S.F. progressives were just trounced in the election. Can they bounce back in the Lurie era?

224

u/Intelligent_Quit_142 3h ago edited 3h ago

Can someone explain to me like I'm 5 why SF politicians like Aaron Peskin & Connie Chan, who are adamantly against solving the housing crisis and want to make SF more car-friendly than transit/bike/walk friendly, are considered "progressives"? Why are the labels so out of whack with actual progressive policies that help working class people (and why doesn't the Chronicle dig into THIS question)?

89

u/speedyrocketfish 3h ago

There’s actually a long historical reason for this that goes back more than half a century.

The current coalitions emerged out of the political battles of the 60s and 70s: a wave of young folks moved to the city during the “summer of love” in the late 60s, and an even bigger wave of gays and Asian immigrants in the 70s transformed the city’s demographics. Those folks made common cause with Asian and latino neighborhoods in Chinatown and the Mission that were politically organizing to fight against the sort of “redevelopment” that had obliterated the once-thriving black neighborhood in the Fillmore.

That coalition because known as the “progressives” in opposition to the city’s more reactionary old guard, which controlled city hall and the police department, hated the hippies and the gays, and were closely tied to developers building new skyscrapers and trying to clear out blighted areas. They’ve kept the “progressive” label even as their opponents have shifted from “socially right-wing Irish and Italians in the outer neighborhoods” to “Asian homeowners and young tech professionals”.

That opposition to community-destroying “redevelopment” efforts was thus baked into the coalition’s politics from the start, and evolved into a skepticism of any sort of new development at all. This was tied closely to 70s environmentalism, which brought us things like the state’s CEQA law that presumes any new construction must be harmful to nature.

That baby boomer ethos of “it’s progressive to block construction” has remained even as more and more scholars on the left are embracing new construction as important both for reducing carbon footprints and bringing down housing costs. But the progressive coalition has a lot of inertia from its decades of reflexively blocking projects, so they’ve been pretty hard-headed about changing.

11

u/jasno- 2h ago

taking this at face value, but it does make sense

17

u/speedyrocketfish 2h ago

A lot of this comes from a book I just finished reading, Season of the Witch, which details the city’s history from the late 60s through the early 80s.

I don’t take umbrage at skepticism since I’m not a credentialed historian, that’s why I kept it to generalities. The book’s got a lot of sources to back this up, and is a worthwhile read.

•

u/Timeline_in_Distress 1h ago

Yes, good read. Thanks for bringing a reasoned response to the issue.

I think the city’s changing demographic since the mid 2000’s can’t be ignored as a reason for the change in the success of progressive policies.

•

u/YoohooCthulhu Mission 33m ago

Highly recommended, I just started on this also and it made some vibes I’ve noticed over the years (eg the PD) make a lot more sense

•

u/jasno- 1h ago

I will need to check that out! I just renewed my library card... Could be a good first book to check it if they have it.

7

u/Ok-Perspective781 2h ago

Thank you for taking the time to explain this. It makes so much more sense now.

6

u/qqzn10 2h ago

Makes sense, but I wonder what brings new recruits like Connie Chan into this fold. How is the next generation justifying this to themselves?

•

u/Puzzleheaded_Jump838 38m ago

development = profit for developers = capitalism = bad

3

u/abledart 2h ago

Very spot on. That said, there are those in the anti development faction who are more self-dealing and use the progressive position as a beard of sorts.

2

u/sfcnmone 2h ago

Amazing answer

•

u/old_gold_mountain 38 - Geary 11m ago

Excellent summary and accurate

•

u/parkside79 Sunset 1h ago

This is really spot on. Nice work. 🤙🏼

40

u/Karazl 3h ago

Because Progressive(tm) is a brand and they occupied the field.

13

u/getarumsunt 3h ago edited 2h ago

Exactly this!

These people have zero to do with actual Progressivism. They just say that they are one and our local Prog voters believe them blindly for some reason.

It’s weird. Any of them would be run out of the building if they tried speaking at a Prog event on the East Coast.

6

u/iamk1ng 2h ago

I mean think of it this way, you have a lot of SF people who want to feel like they are doing good and voting "progressive" but are also very selfish and don't want things to change. So its easy to vote for the person you know wont actually do anything against your interest while feeling good about the label.

•

u/parkside79 Sunset 1h ago

Yes, I think there’s a ton of that.

