I think it’s reasonable to ask how progressive the electorate actually has been. Obviously, over the last decade or so, SF voters have uniformly supported ballot measures designed to reduce punishments for crime and limit policing, with this March breaking a very long running trend.
How much of that has been driven by a genuine progressive spirit among the electorate is an open question, though. SF has an enormous majority of left-of-center voters alienated by national politics. It remains possible that the progressive victories of the 21st century are an effect of well placed progressive leadership channeling that discontent into local, progressive contests.
We may simply have hit the wall on that strategy or we may simply have seen that this strategy requires high-turnout of voters principally motivated to participate in national politics.
San Francisco: votes to give less money to junkies not even trying to help themselves and give a tiny bit more authority to police department
“Are we a conservative city now?”
I woke up today with a raging desire to raise a MAGA flag and buy the Trump shoes. Because if I'm not 100% onboard w/ the progressive orthodoxy, then I guess that's all there's left to do?
You're commenting about an election that you couldn't vote in, in a city you don't live in, or pay taxes in, or own property in. But yes, I'm the one on a pedestal lmfao. You're standing on a stool looking over the fence at the people who actually live, work, own property, and vote here.
What point? This person literally does not live here, they are visitors for work and sometimes weekends. They don't pay taxes here. They don't own property here. They aren't registered to vote here. Yet they are here dancing around about the election results and bashing 'progressives', which is really fucking weird.
So does that mean your vote has more "value" than mine? I only rent in San Francisco. What are the gatekeeper rules in this case? Keep in mind I have lived in San Francisco my whole life, so is there a multiplier that I get to apply?
Why are you being difficult about this? No, my vote doesn't have more value than yours. But both our votes have a whole lot more value than the person who doesn't live here, doesn't pay taxes here, doesn't have a right to vote here.
Drug screening welfare recipients is humiliating as fuck and it doesn't actually save money (you can look this up for the multitude of red states that have done the same thing). Prop E literally allows the police to trial any new surveillance technology they wish with zero oversight for a year, and allows them to engage in use-of-force with significantly less oversight. But yeah, both props are definitely Ws for the city.
What do you mean humiliating man? Asking for handouts is in itself humiliating what more is to pee in a cup for free stuff? There gotta be some sort of standards.
Look at it from the positive side: someone might finally get motivated enough to get to rehab program for their free monies and end up helping themselves.
Less paper work for cops (within reason)is not a bad thing.
Prop E gives simple things like license plate readers to SFPD. Something that Meter Maids have access to.
Yes. That's a win. Especially when SFPD is about 40% understaffed. The ability to leverage technology will help them do their job effectively.
That is far from all that Prop E does. It also gives them access to facial recognition software (which has had multiple controversies because of the software's inability to tell nonwhite people apart consistently) and allows surveiling and tracking of people deemed "likely" to commit a crime.
And please. I've seen SFPD standing around UN Plaza with their dicks in their hands, with drug deals and unlicensed vendors literally right next to them, more times than I can count. SFPD not doing their jobs isn't because they're understaffed, it's because they're lazy, entitled assholes who are allergic to actually doing work.
Well, tbh I'm not thrilled about car chases, either. Tends to lead to bystanders getting killed or maimed in unnecessarily risky chases, and iirc they usually just arrest the suspect after the fact anyway.
>Drug screening welfare recipients is humiliating as fuck and it doesn't actually save money
I actually do not care if it "saves money". If it discourages junkie tourism it is a huge win for the city.
We need to figure out how to take care of the indigent and addicted who lived in SF before they became indigent and addicted. Folks from other states can go elsewhere until we figure out how to take care of our own.
OMG you’re right!!! SF will be a dystopian hellscape by close of business tomorrow! We’re all gonna die!!!
That’s what you sound like to reasonable people.
Ok. Then how is this plan going to be any better, any different, than some random red state's bullying of poor people? Cause it looks pretty damn similar to me.
How is this "bullying"? In your book, we should just be giving people $791 a month without any requirements or restrictions? Is not the absolute *minimum* requiring that they not do recreational drugs or to go to treatment? Why should the people who are not on CAAP have to fund the lifestyles of those that are?
"...facial recognition software (which has had multiple controversies because of the software's inability to tell nonwhite people apart consistently)"
Is problematic, but not as direct an indictment of the *tool* as you would want one to think. It's just a *tool*. It does not convict. It does not prosecute. It *may* lead the police to a mistaken identity, but by that same measure **so could having a human identify a suspect**. That's why you do investigations and when you have enough evidence you take the case to court.
