A good analogy, but drive out to the Central Valley and you'll see a feudal divide that makes SF seem positively egalitarian.

For example all the farm owners' houses are on hills or birds and the workers' housing is in the flood planes. Think I'm exaggerating? Just drive through the Altamont pass and head down 205 towards Tracy. Get off the highway and the divide becomes even more extreme.

> For example all the farm owners' houses are on hills or birds

They have their houses on birds? That’s ... amazing!

Sorry, "berm," autocorrected by a computer that thought it knew better than I.

Man, I blew some karma to find out birds were berms? I’ve been robbed! ;-)

San Francisco makes me wonder if it is proof that the policies of the Democrats are an egregious and proven failure. I don't know the answer, but it seems self evident, sadly.

I think at least the housing policy is an egregious failure (if a metric is that locals should be able to afford it), although other cities around the bay area should also get some credit. Even if you take being anti-development as reasonable, creating office space (jobs) without proportionate housing just seems like an inevitable disaster (unless you sell your property and/or are a landlord).

At least the democrats here aren't monolithic, there are frequent initiatives at the local or state level to increase the supply but they've (sometimes narrowly) lost.

Also some of California's unusual policies (like the special property tax system and very high income tax) are actually due to a political system where ballot initiatives have more influence and weren't top-down planned by the legislature to begin with.

Anyway, yeah it does seem self evident. I think San Francisco is somewhat extreme relative to the national level though.

I think the city could have done a better job taxing the large tech companies and spending the money on supporting the displaced residents and building more public services.

Taxes would help slow their expansion and in turn the increasing rent. Unfortunately the city has been toothless in this regard for fear of loosing some of the businesses that are causing many of the problems. IMO the threat of of them actually leaving is low given the whole echosytem set up here to support them but they would likely grow a little slower which would actually be for the good of the city.

At the end of the day, even extremely effective policy can't fundamentally undo the economic realities of San Francisco - there is not enough housing to meet demand. You can only do so much for the homeless when you can't actually give them homes or jobs.

The argument is that not enough housing to meet demand is because of the policies and politicians of SF. There are levers with which they can control both the demand and supply.

Right, taxing large corporations more and making their takeover of the city slower would have slowed the increasing demand for housing. SF's government could have chosen to not sell it's soul entirely to big tech while still supporting smaller startups and businesses. I would argue that the policies have not been left wing enough despite the perception that SF is very left wing. Reality is that the leadership of the city is in the pocket of the tech industry.

Let some of the money go elsewhere and boost some other city's economy rather than having it all focused in one place to the point of it causing major problems.

The Democrats are a center-right wing party by European standards. Even in SF they put business interests first. You don't see this problem to this extent in major European cities.

Policies of democrats? Who's failure was brought in itself by local government and lobbying constituents.

Such a sad place, makes me feel bad whenever I have to go there. This is one of the main reasons I cut my travels to SF, I just can see that poverty, it's against my life principles.

Same. I moved to the bay 4 years ago and initially loved the city. Now I avoid it like the plague unless there is some absolutely essential need, then I get in and out as fast as possible. How anyone can live in that city and think it’s a nice place to be just blows my mind. People eating $100 brunch as an insane deranged drug addict is dying on their stoop.

friends are shocked when I tell them that the plight of beggars on the streets of Mumbai - in terms of mental and physical health, hygiene, and support systems - is far better than that of the homeless in S.F.

I visited a few years ago. Never again. Coming out of our BART station was like stepping into some third-world nation (no offense to third-world nations): garbage everywhere, homeless people struggling to live, cops carefully watching for gang violence to break out. Meanwhile, a block away, someone was getting a $50 basic men’s haircut.

I once walked down Mission St and for blocks the whole thing was like some kind of homeless bazaar. Two women were fighting at one point, and I passed a gentleman in a doorway who I’m pretty sure was dead (he eventually moved, but he was skin and bones..)

Something is terribly, terribly wrong in the Bay Area, and I’m unfortunately not surprised that it continues to get worse. I refuse to ever go back.