Comment by ajays | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajays | Hacker News Reader

MUNI is just one of the problems with SF. There are many more.

Firstly: this is a city of transplants. You'd be hard-pressed to find a native SF'an in your daily interactions. (I know just a couple, and I've been here 6 years). As a result, many of them don't vote; or if they do, they don't have the context to see through the bullshit that is put out there. They'll take a politician's word, when a long-term resident will remember that that fucker has been lying for 20 years. As a corollary to this, you can control the City if you can put together a decent-sized voting block. So, for example: the City has 25,000 employees. If you can get the City employees on your side, then their votes alone are enough to swing most elections in your favor. For example: many years ago, the MUNI drivers got the City Charter amended to guarantee that they would be at least the second-highest paid drivers in the nation! Can you even imagine the clout they had to modify a city's constitution? (Thankfully, this was repealed a couple of years ago).

Secondly: the City has a lot of money to spend. The people in power stay in power via a huge game of doing (and getting) favors. For example: the City spends over $500 million/year on various "non profits". Your non-profit won't get a dollar unless you employ "consultants" who will help you write the proposal; and these consultants are very well-connected people. And they get a ton of money for a few days work (it's not uncommon to see such consultants be on payroll making $300K at a non-profit, but noone ever sees them at work).

Thirdly: the City is exceedingly corrupt. If you know the right people, you can get away with anything. This is why you have leeches like (Slick) Willie Brown and Rose Pak running the show. They know how the system works, and make a living just by greasing the wheels and pulling strings.

This is why, during elections, I vote for the people who are the most removed from the corridors of power. Anyone who has had anything to do with the System doesn't get my vote. It may be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but the City needs an enema.

The homeless problem in the city is freaking insane, and I'm sorry to say, but the more they spend on it, the more they simply attract them from other places.

My mother is a chronically homeless drug addict. Obviously, despite attempts from my family over the years to help her, she is beyond our help. Money is poured into drugs, she refuses to work, and her mental illness contributes to the problem. One thing that she, and many, many homeless people I have encoutnered in my visits to shelters, are good at is finding cities that offer handouts and finding a way to get to these cities. My mother is a member of an entire counter/sub/culture which bounces from city to city, moving when the city's time limit on free handouts runs out. When conservatives criticize welfare dependency, this is what they point to. I don't agree with them, but this is a real problem.

San Fran draws homeless drug addicts like a moth to a flame. As a city, the thought is that these programs are a compassionate thing to do. Enabling drug addiction is not compassionate to the homeless, and it certainly isn't compassionate or caring to the citizens of the city who have to fund this ridiculous garbage. When you provide a soft landing to drug addicts, you are enabling them.

Its not just the Tenderloin. My first time in the city in many years, back in 2004, I got off the BART with my brother, who had never been to the city. Literally, within minutes of us arriving near Fisherman's Wharf, (I wanted to show him some sights) a drunk homeless man attempted to punch me in the face. He was much smaller than me, so it wasn't dangerous, but it certainly would have been bad for a smaller person or a woman.

My niece is in fashion school in the city, and has been groped and grabbed by homeless on multiple occasions. It is out of control, and it gives liberalism a bad name.

Are conservative cities assholes to homeless? Yes. Do they treat them like human beings? No. Do citizens of said cities get harassed? No.

Many cities have a middle ground, such as having zero tolerance for homeless intimidating/touching citizens. If you touch, you are no longer welcome.

There are many who would call me heartless. But when a mentally ill/drug addicted person becomes a predator, and attacks a loved one, they quickly change their tune, especially when they find out that the predator was attracted to their neighborhood by handouts purchased with their own tax dollars.

Reminds me of:

Homeless Are Fighting Back Against Panhandling Bans

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/us/homeless-are-fighting-b...

From your time observing the machinations here, what do you think accounts for the lack of any form of sustained opposition to these corrupt practices?

In one word? Apathy. Too few people are really invested in SF. If you're a resident of SF, you're busy working, partying, etc. Things aren't too bad and the money is flowing easily, so you don't care.

Things could be better if there was more home ownership and people put down roots here.

What you're saying makes sense. But it's kind of difficult to own a home when the cost of housing is so high and continuing to increase. From what I understand [1], there are laws that prevent high-rises (high-density residential buildings) from being built. With lots of people wanting to move there, simple supply-and-demand dictates that prices soar.

1: http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/01/san-francisco-can-become-a-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com