Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And it's not just race. Look at San Fransisco, ultra left-wing, and has a severe problem with homelessness. How is that "egalitarian?"
It's not. Not even remotely so.
It is a serious problem, certainly. And to that end, you won't find a city that has more homelessness programs in the country. Obviously it is not enough, but I challenge the assumption that those there do not are about the issue and recognize the problem (I know they do because I live in the region).
What would you say if the City offered no solutions or programs for them?
You should know that the City is changing quite dramatically, by the way. Politics here is a dynamic thing, and "libertarian-minded" people are becoming more common as the tech industry takes over. Many want to see all homeless programs ended and to have the homeless problem shipped out of the city (or to have some sort of heavy-handed solution like what was employed by Giuliani in NY in the 90's).
That said, this a complicated problem, and is very much linked to our affordability issues. Which have to do with NIMBYism, partially. I'm very anti-NIMBY (and make my case very often about that). The SF Bay Area is not a monolithic entity. The City (and region) has frankly too much demand on it, and this very much stresses the lower end of the income brackets.
I think you should probably stop talking about problems you know little about...or would like to simplify down to one specific causal factor (i.e. the Democrats!). These are multi-factorial problems that have an immense amount of layers of complexity built into them. It's not as simple as you want it to be.
And SF is a very capitalistic place. It is not communist. It is not even really that socialistic. You still need to have money (and a lot of it) to win here. It is very capitalistic.
You keep making excuses for extremely racist NIMBY left-wingers, left-wing gun grabbers/banners (similar to Hitler and the Nazis, and Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US), and the left-wing regimes that murdered over 100 million people in just the 20th century, alone.
Aren't you recognizing the pattern?
Take off your blinders and look much more carefully at the truth.
How deos that voting break down by race and neighborhood?
I'm not seeing the pattern because you are, again, doing exactly what I said you were doing. You are saying "Chicago (as a whole) is blue!" and then using that to make your argument. Without providing the very important finite detail you would even need to make the point you are trying to make (i.e. that Chicago white residents are racists who are responsible for the segregation problem and are not interested in solving it...hence showing that the "left" is not "egalitarian"). And you are again ignoring the historical context that lead to segregation in the first place (and which exists in most major cities in the US).
So many assumptions. So many leaps required to get to that "point".
It is a serious problem, certainly. And to that end, you won't find a city that has more homelessness programs in the country. Obviously it is not enough, but I challenge the assumption that those there do not are about the issue and recognize the problem (I know they do because I live in the region).
Oh, they may recognize it, but they're not doing enough to address it. That's NOT "egalitarian."
Quote:
What would you say if the City offered no solutions or programs for them?
None at all is even worse than not nearly enough, but why would either happen in an extremely left-wing supposedly "egalitarian" city?
Quote:
You should know that the City is changing quite dramatically, by the way. Politics here is a dynamic thing, and "libertarian-minded" people are becoming more common as the tech industry takes over.
Oh, they may recognize it, but they're not doing enough to address it. That's NOT "egalitarian."
Define enough? And what would it be like if they offered no help?
This topic is debated all of the time here. People want to fix this problem. It is not easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
None at all is even worse than not nearly enough, but why would either happen in an extremely left-wing supposedly "egalitarian" city?
Your assumption is that SF is "extremely left-wing". It's really not. Perhaps on some issues it is, especailly compared to more conservative areas of the US. But SF is still incredibly capitalistic. You need money to survive here. It is still the USA. Supply and Demand are still concepts that exist.
A city that is as capitalistic as it comes is not "extremely left-wing".
Seriously. I do not think this poster understands these terms. IMO, Ms. Clinton is more center right and, yes, SF is capitalism to the extreme. Millions of dollars are spent annually on the homeless problem but it doesn't seem to be helping (I could be wrong). I live in Oakland and we never had tent cities or at least so many of them until the past year or so. Demand is simply outpacing supply here when it comes to housing units and so many are priced out of the market. Very sad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