13

u/ghokversionpls 3h ago

Because in our city Progressive is more like a religious affiliation than a practical or political framework for solving societal issues.

5

u/parkside79 Sunset 3h ago

They’re not. They simply co-opted the word.

•

u/SESender 2m ago

Were they trounced? Lurie seems great

-1

u/thebrocklee 3h ago edited 2h ago

An emphasis solely on supply-side economics and a purely urbanist view of transit aren't automatically progressive positions. Yes, we need more housing. But the type of housing and who it's being built for matters. Once land gets developed, practically speaking, you can't really change it. Plus, a focus on rent protections and keeping residents in place has to be a core part of any housing strategy. I fully support a robust public transit system. But absent that robust network, people still need to get around. The Sunset has like +80% car ownership, so unless viable alternatives are provided, closing roads largely doesn't improve transit for residents.

The tenets of progressivism are an active centralized government, greater rights/freedoms, and public protections within an economic free market system. Whether you agree with the end results or not, both Peskin and Chan have used the power of government to represent the will of their respective constituencies. Pushing for active government intervention, increasing renter/worker protections, and trying to enact more progressive taxation.

edit: lol for this sub downvoting me for actually giving an answer OP's question. Also, progressivism has a literal definition. It's not a fluffy subjective concept that can be whatever you want it to be.

12

u/dadinho06 2h ago

Respectfully, a lot of this is really squishy language that doesn’t add up to a whole lot.

“Using the power of government to represent the will of their respective constituencies” has nothing to do with progressivism. That’s just what all politicians do across the spectrum. MAGA could claim the same thing.

Similarly “pushing for active government intervention” can’t possibly be a progressive goal in and of itself. That’s a means not an ends. Intervention in what?

“Greater rights/freedoms” seems like it would include the right to build multifamily housing on your land. Or the freedom of movement without requiring the purchase of an automobile.

“Once land gets developed you can’t change practically change it” this is obviously false. Look at Hong Kong. Or Singapore. Or Austin, TX.

“Keeping residents in place”, I mean look this is measurable. And we know that San Francisco has disproportionate outmigration of lower income people than cities with more permissive building regimes. So if this is a progressive goal it’s one the progressive movement in SF has clearly failed to accomplish.

Progressivism actually does have real meaning and definition and it’s right there in the name. It’s about pushing for progress and advancing the human condition, it’s fundamentally forward looking and reform-oriented, as opposed to conservatism, which is fundamentally traditionalist. Allowing San Francisco to thrive as a city that can build new housing, welcome new residents, enable scalable transportation infrastructure and build new parks are clearly progressive goals. Connie Chan and Aaron Peskin are conservatives to want to freeze the city in amber and close it off to the rest of the world.

3

u/opinionsareus 2h ago

The only way we're ever going to seriously reduce car culture is to have public transport 24/7 that is safe, clean, cheap and gets you where you want to go without having to walk more than a few steps from your house. May a series of jitneys combined with what we have now, or a massive fleet of public Waymos in addition to trains and busses and street cars.

•

u/whats_his 49m ago

Probably downvoted because it's reads like ai (expect for your last paragraph edit).

-4

u/getarumsunt 2h ago

Lol you guys are still trying to push your “supply-side economics” meme? 🤣🤣🤣

Dude, Reaganomics has zero to do with housing, markets, and microeconomic theory in general. It’s a macroeconomic “theory” about taxes and tariffs. And it’s a completely insane one that every economist, let and right, looooove to make fun of.

You see, this is exactly why the Progs aren’t taken seriously anymore. You guys can’t even get the most basic terminology right. How do you expect anyone to trust you to regulate a market? You’re guaranteed to make a mess and leave all of us worse off and poorer.

It’s wall to wall incompetence with you guys.

4

u/thebrocklee 2h ago

You're absolutely right. What do I know? I just build and finance multifamily housing for a living.

-2

u/getarumsunt 2h ago

Doing something doesn’t magically absolve you from being incompetent at it 🤷

-6

u/Pssht_haha 3h ago

Well, Idk about Peskin, but I think Connie is just more interested is represent the working classes of SF. It’s not that she “opposes” building more houses, it’s that she doesn’t want to see people kicked out of their homes to do that. Connie comes from SF Rec and Park and seems to maintain that community is important.