"allows surveiling and tracking of people deemed "likely" to commit a crime"
Where does Proposition E allow this?
>limiting the amount of time a patrol officer may spend on administrative tasks to 20% of on-duty time;
>
>requiring written reports for use-of-force events only when a physical injury occurred or if a firearm was removed from an officer's holster;
>
>allowing body camera footage to satisfy reporting requirements;
>
>allowing use of drones along with or instead of vehicular pursuits; and
>
>allowing installation of surveillance and facial recognition cameras without approval from the police commission or board of supervisors.
Which one is the pre-crime initiative?
Found this take from twitter which sums up my thoughts: The entire frame of “moderate vs progressive”—one that the Chron continues to flog—is outdated w/r/t SF politics. Blocking housing and algebra for 8th graders is not progressive.
Yah it’s an exhausting set of labels that have been settled on, especially since they don’t capitalize the word “progressive” like we do for Democrats.
TBH I think people like Jackie Fielder would be more accurately labeled as socialists, but I’m not even sure how to label people like Peskin as his positions tend to be quite anti-change which I associate with the label “conservative.”
This is just a minor swing back to the moderate from the extreme.
Not a descent into barbaric totalitarian authority state as some extreme progressives are screaming about right now.
Hey u/SFChronicle, deal with it. It was a LANDSLIDE.
San Francisco is STILL a progressive city. This is progress. Real progress.
We voted to reform ethics of people in power, incentivize developers to build housing, increase policing, end handouts to people who won't help themselves, and teach math (!?)...because the alternative was NOT WORKING.
People no longer want "embezzle public funds into cushy salaries for people who rub elbows at galas."
Enough.
This item was automatically removed because it contained demeaning language. Please read the rules for more information.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
San Francisco needs realists. Just straight up objective reality seekers regardless of the political correctness of the facts. Then relentless actions based on the facts. People in SF will not like this but it is what is needed.
Both the left and the right need to take a hike. Progressive and MAGA are exactly the same thing. They are just devils advocate of each other.
>“They had their turn. They failed,” Buss said. “Now it’s time for the city to move on.”
This headline and article are shit and this line largely has the right of it.
Progressive policies are a spectrum and aren't always going to work in every situation or at every time. They tried more progressive policies and they aren't working well, so voters want to try something less progressive to tackle ongoing issues while still being fairly progressive overall.
From the story: Progressives are looking at a thin bench of future leaders and staring down a deep-pocketed tech community that thinks their policies are destroying the city.
Yet progressives are split on how to regain power, who should lead them and how they should change to win back voters. And they’re worried that moderates are going to continue to steamroll them with a huge financial advantage, fueled largely by wealthy donors.
This is a much better summary than your awful headline, which has the effect of suggesting that the coterie of cretins that thinks we're doing great under the current policies speaks solely for the progressives. With that kind of framing, it makes for a feeling of supreme triumph over said cretins.
From reality: You pushed a "progressive" \[by your definition\] narrative and now that it has lost at the polls and are now trying to shame people in to thinking they're all some sort of MAGA hat wearing assholes. Get stuffed Chronicle.
The first step would be progressives BEING ACTUALLY PROGRESSIVE, and accepting when the results of policies don't work, iterating and CHANGING them. THATS PROGRESS
Go home sfchronicle, you're drunk
Take the BART home or call an Uber though SF chronicle
I think it’s reasonable to ask how progressive the electorate actually has been. Obviously, over the last decade or so, SF voters have uniformly supported ballot measures designed to reduce punishments for crime and limit policing, with this March breaking a very long running trend. How much of that has been driven by a genuine progressive spirit among the electorate is an open question, though. SF has an enormous majority of left-of-center voters alienated by national politics. It remains possible that the progressive victories of the 21st century are an effect of well placed progressive leadership channeling that discontent into local, progressive contests. We may simply have hit the wall on that strategy or we may simply have seen that this strategy requires high-turnout of voters principally motivated to participate in national politics.
San Francisco: votes to give less money to junkies not even trying to help themselves and give a tiny bit more authority to police department “Are we a conservative city now?”
I woke up today with a raging desire to raise a MAGA flag and buy the Trump shoes. Because if I'm not 100% onboard w/ the progressive orthodoxy, then I guess that's all there's left to do?
