (b) a massive amount of the demand for more expensive housing is met. If the Bay Area needs half a million more units of housing, then building 100 units of "affordable" housing just means 100 tiny units that will be instantly gobbled up at rents of $2500+ a month, because there's just so much demand. So a community group sees plans to build something that will clearly wind up selling apartments at $400k each, and say "hey this isn't affordable housing, it's just further gentrification." And they're right, in the very short term, or if this new development actually involves first demolishing a larger number of units of existing cheaper housing. But in the broader case, all the different communities adding units of any kind to the marketplace is essential to creating the opportunity for affordable housing to exist at all.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:We elected one of the first openly-gay mayors in the world. Supervisor, not mayor.  UberJew posted:This seems less like a problem and more like the whole point of NIMBY activity. I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying? Yes, a lot of NIMBY activity seems to be an effort to increase property values and make SF more expensive and exclusive (though a lot of people who buy into NIMBY campaigns are ignorant of this, and think it's really about saving the working/middle class), but I would definitely call that "a problem".
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Rah! posted:I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying? Yes, a lot of NIMBY activity seems to be an effort to increase property values and make SF more expensive and exclusive (though a lot of people who buy into NIMBY campaigns are ignorant of this, and think it's really about saving the working/middle class), but I would definitely call that "a problem". I mean that the people who are leading those crusades don't consider turning their neighborhood into enclaves of the rich a problem, so explaining how that is a natural consequence of their advocacy isn't going to change their minds. The people who think it is about saving the middle class are also mostly people who think the 'middle class' starts at double the median income.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
UberJew posted:The people who think it is about saving the middle class are also mostly people who think the 'middle class' starts at double the median income. Not entirely. The high demand and perpetual lack of housing supply is why prices are always rising, but there are plenty of middle and lower class people who think that increased development is what's causing prices to rise, because all that recent development happens to be coinciding with the influx of wealthy transplants and the rapid rise of housing prices. They mistake correlation with causation. It doesn't help that due to the huge supply/demand problem (and the overly slow proposal/approval/permitting process, plus constant lawsuits and appeals of projects slowing things down more and driving prices up more), 90% of new buildings going up are luxury buildings (with the remaining stuff being subsidized affordable housing with a lottery and even certain requirements--like being old--to get in), which means that literally only wealthy people can move into market rate units in SF these days. You can't really blame so many people for jumping to the wrong conclusion about what the city needs, and unwittingly contributing to the problem more by advocating for less development. Rah! fucked around with this message at 00:06 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
So in ad-chat, I saw one this morning from Neel Kashkari where he starts cutting wood, and each log he cuts is titled "Taxes", "Welfare to jobs", "Crazy cross-state train". Take a wild guess which party he's from (and what his chances are this fall).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:So in ad-chat, I saw one this morning from Neel Kashkari where he starts cutting wood, and each log he cuts is titled "Taxes", "Welfare to jobs", "Crazy cross-state train". Take a wild guess which party he's from (and what his chances are this fall). It fun scanning the CA voting guide for the real loonies like a platform built around Obama's birth certificate and forcing him to undego social security everify.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Redgrendel2001 posted:I can guarantee you that this is never happening. I agree, there is no way the STEMs will unionize. There is too much of an anti-Communist presence from Koreans, plus Asian work ethic in general is pretty nuts. It leads to people just accepting what is a very bad situation.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I agree, there is no way the STEMs will unionize. There is too much of an anti-Communist presence from Koreans, plus Asian work ethic in general is pretty nuts. It leads to people just accepting what is a very bad situation. This month we can see what sort of settlement the lawsuit got on may 27: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/24/us-apple-google-settlement-idUSBREA3N1Y120140424 Probably a few million dollars in back wages, which will probably hurt Google very bad.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I agree, there is no way the STEMs will unionize. There is too much of an anti-Communist presence from Koreans, plus Asian work ethic in general is pretty nuts. It leads to people just accepting what is a very bad situation. What? Are you seriously saying that the reason STEM workers in the US will never unionize is because of asian immigrants? I think it has a lot more to do with "white collar" workers viewing themselves as seperate from, and more elite than, "blue collar" workers. Unions are for unskilled tradesmen, while STEM workers are part of the well-educated thinking-person crew who are smart enough to get paid well and not need unions. (I disagree with that view, if it isn't obvious, but I think it's a view that has been very deliberately and intentionally cultivated by the right for decades.)