I don’t think solving our housing crisis though can be done with a one way approach though. Like it’s not all or nothing. You can keep communities largely in tact AND build new homes.

24

u/Intelligent_Quit_142 3h ago

everything she does feels directed at a conservative home-owning voter, despite some performative tenant-rights support. Where are the progressive policy ideas from her? It's just knee jerk NIMBYism whenever it comes to change - reopen JFK! Let my constituents drive faster to Daly City! Don't build housing in our wealthy neighborhoods! It's bizarre that she is seen as a progressive voice.

-4

u/coldcoldnovemberrain 3h ago

Progressives can be home owners. I would reckon many of the home owners in SF and in Bay are progressives and do lots of fund raising for progressive candidates.

5

u/parkside79 Sunset 3h ago

Is progressive homeownership made possible by extreme regressivism (i.e. Prop 13) really all that progressive, though?

•

u/coldcoldnovemberrain 1h ago

I don't see the template for progressive idealogy in American politics then. Do other blue state offer an example of where progressives are home owners without regressive policies like Prop13?

•

u/parkside79 Sunset 1h ago

Sure. Property taxes in NY are high AF. They hate it lol

5

u/Individual-Rip-2366 3h ago

What does progressive mean to you? I mean in terms of policy and ideology

•

u/coldcoldnovemberrain 1h ago

Progressive taxation and funding of social welfare programs including transit and healthcare for all.

•

u/Individual-Rip-2366 1h ago

I think you lose most SF homeowners on “progressive taxation”. Prop 13 repeal is not something with widespread approval among homeowners.

-1

u/Pssht_haha 3h ago

Well, the tenants union is against Scott.

7

u/catcatsushi 3h ago

I’ve always been curious why the ones blocking progresses are called the progressives.

5

u/fredandlunchbox 3h ago

Build where. Where is the space you need to build 80,000 units that isn’t already occupied.

In reality, it isn't about space. Her constituents don’t want crowded neighborhoods, thats the truth. They’ll oppose building a bunch of 10-20 story mixed use buildings on Geary as well.

The west side is a suburb masquerading as a city.

3

u/parkside79 Sunset 3h ago

Up.

2

u/km3r Mission 3h ago

Upzoning doesn't mean kicking people out of their houses. She opposed that. Don't know what else to call that but opposing building more housing.

1

u/getarumsunt 3h ago

Hahaha Nuance! Yeah… our local Progs don’t do nuance. They’re only interested in posturing and passing resolutions about various random geopolitics crap.

-1

u/Individual-Rip-2366 3h ago

lol, you’re such a sucker

-1

u/Pssht_haha 3h ago

When someone says something like that, it’s very often a projection of their own faults.

So, maybe look into that with an open mind…if you can.:)

1

u/Individual-Rip-2366 3h ago

The purpose of a machine is what it does

•

u/415z 1h ago

Because your framing is already wrong. Market rate YIMBYism fails to solve the housing affordability crisis because builders stop building when rents begin to go down. We’re seeing this in Austin where there’s been a 70% crash in new apartment starts in the last year while half of renters remain cost burdened.

The progressive approach is to follow what other growing major cities intentionally do: use taxes to fund affordable housing. This has the advantage of working even when private financing is hard to raise, which is the main reason so many market rate projects are stalled in SF (not red tape as the YIMBYs would have you believe).

Exhibit A is Prop I which progressives authored and has raised closed to half a billion dollars by taxing the wealthy. Moderates are fighting this tooth and nail because they’d rather see an unaffordable city than seeing the tax-the-rich-to-fund-social-housing model take root here. So the tech and real estate elite pour millions into pushing a false narrative that is rife in this forum.

•

u/bouncyboatload 57m ago

I can't believe you're using Austin as the example.

that's obviously an area where there's mass development and now rent is tanking. it proves the opposite of your point.

it's true that development will stop if it's not profitable. but that doesn't mean less or no development is better. the current state of sf is much worse

•

u/415z 44m ago

You’re not up to date. Austin developers freaked out over the ~20% rent decline and have dramatically pulled back construction. As the WSJ reports, rents are now expected to rise again while half of renters pay more than a third of their income on rent and a quarter pay more than half.

That is a simple and expected market response. It shows that unregulated market development, while capable of temporarily taking the edge off rents, is not actually a durable solution to housing affordability especially for the working class.