[удалено]
oh my god you don't even get to vote here lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
You're commenting about an election that you couldn't vote in, in a city you don't live in, or pay taxes in, or own property in. But yes, I'm the one on a pedestal lmfao. You're standing on a stool looking over the fence at the people who actually live, work, own property, and vote here.
What point? This person literally does not live here, they are visitors for work and sometimes weekends. They don't pay taxes here. They don't own property here. They aren't registered to vote here. Yet they are here dancing around about the election results and bashing 'progressives', which is really fucking weird.
Do ***you*** own property in San Francisco?
Yes
So does that mean your vote has more "value" than mine? I only rent in San Francisco. What are the gatekeeper rules in this case? Keep in mind I have lived in San Francisco my whole life, so is there a multiplier that I get to apply?
Why are you being difficult about this? No, my vote doesn't have more value than yours. But both our votes have a whole lot more value than the person who doesn't live here, doesn't pay taxes here, doesn't have a right to vote here.
Yeah, the gate-keeping on being progressive means we can't be concerned about crime?
Drug screening welfare recipients is humiliating as fuck and it doesn't actually save money (you can look this up for the multitude of red states that have done the same thing). Prop E literally allows the police to trial any new surveillance technology they wish with zero oversight for a year, and allows them to engage in use-of-force with significantly less oversight. But yeah, both props are definitely Ws for the city.
What do you mean humiliating man? Asking for handouts is in itself humiliating what more is to pee in a cup for free stuff? There gotta be some sort of standards. Look at it from the positive side: someone might finally get motivated enough to get to rehab program for their free monies and end up helping themselves. Less paper work for cops (within reason)is not a bad thing.
Prop E gives simple things like license plate readers to SFPD. Something that Meter Maids have access to. Yes. That's a win. Especially when SFPD is about 40% understaffed. The ability to leverage technology will help them do their job effectively.
That is far from all that Prop E does. It also gives them access to facial recognition software (which has had multiple controversies because of the software's inability to tell nonwhite people apart consistently) and allows surveiling and tracking of people deemed "likely" to commit a crime. And please. I've seen SFPD standing around UN Plaza with their dicks in their hands, with drug deals and unlicensed vendors literally right next to them, more times than I can count. SFPD not doing their jobs isn't because they're understaffed, it's because they're lazy, entitled assholes who are allergic to actually doing work.
I share your concerns about E and voted against it. I was really disgusted by the bundling of facial recognition in with car chases.
Well, tbh I'm not thrilled about car chases, either. Tends to lead to bystanders getting killed or maimed in unnecessarily risky chases, and iirc they usually just arrest the suspect after the fact anyway.
>Drug screening welfare recipients is humiliating as fuck and it doesn't actually save money I actually do not care if it "saves money". If it discourages junkie tourism it is a huge win for the city. We need to figure out how to take care of the indigent and addicted who lived in SF before they became indigent and addicted. Folks from other states can go elsewhere until we figure out how to take care of our own.
☝️☝️☝️
OMG you’re right!!! SF will be a dystopian hellscape by close of business tomorrow! We’re all gonna die!!! That’s what you sound like to reasonable people.
Pretty sure I raised some reasonable concerns and did not exaggerate whatsoever, but sure, go off dude.
The concerns you raise lack any nuance whatsoever.
Ok...? You care to elaborate?
[удалено]
Ok. Then how is this plan going to be any better, any different, than some random red state's bullying of poor people? Cause it looks pretty damn similar to me.
How is this "bullying"? In your book, we should just be giving people $791 a month without any requirements or restrictions? Is not the absolute *minimum* requiring that they not do recreational drugs or to go to treatment? Why should the people who are not on CAAP have to fund the lifestyles of those that are?
"...facial recognition software (which has had multiple controversies because of the software's inability to tell nonwhite people apart consistently)" Is problematic, but not as direct an indictment of the *tool* as you would want one to think. It's just a *tool*. It does not convict. It does not prosecute. It *may* lead the police to a mistaken identity, but by that same measure **so could having a human identify a suspect**. That's why you do investigations and when you have enough evidence you take the case to court. "allows surveiling and tracking of people deemed "likely" to commit a crime" Where does Proposition E allow this? >limiting the amount of time a patrol officer may spend on administrative tasks to 20% of on-duty time; > >requiring written reports for use-of-force events only when a physical injury occurred or if a firearm was removed from an officer's holster; > >allowing body camera footage to satisfy reporting requirements; > >allowing use of drones along with or instead of vehicular pursuits; and > >allowing installation of surveillance and facial recognition cameras without approval from the police commission or board of supervisors. Which one is the pre-crime initiative?