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:What? Are you seriously saying that the reason STEM workers in the US will never unionize is because of asian immigrants? A lot of college-bound young people are either bleeding heart, or stone-cold, but all agree unions are 'not needed', and the simple go to is that unions are a business started in your business to take from your business to sustain theirs. poo poo sells, is tough to dispel, and even if you do, so what? Unions are dead!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Armani posted:The guy I am currently seeing wants to become a K-12 teacher but not in this state. He feels California fucks the good teachers while giving horrid teachers permanent paying tenure, that government pensions to retires is killing the state, high taxes are a loving crime because the job creators will leave, etc. He also is pissed off at Unions in general and that takes some serious deprogramming to get that kind of hate down.... A bit E/N but there you have it.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:A lot of college-bound young people are either bleeding heart, or stone-cold, but all agree unions are 'not needed', and the simple go to is that unions are a business started in your business to take from your business to sustain theirs. Anecdotally it's more that unions are not even thought of. It's like the shapes from Flatland trying to conceptualize a third dimension, it just doesn't come up.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Armani posted:...high taxes are a loving crime because the job creators will leave... Divine Right of Kings 2.0
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
"How to Buzzword Your Buzzwordiest Buzzwords" by Gavin Newsome.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
withak posted:"How to Buzzword Your Buzzwordiest Buzzwords" by Gavin Newsome. at least it led to this great Colbert interview: http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/jipac1/gavin-newsom
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Gavin Newsom is kind of like a distilled, ultra-refined politician - clean-cut, handsome, utterly entrenched in the big-money wheeling and dealing of modern politics. But he was a pretty good mayor, and his politics are pretty well aligned to my own. I kind of view him as my personal politician-robot. Beep Boop Let's marry some gays today.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Yeah Newsom is a horrible person (sleeping with his campaign chief's wife) but he was one of the few saner politicians from San Francisco who managed to keep the crazies on the BoS in check.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Gavin Newsom is kind of like a distilled, ultra-refined politician - clean-cut, handsome, utterly entrenched in the big-money wheeling and dealing of modern politics. I'm voting for him because California deserves nothing less than a Nexus 5 in a position of power.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
We have a history of robotic governors, don't we? Grey Davis, the Terminator, Pete Wilson.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:We have a history of robotic governors, don't we? Grey Davis, the Terminator, Pete Wilson. Ronald Ray Gun.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Orly Taitz is going to be on the ballot again. She's in the primary for Attorney General, and has a huge spiel about OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE and nullifying federal treaties and statutes in the voter information pamphlet.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
gret posted:Yeah Newsom is a horrible person (sleeping with his campaign chief's wife) but he was one of the few saner politicians from San Francisco who managed to keep the crazies on the BoS in check. He did other horrible things, too, like kicking the residents of a homeless shelter out so he could talk about how there really were beds available. "Care Not Cash" wasn't a bad idea in an ideal setting, but without actually improving the 'care' bit it was a victim-blaming clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
Also I'm pretty sure I remember Gavin Newsom claiming during his first term that if the murder rate didn't drop, he wouldn't run for mayor a second time. Of course the murder rate increased and was higher than the previous 8 years on every year of his first term (with a 10 year high in 2005, rates nearly as high in 2004 and 2006, and a 12 year high in 2007, that was nearly matched again in 2008!), and he ran for mayor again. Also, being an alcoholic.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
The new LA Mayor, Garcetti, is doing a decent job not being a total waste of space. He's pretty tepid, but can anyone picture him for a Governorship?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:He did other horrible things, too, like kicking the residents of a homeless shelter out so he could talk about how there really were beds available. "Care Not Cash" wasn't a bad idea in an ideal setting, but without actually improving the 'care' bit it was a victim-blaming clusterfuck. I never heard about that, and actually had the impression that care not cash had been pretty successful at actually making a difference for homeless people, unlike the efforts of basically every previous mayor. I distinctly remember willie brown's homeless policy being "send waves of cops to sweep through golden gate park and arrest them, and while we're at it, be sure to confiscate and destroy all their belongings". Under "care not cash" we stopped giving cash to the homeless, but I thought there was also some large increase in the number of beds available per night, plus a focus on improving the various social services for homeless people. Was that all just a sham? As for the murder rate, I don't know what he promised, but he did deliver a lower violent crime and murder rate by 2009. Generally I liked that he was willing to fire people who weren't performing well, undertake major initiatives, wrangle with the famously contentious board of supervisors, and cut the budget when necessary. I don't know (or care) much about his personal life and generally have a positive impression of the guy. The slick, carefully-managed media appearance is a turn-off but also very understandable to me given how much the media tends to treat politicians like celebrities (focusing on how they dress, how their wives dress, that kind of poo poo).
