It is quite clear that with these types of articles, NYTimes is pushing an agenda.

I'm not native english speaker, is "It is quite clear" a synonym for "I'm baselessly speculating"?

Lol not always but an observer could take it that way. It’s clear to them but it is still just someone’s opinion.

"it is quite clear" sounds very much like an euphemism for "I just believe that" here.

Yea seriously. How is population shifts not in the public interest? Especially in the most expensive state in the country? If there is some agenda, I’d love to hear the reasoning behind it but COVID’s impact on cities seems like a reasonable thing to write about.

It isn't quite clear to me. What agenda and who does it benefit? Where's the connection to the New York Times itself?

The decline of SF is seen as an indictment of progressivism run amok.

From a card-carrying progressive Ezra Klein:

“If progressivism can’t work there, why should the country believe it can work anywhere else?”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/opinion/california-san-fr...

How is massive consolidation of wealth for VCs and unicorn startups, fueled by a speculative investment environment, seen as "progressive?"

That’s a bit of a cop out. The Bay Area had some of the most progressive politicians and progressive policies in the country.

I’ve seen plenty of progressives claim “they aren’t true progressives” but that comes across as a bit of a “no true Scotsman” argument that you hear from defenders of communism.

And it begs the question - if no one has been able to attain “true” whatever, is it really even an option?

"Extreme inequality ruins things" is more of a progressive belief than a conservative one. Enter SF!

How a place is governed is different from the party people run on, and the lack of accountability on results is the current failing of SF. Execution matters, not just ideas.

What is it that people think the TX government is better at? What similar challenges has the government of, say, Fort Worth faced as SF, and what solution did it have? NIMBYism and other such fun aspects are alive and well there, so if you throw the rapid change and influx of huge money at it, you're going to see some shit. Show me the policies existing in a TX city you'd use to fix SF.

You'll be helped by the massive amount of land still available to sprawl into... but that's a natural difference, not a political one!

Lack of accountability on results is the hallmark of progressivism. As long as the intentions were good, outcomes don't seem to matter.

Any examples you'd like to bring up? It's far more common for politicians to claim to be progressive up until the point of assuming office, only to revert to status-quo business as usual afterwards. Obama is the most famous recent example that comes to mind. Ending wars, closing Guantanamo, restraining police state spying, making college more affordable, and implementing socialized healthcare were all campaign agenda items of his that were never achieved even when his party had a super-majority (most never even mentioned again once he was in office).

This seems to be a statement on the level of "cruelty is the point of conservatism." It's non-serious, even if we pretend that there's never been a conservative policy enacted that didn't deliver it's promised goals. It's noteworthy for how it completely fails to give an example of a conservative city or state in the US that faced and solved similar problems.

Well considering the failure of the SF BOS to effectively address any of the cities challenge yet still get re-elected time and time again (even after showing they do the same things their voters complain about) goes pretty far in backing up that claim. As long as politicians in SF say the right thing, that’s all voters seem to care about.

To add to this, there is little to no evidence that diversity initiatives we see today actually helps diversity. It is a big charade and they attack those who don't want to play along with it.

This seems to be a lot of excuse making. If you dig deep enough you can find that SF - despite the growth and huge tax revenues - has failed to effectively deliver even simple government services like policing and keeping the community clean. And in terms of addressing the challenges of growth I’m not sure SF has done anything at all. They certainly haven’t built more housing, improved transit or anything else. And this is in a city entirely run by Democrats in a state where the Democrats have full control of all levels of Govt.

If you had given an example where a really effective policy was instituted that at least made some small aspect better I might agree but even that’s not apparent.

So laying it solely at the feet of politicians is the real answer? SF has seen a massive accumulation of capital and influx of wealthy residents to its housing market over an incredibly short time span. Huge changes in material conditions like that have infinitely more effect on a city than the stated policy agendas of its figureheads.

EDIT since you added more: it's not about a purity test for different shades of progressivism, it's that a hyper-capitalistic corporate investment market converging on one city is literally the opposite of anything progressivism has ever claimed to be.

No true Scotsman is only a fallacy when you are never given a definition of what a true Scotsman is. That's when the fallacy appears. When the person saying it can always retreat to an ambiguous never stated definition. He won't tell you what a real Scotsman is, but he will have the authority to tell you any examples you show him are not it.

For communism and socialism you are given the definition time and time again but people in your position always choose to ignore it and repeat the no true Scotsman meme.

I can tell you the definition, in exchange of you not using that meme anymore. Sounds fair?

NYT complains about that, too.

I agree with your take and it is ironic/funny because the rise of SF is so much due to capitalism run amok.

progressivism isn’t the problem in SF, I’m not sure how anyone can think their city level policies are progressive

SF isn’t idealistic/fantasy progressivism, it is what it progressivism looks like in practice.

Can you describe more of what you mean by that? What part of letting the richest companies on earth set up shop in your city and using little to none of that wealth to establish helpful social programs is progressive?

This is obviously farcical because SF does not exist in a vacuum separate from the federal government or the desperately poor conservative areas that siphon tax revenues from the progressive cities. Let alone the fact that SF hyper capitalism is about as far from progressive economic beliefs as possible.

But by the same vacuum-logic, Kansas under Brownback is what conservatism looks like in practice: a massive, unmitigated failure so big that even the conservatives themselves raised taxes. And that’s with all that free tax money from well run states helping out.

Well said, and great counter-example. People in this thread think "progressive" means "vaguely liberal west coast city," regardless of actual policy, economic systems or the broader context of what's going on in the entire country.

I don't think there's an "agenda" here.

There were dozens and dozens of articles in every publication over the last decade or longer about the decline of SF, COL is too expensive, homeless, dodging shit on the street, etc.

Then the pandemic and exponentially more articles about the flight from SF, NYC, etc. people are now fleeing for good.

Of course the actual statistics show a tiny fraction of people left SF. I think an article which focuses on this reality is well warranted.

If anything the people criticizing this article have an agenda in their belief that SF is awful and everyone should leave and anything to the contrary is of course biased.

Not that I should have to say this but there is of course plenty to criticize about SF and the Bay Area. The reality is the overwhelming majority of people are not leaving anytime soon. Only a tiny fraction are leaving.

Not sure but everyone they asked said they would like to go back to the office. I don't think a single person said no I don't want to go back to the office full or part time. Seems biased.

I would guess a return-back-to-the-office agenda, but then again, I've been told here on HN that the NYT is not of 'one mind' and/or is diverse and impartial so what do I know /s

At least then there would be a consistent narrative, but if you look under the article you can see that in January they had a headline about how everyone was leaving.

Bay area realtors?

Obviously yes there is.