I wouldn't say that shuddering at open drug use on the streets indicates a sheltered world view. In most major cities that is not a normal problem. I live in a much larger city than SF for example and, although you occasionally see people walk by who are high, the only open drug use I've seen anywhere in the city is weed. I've never seen someone shoot up, I never see used needles, and this includes in more deprived areas of the city. It's just not normal.
Why would you? I just said that addicts and homeless people are on the street. Before covid, there was, and still is, an opioid epidemic. It sucks how we got here and it sucks that it's where we're at and it sucks that nearly all levels of government have failed to address it properly. It sucks that while some people have the means to deal with it on their, a lot of people run out of options and end up on the street. I'm happy that where you live you don't have to see the effects of it, but despite your anecdata, it's still issue and it doesn't mean the people affected by it aren't normal in some way.
You put "progressive cities" in quotes here, but everyone knows SF as a progressive city because that's how it brands itself. I agree that SF is probably not as "progressive" as some will claim, given the massive wealth inequality (among other things), but to say it's a "political agenda" to brand SF as a progressive city is nonsense. Sure, people will use that sentiment to paint it in a bad light, but the leaders of SF very much want SF to be known as a progressive city.
Well, which is it?
but the leaders of SF very much want SF to be known as a progressive city.
This is beside the point, but whether a city is progressive or not is defined by its policies, who the people are voting out, etc., not by what people say about it.
To bring it back on topic, to point at SF and say "see, progressive cities are bad" (as people posting here) isn't really right because SF isn't as progressive as they claim.
If you want to explore who calls themselves progressive or not and compare the locales they run, you're on your own, because again, that's a different discussion.
Because either way, the fault seems to lie with progressive politicians, whether they are "real progressives" or not.
This sentence makes no sense. The only progressive politicians are real progressives, no? Why are you so intent on arbitrarily labeling people as something despite their actions? Or are you still stuck on this branding thing? Cause if so, I've got a bridge to sell you...
I am intent on illustrating my point that the leaders of SF have successfully labelled themselves as progressives so that the progressives that live there will vote for them. I get your point that they aren't really progressive, but people vote for them because they sell themselves as progressive.
I'm also not "stuck on this branding thing" - just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I'm dumb :)
No. There's a weird concerted media push to just vilify the city recently. I don't know if it's new, very rich, residents who shudder at the sight of anything outside their sheltered worldview (like homeless people or people addicted to opioids on the streets, which probably was exacerbated by the pandemic), or if it is a political agenda like the post elsewhere in this thread talking about how bad "progressive cities" are (I wonder how progressive SF really is, given its policies around housing, zoning, taxing, political funds going to non-progressive groups like Grow SF nd Together SF, etc...).
It's expensive and that is certainly as bad as it ever has been, but if you're a social being, there's always stuff going on to do, and it is surrounded by beautiful natural features! Today, there are other great cities where you can work at a start up though, probably because of how expensive SF is.