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I never heard about that, and actually had the impression that care not cash had been pretty successful at actually making a difference for homeless people, unlike the efforts of basically every previous mayor. I distinctly remember willie brown's homeless policy being "send waves of cops to sweep through golden gate park and arrest them, and while we're at it, be sure to confiscate and destroy all their belongings". That's a really low bar to clear, though. quote:Under "care not cash" we stopped giving cash to the homeless, but I thought there was also some large increase in the number of beds available per night, plus a focus on improving the various social services for homeless people. Was that all just a sham? Mostly a sham, yeah, a lot of those things were actually getting cut at the same time, and it ignored that there's a large spectrum of things that still needed cash. It was the more 'liberal' version of the typical mayor attack on the homeless, but it was still blaming the homeless and dicking around with the tiny amount of money that goes to them as though that'd solve poo poo. Like I said, in an ideal world, it'd be fine, but we're not, and he knew that, and it wasn't paired with real improvements to the care system.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
gret posted:Yeah Newsom is a horrible person (sleeping with his campaign chief's wife) but he was one of the few saner politicians from San Francisco who managed to keep the crazies on the BoS in check. BoS = Brotherhood of Steel, right? Because that just feels right.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
The wikipedia article on Care Not Cash is pretty positive, suggesting at the end that the homeless population of SF went down by quite a lot by 2007. I'm afraid "real improvements" probably could never have involved opening up a large number of new beds for the homeless, which is of course the fundamental issue in san francisco, for all the reasons we've been discussing on the last several pages: NIMBYism and the difficulty of getting new affordable housing constructed. The other half of the coin is the way Reagan destroyed the mental health care system in this country in the 1980s. I give Newsom credit for making some kind of difference in a situation where the resources to really solve the problem just aren't available to a city mayor. But it is disappointing that the program wasn't an unqualified success. Board of Supervisors. In SF, notoriously batshit and dysfunctional, with occasional bright stars like Tom Ammiano.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The wikipedia article on Care Not Cash is pretty positive, suggesting at the end that the homeless population of SF went down by quite a lot by 2007. No, it doesn't. Nowhere does the Wiki article say that, and in fact, it has Newsom admitting the opposite. quote:I'm afraid "real improvements" probably could never have involved opening up a large number of new beds for the homeless, which is of course the fundamental issue in san francisco, for all the reasons we've been discussing on the last several pages: NIMBYism and the difficulty of getting new affordable housing constructed. The other half of the coin is the way Reagan destroyed the mental health care system in this country in the 1980s. I give Newsom credit for making some kind of difference in a situation where the resources to really solve the problem just aren't available to a city mayor. Credit for what? What actually happened that you're giving him credit for?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
quote:A study released February 9, 2005, indicated that the number of County Adult Assistance Programs (CAAP) residents who declared themselves to be homeless residents of San Francisco had decreased from 2,497 to 679 since implementation of Care Not Cash in May 2004.[3] As of January 2007, the caseload had decreased further to 333, although Mayor Newsom admitted in a radio interview that two or three new homeless persons come to San Francisco for each homeless person that gets off the streets.[4] A decrease from 2497 to 333. Newsom's admission doesn't seem to correspond with the data presented. Obdicut posted:Credit for what? What actually happened that you're giving him credit for? The homelessness problem in San Francisco experienced an 8-year period of not being swept under the rug and roundly ignored by everyone in city government. Mental health and substance abuse programs received funding they would not have received otherwise. A bunch of homeless people stopped getting free booze subsidies. The government's use of the city police as a tool for harassing the homeless was reduced significantly. I don't know what to tell you, man, I'm not getting how the program was "victim blaming." I was living in the city at the time, and alcoholism on the streets was a very real and prevalant problem, right in front of everyone's eyes, so I can't agree that pointing this out is just blaming victims. Newsom's programs specifically put money towards care and treatment in a way no previous mayor had bothered to do. He made a real effort to get more beds available, although obviously that wasn't as successful as anyone wanted, and the main source of beds that weren't NIMBYd into impossibility were the residential hotels in the tenderloin... which are of course owned and run by scummy tenderloin landlords. What do you think he should have done differently? I mean specifically, given the lack of additional funds being available at the time, given the lack of any will on the part of voters to have homeless people housed in their neighborhoods, given the lack of state or federal funding for free mental health care, and given that whatever programs SF implemented would be basically guaranteed to attract homeless people from other bay area cities. I actually think what Newsom "admitted" in that quote up top is a sign of success for the program. Homeless people in SF were being treated well enough that homeless people in Oakland, San Jose, etc. were pulled in, seeking better treatment and services.