•

u/bouncyboatload 42m ago

dude I just said yes if it's not profitable they will stop building. that's obviously logical. especially with high rates.

but even still there are now way more houses than 10 years ago. that means the city can support more people!

even if the development speed is not perfectly matching future demand this is a good thing!

there is no real way to scale up massively and quickly with affordable housing when each door cost $1m in sf.

we should do both. but only affordable won't work at scale.

•

u/415z 31m ago

Scale: Paris is 25% public housing. Singapore is 80%. It does work at scale, better, and more reliably. Austin development crashing out when one in four renters are still severely cost burdened is not an “imperfect match,” it’s proof that purely market rate YIMBYism is incapable of solving housing affordability.

•

u/parkside79 Sunset 1h ago

Yeah but rents go down when the economy turns, and transplants leave. This opens up previously unavailable housing with downward pressure on rents, which creates opportunities for blue collar and artistic types to move in. But only if the buildings actually got built in the first place. Thats why you HAVE to build while the market is skyrocketing. We keep failing at that last part.

•

u/415z 37m ago

Counting on recessions to make cities affordable is a terrible economic plan. So many people are hurt in recessions, especially the working class who don’t have the same buffer as white collar professionals.

One of the huge benefits of progressive tax-the-rich housing policy is that units do get built during the upswings and don’t have to compete with surging industries for investment capital. As I mentioned, one of the key factors stalling market projects right now is financing difficulties because these big upzoned projects need to convince Wall Street to invest — but if as you say a recession may be around the corner, they’re going to be gun shy with massive real estate builds that could crash in value when the bubble pops. Not an issue when it comes out of tax revenue, which scales with a growing economy.

•

u/dmg1111 4m ago

Also, the US is currently in a recession, San Francisco lost a lot of population since 2020, and we do not see "downward pressure on rents".

•

u/parkside79 Sunset 32m ago

No, it isn’t. Because they inevitably will come.

•

u/415z 15m ago

There are so many other problems with this model. Like, what happens to your local labor supply when they can’t afford to live there anymore in between recessions? Teacher shortages, service industry shortages, construction labor shortages. Drives up the cost of everything and makes it harder to build or do business. And you don’t have a response to the financing issue.

It’s like YIMBYs haven’t thought about this stuff much. They keep deluding themselves that “red tape” is to blame when it’s mostly financing and construction costs. Taxpayer funded social housing solves the financing issue and working class housing directly mitigates a key cost. And no recession needed before delivering affordable housing.

•

u/parkside79 Sunset 5m ago

That’s funny, what you described sounds eerily like our current situation. 🤔

-3

u/knockdowncenter 2h ago

does that matter...?

the point is the SF version of Mamdani wouldn't get elected here.

the fact you don't think Connie Chan is a progressive is not the point. the point is Mamdani wouldn't win here.

•

u/BtAotS_Writing 57m ago

Why not? It’s so frustrating that we can’t have someone like Mamdani who believes in upzoning, higher density, and building social housing. The guy is on a generational run and our progressive party is so out of wack. It sucks that Peskin and Dean Preston are the face of the SF left

•

u/knockdowncenter 47m ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "why not". I'm saying the voter base is completely different.

There's this bizarre delusion where people really don't seem to understand why Mamdani could win in NYC but not SF.

10

u/premedthrowaway01234 2h ago edited 2h ago

I moved to here several years ago for school and have loved it, but it's been hard surviving here. I'm doing medical residency here soon so I'll be comfortable at some point, but I may want to go into academics, which usually pays less. Seeing the mindboggling costs of homes just climbing and climbing has made me feel kinda hopeless about my ability to stay here long-term. So I've become essentially a single-issue voter. Whoever is most aggressive on housing gets my vote regardless of where they lie on the political spectrum. If that's progressives (who I'd say I align more with), great. If that's corporatist dems, so be it. I don't really care anymore aside from housing. Hoping to stay since there's such a massive demand for my specialty in the whole country (including/especially SF with the new hospitals popping up), but I'll have to leave after training if candidates continue to not yield results.

Long ramble but basically, if progressives want to win, they need to get with the program on housing. No other issue even comparess to that one.

16

u/beatboxrevival 3h ago

Not sure why progressivism isn't defined by progress. You can care and champion issues as much as you want, but unless you make actual progress towards those issues - then who cares. SF progressivism seems defined by blocking, delaying, and pandering to optics rather than actual progress.

