San Francisco: The Worst-Run Big City in the U.S. (SF Weekly) (Oakland: amusement parks, houses)

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

It's time to face facts: San Francisco is spectacularly mismanaged and arguably the worst-run big city in America. This year's city budget is an astonishing $6.6 billion — more than twice the budget for the entire state of Idaho — for roughly 800,000 residents. Yet despite that stratospheric amount, San Francisco can't point to progress on many of the social issues it spends liberally to tackle — and no one is made to answer when the city comes up short.

San Francisco News - The Worst-Run Big City in the U.S.

Interesting to see SF Weekly come down so hard on the city itself.

[18Montclair]

This is actually typical. SF is the most self hating place I've ever been too. City people tend to be cynical about everything.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Crony liberalism / trade unionism / capitalism at its utter worst.

[hoffdano]

Of the 41 comments to that article - only one, from a union member, defended the status quo.

SF's per capita spending is incredible. Who pays all those taxes?

[hsw]

First, SF is just a commie/yuppie suburb of SV; without good restaurants and proximity to SV's high-income jobs and powerful economy, SF would be a truly irrelevant little tourist town, sort of like NewOrleans or Miami or Boston or LV

But it's all relative

Would argue Manhattan is even worse run than SF....higher income taxes, far more costly rents/housing costs, more potholes on much, much slower roads/fwys, worse daily simple food (Midtown office corridor vs SF FinDt)...

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

This is actually typical. SF is the most self hating place I've ever been too. City people tend to be cynical about everything.

It might not be that the people are defective in any way. With so much going on in a big city, there's just more to hate.

[krudmonk]

SF is a microcosm of the state right now. We're polarized by political parties to the point where we can't find a healthy balance of social progressivism (is that a word?) and fiscal responsibility.

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

This is actually typical. SF is the most self hating place I've ever been too. City people tend to be cynical about everything.

It's exactly the opposite. Maybe natives are more objective in looking at the place, but the transplant majority lives with their heads in the clouds. SF Weekly has traditionally been guilty of this self-absorbed fluff so I applaud them for finding fault for once.

Originally Posted by hsw

First, SF is just a commie/yuppie suburb of SV; without good restaurants and proximity to SV's high-income jobs and powerful economy, SF would be a truly irrelevant little tourist town, sort of like NewOrleans or Miami or Boston or LV

Dude, it's old...

[jman650]

Originally Posted by hsw

First, SF is just a commie/yuppie suburb of SV; without good restaurants and proximity to SV's high-income jobs and powerful economy, SF would be a truly irrelevant little tourist town, sort of like NewOrleans or Miami or Boston or LV

But it's all relative

Yes absolutely, because there are no embassies or sports teams or film production or anything else of importance in SF. There is no interesting architecture, diversity, spectacular beauty, scenic views, quality schools, museums, vibrant neighborhoods, waterfronts, Financial District, skyscrapers, subway systems, Chinatown, Fisherman's Wharf, bridges, arts scene, music scene, symphony, opera, ballet, theater district, ethnic neighborhoods, decent nightlife, history, activism, festivals, parks, icons, or anything that makes a city interesting/worthwhile or provides an urban experience, whatsoever. Just commies in their small residential neighborhoods and nothing else. Its basically a far left, non-rural version of Campbell, minus all the jobs since SF doesn't have any. I think there might be a Safeway and a 7-11 on one side of town, and I hear they're getting a gym soon, but I'm not entirely sure.
You are so correct in your assessment, you yuppie/work-is-all-life-amounts-to-minded troll.

If SF, New Orleans, Miami, Boston and Vegas can be written off as nothing more than amusement parks, then Silicon Valley (including your beloved Palo Alto ) can be written off as nothing more than a swamp of office parks and strip malls. Without the attention brought to the region by SF, SV would be a truly irrelevant valley of nothingness. Your view of life is disturbingly narrow.

But it's all relative

What schools did you attend that could not even afford you the proper definition of the term "suburb?" And how are you so grossly unaware of all that exists within the city limits of San Francisco? I cannot imagine how insufferable attending a party with you would be, never being able to bring a conversation outside of the realm of work/finance.

Keep in mind that THE SF GIANTS hold control over the territory you're claiming to be the "urban center" here, shows like Top Chef and No Reservations come to and identify the area with SAN FRANCISCO (NOT Silicon Valley), and the definition of "urban" in the Bay Area is San Francisco (and to a lesser degree Oakland, but again NOT Silicon Valley). Kind of odd for these to be the traits of a "suburb," don't ya think?

Now if were talking about which side of the Bay Area contributes the most economically, then it is undoubtedly the South Bay/Silicon Valley. But there is more to life than just work, and it is the influx of people that share a portion your despicable mentality invading SF by way of SV that has effectively attacked what was once a very pleasant way of life here. And let's not pretend like SF doesn't have contain a significant portion of the Bay Area's workforce.

SF would be just fine without SV; it was for its first 130 years when SV was just trees and orchards. Now SV has added some houses and office parks, big whoop. The Bay Area is what it is thanks to the draw of San Francisco, don't forget that. SV is now making the region prosper even more, but that hasn't caused SF to somehow become irrelevant.

What causes some of you weirdos to view things in such an odd way? You guys miss out on so much by limiting yourselves so. I can't understand why SF receives so many critics who judge it so inaccurately. And they seem to come from all angles. Its ridiculous.

[jman650]

As for the OP, I voted "worse than average." I don't care for how its run, but the same goes for a lot of big cities. I don't think we're on a Detroit/Marion Berry level quite yet. But it is run pretty darn poorly.

[humboldtrat]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

[i] — and no one is made to answer when the city comes up short.

SF is ONLY $500 million in the hole. But what do you expect from a city that seems to worry more about what the weather will be like in 2075, but isn't able to keep the streets and parks clean, run transit on time (without getting stabbed or shot at), do anything about the homeless or give kids a decent education?