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:A decrease from 2497 to 333. Newsom's admission doesn't seem to correspond with the data presented. That's just how many people used a single city assistance program and has nothing to do with the actual homeless population. If you think the homeless population has ever been as low as 2497, I have a tunnel to Marin to sell you.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
I don't, of course not. But it's one of the few metrics I've seen. Unless you erect an Israeli-style "security fence" around the city and start using checkpoints to control who gets in and out, you cannot really measure how effective homeless care programs are on the basis of how many homeless people you count on the street at night. So all you can do is count how many individuals, identified by name, are going through the system and what their outcomes are. One particular program seeing its caseload go down is a suggestion of success. But you and Obdicut are right to say that doesn't necessarily mean "the homeless population went down," so I retract that. I think Newsom's initiative helped a lot of homeless people that werne't being helped. I think it was a net positive for homeless people in San Francisco, compared to the alternative of "do fuckall, arrest them when they wander too far into our tourist destinations" policy of his predecessors, Agnos, Jordan and Brown. Especially Frank Jordon and Willie Brown, gently caress those guys.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Did the number of people using CAAP decrease as well? Perhaps they just kicked people off of the program. e: I guess by the name it's a county program but you get my concern, how do we know that people weren't just kicked off of the program?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Did the number of people using CAAP decrease as well? Perhaps they just kicked people off of the program. I don't know. FYI, SF is its own county.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:A decrease from 2497 to 333. Newsom's admission doesn't seem to correspond with the data presented. Do you have citations for any of this? The homeless problem has never been 'ignored', anyway. it's always been front and center. And when you protest against 'victim-blaming' and call cash payments to the homeless 'booze subsidies' it's kind of hard to take you seriously. quote:What do you think he should have done differently? I mean specifically, given the lack of additional funds being available at the time, given the lack of any will on the part of voters to have homeless people housed in their neighborhoods, given the lack of state or federal funding for free mental health care, and given that whatever programs SF implemented would be basically guaranteed to attract homeless people from other bay area cities. Worked his butt off to get funding increased, not done sweetheart deals with developers and instead insisted on more low-income and section 8 housing being built.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I never heard about that, and actually had the impression that care not cash had been pretty successful at actually making a difference for homeless people, unlike the efforts of basically every previous mayor. I distinctly remember willie brown's homeless policy being "send waves of cops to sweep through golden gate park and arrest them, and while we're at it, be sure to confiscate and destroy all their belongings". Hate to break it to you, but the cops never stopped arresting homeless people whenever they feel like it, and they never stopped throwing homeless people's stuff away when they feel like it. Newsom also started his own regular sweeps of golden gate park to remove the homeless. All it did was push them a few blocks away into the surrounding neighborhoods. The doorway of a donut shop near my apartment became a new homeless dude hangout spot after those sweeps started. A law banning overnight parking of campers on city streets was also passed when Newsom was in office, which boned quite a few homeless people (which was the entire point of the law). Newsom also was the one who introduced SF's sit-lie law, which passed and made it illegal to sit or lie on the sidewalk...which was also obviously aimed at homeless people. Thankfully the cops don't really enforce it, but they can if they want (and guess who the cops are most likely to enforce it on?). Oh yeah, while Newsom was around the city also started their practice of hosing the sidewalks of the tenderloin down at night. Sleeping homeless people in the way? They won't wake up/don't want to move? Who cares, blast em with the water cannon! