Are SF’s problems really necessary for SF’s successes? There are lots of fabulously wealthy cities that seem to do a better job.

It is a question of investment. You move to SF to make some cash and leave, never really investing in your neighborhood or in policies that work on a longer scale. And that each area/city functions as its own fiefdom where you can privatize gains and externalize losses (e.g. tech companies and property owners making fortunes but not putting the gains into building nearby housing or comprehensive, safe public transportation) without a need or an incentive to invest in ways that fabously wealthy cities tend to. There are cities where you feel the citizens are truly invested in. SF is not that.

Where would you consider NYC in this framework? It's a city of transplants and many people come to make their money and either leave (or move to the bedroom communities outside the city). But for the most part, laws are enforced, there are huge investments in providing shelter for people in homelessness and mental illness, violent crime isn't even in the top 50 cities per capita.

The people "in power" have a vested interest in making the most-walked parts crime-free. That is not the case in SF where the wealthy don't have a Manhattan to interact with on a daily basis.

Rofl it's the incumbent progressives interests that are prevention bre hosing from being built and new transportation services open to the public.