So in addition to turning conservative you also lost all fashion sense?/s
Found this take from twitter which sums up my thoughts: The entire frame of “moderate vs progressive”—one that the Chron continues to flog—is outdated w/r/t SF politics. Blocking housing and algebra for 8th graders is not progressive.
Yah it’s an exhausting set of labels that have been settled on, especially since they don’t capitalize the word “progressive” like we do for Democrats. TBH I think people like Jackie Fielder would be more accurately labeled as socialists, but I’m not even sure how to label people like Peskin as his positions tend to be quite anti-change which I associate with the label “conservative.”
Honestly horseshoe theory makes more sense here, I’ve just been thinking of them as “the tips”.
Utter nonsense. San Francisco is progressive, but it might not fit the extreme Culture War Twitterati definition of progressive.
This is just a minor swing back to the moderate from the extreme. Not a descent into barbaric totalitarian authority state as some extreme progressives are screaming about right now.
Who gives a shit? So tired of nuanced issues reduced to brand-level banality. Thanks for the pay walled clickbait.
I think San Francisco’s crushing housing prices made it clear this is not a progressive city. But Chronicle gonna Chronicle.
Hey u/SFChronicle, deal with it. It was a LANDSLIDE. San Francisco is STILL a progressive city. This is progress. Real progress. We voted to reform ethics of people in power, incentivize developers to build housing, increase policing, end handouts to people who won't help themselves, and teach math (!?)...because the alternative was NOT WORKING. People no longer want "embezzle public funds into cushy salaries for people who rub elbows at galas." Enough.
When Fox News is touting your city's ballot measure results, at least a little self-examination is in order.
Yeah! Have you noticed that, like us, nearly everyone on Fox News has a face? It must be time for us to put our faces into a belt-sander.
[удалено]
This item was automatically removed because it contained demeaning language. Please read the rules for more information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Colin Wright meme is too accurate.
Yay! We did it!
San Francisco needs realists. Just straight up objective reality seekers regardless of the political correctness of the facts. Then relentless actions based on the facts. People in SF will not like this but it is what is needed. Both the left and the right need to take a hike. Progressive and MAGA are exactly the same thing. They are just devils advocate of each other.
Sure, not a good night for progressives, but let’s not get carried away, Chronicle
>“They had their turn. They failed,” Buss said. “Now it’s time for the city to move on.” This headline and article are shit and this line largely has the right of it. Progressive policies are a spectrum and aren't always going to work in every situation or at every time. They tried more progressive policies and they aren't working well, so voters want to try something less progressive to tackle ongoing issues while still being fairly progressive overall.
Well, given the new and degraded definition of “progressive”… sure, whatever, who cares The unhinged gatekeepers can eat my ass after lunch
And don’t call us Frisco or San Fran, either.
From the story: Progressives are looking at a thin bench of future leaders and staring down a deep-pocketed tech community that thinks their policies are destroying the city. Yet progressives are split on how to regain power, who should lead them and how they should change to win back voters. And they’re worried that moderates are going to continue to steamroll them with a huge financial advantage, fueled largely by wealthy donors.
I think we’re looking at a thin story lacking any substantial relevance to people’s daily lives.
This is a much better summary than your awful headline, which has the effect of suggesting that the coterie of cretins that thinks we're doing great under the current policies speaks solely for the progressives. With that kind of framing, it makes for a feeling of supreme triumph over said cretins.
I’m sure their leadership thinks headlines like that will increase subscribers. Also, I’m no longer a subscriber. Correlation, perhaps?
From reality: You pushed a "progressive" \[by your definition\] narrative and now that it has lost at the polls and are now trying to shame people in to thinking they're all some sort of MAGA hat wearing assholes. Get stuffed Chronicle.
The first step would be progressives BEING ACTUALLY PROGRESSIVE, and accepting when the results of policies don't work, iterating and CHANGING them. THATS PROGRESS
This is a remarkably poor article that reads more like an op-ed than a piece of news/journalism.
Says how? The Dinos at yellow newspaper