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEyhuegv6Ts edit: that video's kind of crappy. I remember seeing one where it's much more clear that a sleeping homeless guy is getting hosed down, but I can't seem to find it. As for the amount of homeless people in SF, the estimates I've seen over the years usually claim that there are anywhere from 5,000 to 15,000 of them. The lower estimates are always from the official city homeless counts that are occasionally done, but which are inaccurate because they're done at night, the people counting aren't allowed to actually ask people if they're homeless, and people living in cars, or squatting in vacant buildings, or otherwise hidden from plain view, aren't counted. I will say that having Newsom around was good for business and development, and without him we may not have seen nearly as many much-needed housing units get built over the past decade. Rah! fucked around with this message at 20:31 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:Do you have citations for any of this? Do you? I mean you've made a number of uncited assertions, while I've at least bothered to link to wikipedia. quote:The homeless problem has never been 'ignored', anyway. it's always been front and center. Among community activists, sure. Previous mayors mostly engaged the homeless problem using the police. There was very little, if any, action out of the mayor's office to actually improve services or actually try to provide more beds. That was mostly seen as something for the charities to do. At best, mayors occasionally signed into law efforts made by the BoS. At worst, they went out of their way to punish homeless people in a blatant effort to get them to just move somewhere else. quote:And when you protest against 'victim-blaming' and call cash payments to the homeless 'booze subsidies' it's kind of hard to take you seriously. I didn't protest against victim-blaming, you did. I pointed out that alcohol and drugs on the street were (and still are) a very big and pervasive problem, one which was, in my opinion, absolutely exacerbated by giving cash payouts to people with mental illnesses. Of course homeless people are going to self-medicate, given the horrendous circumstances they're in. As well-intentioned as the cash was, I am convinced it was hurting more than it was helping. It was (and still is) demonstrable that a big amount of the money went straight into substance abuse. Substance abuse and addiction is one of the major causes of homelessness! So yes, cash payments to the homeless are, at least in part, booze subsidies. Prove me wrong. quote:Worked his butt off to get funding increased, not done sweetheart deals with developers and instead insisted on more low-income and section 8 housing being built. I think he did work hard to get funding increased, and I don't think it was (or still is) possible to get major low-income housing projects done in a reasonable amount of time in San Francisco given how ferociously the various neighborhoods push back against them. The biggest exception in recent history was Newsom's efforts to get a project done in Baysview-Hunter's Point (one of the shittiest neighborhoods in the city, which is why the NIMBYs didn't prevent it). From this SFGate article in 2007, quote:Since Newsom became mayor, the city has put nearly $500 million into construction of affordable housing, and it is working to rebuild the public housing projects that are home to nearly 20 percent of San Francisco's families. There's a plan to put 6,000 new homes and apartments on Treasure Island and thousands more high-rise apartments and condominiums on Rincon Hill and around a rebuilt Transbay Terminal. $500 million for affordable housing. That's nothing to sneeze at. I mean I do get it. Newsom is very pro-business. He likes to operate hand-in-hand with business interests. Care Not Cash was not an unqualified success. But there's this thing we liberals like to do, where we eat our own? Nothing is ever good enough, there's no true scotsman. And especially in San Francisco, you get this thing where leaders are bending over backwards to try and enact liberal policy, and they get screaming protestors as a result because adding density to a city invariably means tearing something down in order to build something else, and "affordable housing" in SF means anything under like $2000 a month, and literally any effort you make on behalf of homeless people pisses off at least one group who thinks your way is the wrong way. Gavin Newsom is not perfect but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that he genuinely tried to help the homeless in San Francisco by recognizing that the same tactics that had been used for decades weren't working and weren't helping and that a different approach was necessary. And I think it had a positive effect. And I'm a bit annoyed at being attacked for saying so, especially by someone who demands I cite sources without having cited a single source himself. Like, can you back this statement up? Obdicut posted:He did other horrible things, too, like kicking the residents of a homeless shelter out so he could talk about how there really were beds available.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 20:51
|
|