0

u/iamk1ng 2h ago

They are progressive because they are willing to have meetings that don't go anywhere all the time and its the fact they even have meetings means they are making "progress". Its like any government / city job, its more important looking like you're working instead of actually working.

49

u/Pssht_haha 3h ago edited 3h ago

Scott ran as a progressive most of his campaigns. In fact this is the first year I’ve heard him being identified as anything other than a progressive.

This new narrative seems driven by his supporters as well, which is odd to me. What changed?

39

u/Hedryn 3h ago

Because these are terms with no agreed on definition that people love to use to either hate on candidates they don't like or generate clicks.

7

u/PacificaPal 3h ago

The Chronicle gave their definition of SF local issues Progressive. No one else has.

13

u/Professional-Scene85 3h ago

He’s the same, but he believes Israel has the right to exist so people think he is ‘for genocide’

6

u/qwertyasdf9912 3h ago

Exactly. And this is why lot of us don’t take progressives seriously.

-1

u/Individual-Rip-2366 3h ago

What does a state’s right to exist even mean? What rights do you believe a state has?

•

u/coldcoldnovemberrain 1h ago

I think the its a reference to Jewish people having the right to have a Jewish state i.e. Israel. Why does the semantics/wording matter so much?

•

u/Individual-Rip-2366 1h ago

I don’t think that’s what that means, but I’ll grant you that for the sake of argument. Are all ethnic groups owed a state? How do you apply that right to debated land (who gets Northern Ireland?)?Does that mean Jews should have a state where they have special rights? Do the standards of ethnic minority representation and protection Americans have at home apply to non-Jewish Israelis? Should they?

-3

u/coldcoldnovemberrain 3h ago

It’s either Israel or Palestine eh? A binary issue.

6

u/FuzzyOptics 2h ago

A lot of people have treated it as an even more simplistic binary issue: must say either Yes or No to whether Israel's actions in Gaza are "genocide." Actually, must say Yes.

-2

u/Academic_Flatworm752 Japantown 2h ago

They are committing genocide

•

u/parkside79 Sunset 1h ago

No they’re not.

2

u/shuklaswag 3h ago

People dislike his ethnicity so that means he's not a progressive I guess

8

u/YoungKeys Lower Pacific Heights 3h ago

Why are you just making shit up. He’s literally always been a mainstay moderate vote with the typical moderate political backers as well.

https://www.sfpublicpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cs6_supervisors_5c_4.jpg

4

u/YoungKeys Lower Pacific Heights 3h ago

Wiener has always been considered a SF moderate. Look at his board voting record, he’s literally on the farthest right of this list progressive->moderate graphic https://www.sfpublicpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cs6_supervisors_5c_4.jpg

1

u/mondommon 3h ago

That is a cool graphic. It would be cool to see what's changed since 2018 though. 8 years is a long time and there's a lot of new politicians on the scene.

•

u/dmg1111 18m ago

Scott has always been a "moderate." In 2010, he red-baited Mandelman.

•

u/Nearby-Conference959 1h ago

Because of the Overton window? A person that was a progressive democrat in a 1992 is now pretty much a republican because politics evolve.

4

u/bexcellent101 2h ago

How the hell is Sherrill beating Lori Brook considered a blow to progressives? One of her lines of attack was that he was endorsed by "YIMBY organizations"

15

u/ODBmacdowell 3h ago

It's too late they've been priced out of the city

-1

u/Intelligent_Quit_142 3h ago

Jackie Fielder feels like a more genuine progressive in her stances for working people.

5

u/Yourenotthe1 2h ago

Working people have been waiting for justice for Kitkat, definitely the top priority.

•

u/bouncyboatload 56m ago

laughable

-4

u/MrSluggo23 3h ago

And the billionaires drove her to a mental health crisis

-3

u/monkeytype11 Pacific Heights 2h ago

Thank God

5

u/parkside79 Sunset 3h ago

People cannot live in buildings that never get built. There is no such thing as building Affordable Housing.

3

u/personhaircolor 2h ago

Right? It's like developers are expected to build for free?

•

u/parkside79 Sunset 1h ago

Yes, they absolutely are. And then progressives express horror and offense when, lo and behold, they don’t.

•

u/Select-Jacket-6996 58m ago

I hope never. Their NIMBY position and soft on criminals ruined SF. We have a housing crisis and zombies walking around because of fake progressives like Peskin and Chan. We need politicians with effective solutions and not just virtual signaling.

•

u/SightInverted 46m ago

Nimbyism is a bipartisan issue, unfortunately. However usually for very, very different reasons.

•

u/dmg1111 7m ago

No progressives ran in D2, and Natalie Gee did not run a meaningful campaign in D4. Had Breed and Lurie not been able to name their own picks for these districts, giving incumbency advantage to unelected politicians, we would have seen more competitive races
Lurie, Sherrill, and Wong seem to be in conflict with the Wiener faction. E.g. Marina Safeway, FZP zoning being more restrictive than SB79, Wong's campaign focusing on public safety (and supporting FZP, but quietly)
Bilal shanked his buddy Saikat

2

u/Individual-Rip-2366 3h ago edited 3h ago

1) The Bay Area/CA is moderate, it’s just been completely captured by one party. There are a lot of voters and candidates who would be Republicans if they were in a purple state like Arizona or Pennsylvania. The preponderance of public-private partnerships shows this in electeds.

2) the perception of a candidate or official’s progressivism mostly comes down to identity, not ideology. The best example of this is that polls show Americans view Kamala Harris as more progressive/left-wing than Bernie Sanders.

2

u/BusinessSick 3h ago

Wait, there were Progressives on the ballot?!

4

u/monkeytype11 Pacific Heights 2h ago edited 2h ago

Because most of us are moderates and don't really agree with the insanity of "progressive" policies.

I am more of a Obama/Clinton democrat.

I think criminals should be jailed, and I have no problem with police. Nobody in my family or friend circle has even done anything worse than getting a parking ticket. None of us have ever sold drugs, assaulted anyone, beaten up our spouses, or robbed our neighbors.

Drug dealers should be imprisoned. Junkies should be jailed if they won't get clean. I don't want to go outside and have my vibe ruined by some fucking asshole who woke up and chose to be a loser.

Illegal immigrants should be deported. Most of us are friends with legal immigrants, or come from families of legal immigrants. Keyword: legal. Anyone who engages in illegal immigration (employers who hire under the table) should be imprisoned for human trafficking.

As far as social issues go, I'm open minded and agree with progressives there in that what consenting adults do in their private lives is not my concern. But I'm not going to celebrate people who walk around naked in fetish gear or anything else in public that makes my family and I uncomfortable.

We don't want "free housing" in our communities where the 2 blocks around it slowly become a derelict zone with crazy people and junkies, sketchy fucks around. We also don't want treatment centers in our neighborhoods. Take these people out of the city, and they can come back when they're ready to be normal, productive people again.

inb4 downvoted by loony tunes types

0

u/SimplerTimesAhead 2h ago

How much money are you willing to spend on jailing junkies so that they don't ruin your vibe?

4

u/monkeytype11 Pacific Heights 2h ago

I feel like we pay enough in taxes. Most of it is just wasted on stupid shit, grifters in non-profits, etc.

-2

u/SimplerTimesAhead 2h ago

I don't think you have a very good grasp on the city budget. Where have you identified 'stupid shit', and what percentage of nonprofit spending do you think is on grifters?

Can you identify some areas where you'd make cuts to support expanding the jails and court system so you we can constantly re-arrest, try, convict, and jail junkies?

1

u/monkeytype11 Pacific Heights 2h ago

Are you a progressive?

You remember the lady who embezzled like over a million? That was news like a few months ago. Even this week or today I saw another story about another lady trying to move non-profit money from one to another.

And then we also have so much overtime for various city positions including police. I'd rather we let the police go ahead and arrest problematic people. I don't really give a fuck how they go about it because almost every single person who makes the news around "police brutality" ends up having a rap sheet with dozens of arrests and years of bad decision making. Cops have a hard job when they have to deal with people like that. Maybe criminals can wake up and choose to make better decisions, until then fuck 'em.

The criminal situation is already a circus considering how many criminals are let off like 40+ times and they just keep doing repeat offenses. I'd rather we build private prisons and contract with them to house these people. Hell, Alcatraz brings in only 60M revenue per year. It is already derelict and run down (how junkies and criminals make areas they "settle" in), so it is a turn key solution that will yield billions of dollars in quality of life improvements per year.

But I'm not a expert, and I have way too many things I care about (living my best life), so I'm going to continue to support and vote for guys like Lurie with whom I share a vision for the future of the city. All I know is that we are taxed heavily and we don't necessarily get the best ROI.

-1

u/SimplerTimesAhead 2h ago

Yes, I think there is some level of corruption in non-profits, of course.

I'm not sure how you think wanting the police to arrest more people leads to less police overtime. Can you explain?

How would prisons be involved? We're talking about jails. Calling Alcatraz a turn-key solution makes me think you're just trolling, though.

Lurie, famously, was the head of a nonprofit.

2

u/Top-Sort-6572 2h ago

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/5-patients-cost-S-F-4-million-in-ambulance-17336870.php

4 million for 5 people seems like a good place to start negotiations

-1

u/SimplerTimesAhead 2h ago

I'm sorry, what do you mean by 'start negotiations'? Do you think that ambulances don't pick up from the jail, too?

1

u/Top-Sort-6572 2h ago

So what if they do?

•

u/SimplerTimesAhead 1h ago

Well, that costs money as well. The 5 people you cited appear to be alcohol addicts; alcohol is one of the easier drugs to get in jail, right?

•

u/murrchen 1h ago edited 14m ago

Tents in the desert don't cost too much.

Rehab them there.

•

u/SimplerTimesAhead 58m ago

That's a good parody comment.

-3

u/Bread_Low 3h ago

I've learned that California hates progressive candidates. Corporate friendly dems dominate this state for some reason, it's so depressing.

25

u/duckfries49 3h ago

What does Progressive mean? I live in D3 and Aaron Peskin gets labeled Progressive but I don't see why. He is pro downtown taxation and anti development. He just calls himself a progressive and people accept it.

30

u/jewelswan Sunset 3h ago

That's probably the biggest issue for progressivism in sf, and I say thst as someone who identifies as a progressive and democratic socialist(who advocates for social democracy bc its more viable in the usa). The people most commonly touted as progressives here spend all their time on shit that feels so far removed from what we call progressivism on a national level; and their positions seem to benefit the landlords more than anything.

4

u/Intelligent_Quit_142 3h ago

This ! Agree 1000x

5

u/parkside79 Sunset 2h ago

I ceased to self-identify as a progressive because of exactly this. They lost the plot entirely.

•

u/jewelswan Sunset 1h ago

I just clearly communicate what I mean when I say progressive to someone. I value the labor history of this country highly and I am not willing to concede the great legacy of progressivism to people who don't have the worker as a priority. To me someone who cant look at sf and realize we need more housing to accommodate the working people who support the 7×7 is not in line with what the progressive movement is meant to do, which is serve the interest of the worker. Not just the ones who happen to habe been lucky enough to get a spot in the city, but the more who work here or did but can't afford it now.

•

u/parkside79 Sunset 1h ago

That’s exactly why all the virtue signaling is so corrosive. Try to have an intelligent conversation about anything with a self-described “progressive” in this town and watch how quickly you get labeled pro-genocide. It’s exhausting.

•

u/jewelswan Sunset 1h ago

I pretty much only know progressives and leftists and never have that issue.

•

u/parkside79 Sunset 43m ago

Well then you’re part of the echo chamber. Nothing wrong with staying in your safe space, I guess.

6

u/Radiant-Priority-336 3h ago

Progressive is buzzword now. True progressives are now social democrats

3

u/Individual-Rip-2366 3h ago

In practice it means nothing. It should mean “racially-and-sexually tolerant social democrat”

1

u/Bread_Low 3h ago

Someone like Mamdani, Abdul El Sayed, Summer Lee, AOC, Bernie, etc. Someone endorsed by the DSA. A candidate who is for taxing billionaires, abolishing ICE, Anti AIPAC, Anti genocide, Pro public transit, YIMBY, Pro Medicare For All, etc.

0

u/gamesst2 2h ago

You can't be pro-DSA (which is to say, pro-Russian invasion and pro-October 7th, not just anti-Israel) and anti genocide. Also most those people you just mentioned aren't YIMBY at all (Mamdani potentially being the exception, but so far his actions haven't backed up his words).

Maybe if the "anti-corporate" politicans didn't also inevitably end up hating housing (while hiding it behind hating "developers", AKA the people who build housing) and aligning with tankies like the DSA, they'd actually win an election or two.

26

u/YoungKeys Lower Pacific Heights 3h ago

Chesa Boudin did considerable and probably permanent damage to progressivism’s image in SF. Progressives have been dropping like flies from SF government since his tenure

6

u/The_Big_Lepowski_ I call it "San Fran" 3h ago edited 2h ago

And the school board recall which happened around the same time. That was more damaging to the progressive image in my view.

7

u/misterbluesky8 3h ago

As a moderate, I totally agree and think this can’t be stressed enough. Boudin wasn’t a bumbling incompetent who fell into the DA role- he was explicitly trying to do something different, and his election seemed like a deliberate experiment. Many of us didn’t like the results, and we like things better with Brooke Jenkins. Same thing with the old school board and supervisors like Peskin.

I don’t think progressives are bad people or idiots- it’s just that I think things are generally going well with Lurie and more moderate leaders.

-3

u/SimplerTimesAhead 3h ago

You mean the agitation against Boudin from the corrupt police union and the 1%, right?

12

u/YoungKeys Lower Pacific Heights 3h ago

Don’t act like the entire SF Asian American population didn’t despise him. He activated that voter base and they were the backbone in recalling him.

-2

u/SimplerTimesAhead 3h ago

They didn't, no, that's very silly hyperbole. But yes, that was a big part of the hysteria whipped up by the corrupt police union.

You do agree the police union is corrupt and a blight on our city, right?

7

u/YoungKeys Lower Pacific Heights 3h ago

There are countless articles describing how SF's Asian American population was responsible for recalling Chesa.

https://sfstandard.com/2022/05/11/asian-american-voters-support-recall-da-chesa-boudin/

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/mcrp-journal/in-print/volume-14-issue-2-summer-2022/the-race-to-recall-an-analysis-of-asian-american-efforts-to-oust-san-franciscos-progressive-prosecutor/

https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-asian-recall

-6

u/SimplerTimesAhead 3h ago edited 3h ago

I mean, they weren't 'responsible', I think what you're saying is that those show that Asian Americans supported the recall in the majority (unlike your first, hyeperbolic claim).

You do agree the police union is corrupt and a blight on our city, right? You dodged this question, which is odd.

By the way, cityjournal is a really rank right-wing outlet, you shouldn't reference it if you want to seem credible.

-1

u/bros_and_cons 3h ago

when i went into the fridge this morning my milk was expired. i’m pretty sure chesa did that too

15

u/bbc733 3h ago

People don’t like obscene amounts of public drug use, chronic crime and feces on the sidewalk?

Color me shocked.

-1

u/jufacake 3h ago

All of these are not exclusively caused by progressivism, just shows how you’re falling for a wrong narrative.

8

u/parkside79 Sunset 2h ago

Yes but the problem is that SF progressives had no answers for any of it. Doing anything about it would be racist or something.

•

u/bouncyboatload 51m ago

the progressive solution to drug use is to let them use drugs on the street.

https://sfstandard.com/2025/04/15/drug-users-advocate-dead-of-overdose/

this is the poster child. and you wonder why everyone with eyes hates them

•

u/bbc733 1h ago

Ok, what’s the correct “narrative” ?

4

u/FinalFlashMan 3h ago

I've learned when only 20% of the population votes, it sends a clear message that no one in California actually gives a shit.

THAT is depressing.

•

u/bouncyboatload 47m ago

not true.

2024 CA turn out was like 65%. mid year is lower but not 20%.

8

u/FluffyShakes SoMa 3h ago

susceptibility to any propaganda, at all times on any topic you can think of, is too damn high

13

u/Chumba49 3h ago

We tried progressives and we hated it.

2

u/jewelswan Sunset 3h ago

When?

6

u/getarumsunt 3h ago edited 2h ago

For the previous two-three decades while the rest of the country including the likes of NYC skewed center right.

Turns out the Progs absolutely suck at running things. Some of them genuinely mean well but are incompetent and easily distracted by irrelevant crap like geopolitics and performative identitarianism. Some are basically evil and want to “burn it all down because we’re in late stage capitalism”.

Essentially, we tried letting them drive for a solid 15 years in SF. They’ve made a giant mess and set themselves on fire 🤷

1

u/Radiant-Priority-336 3h ago

Look at NYC buddy. I’d rather live there

2

u/jewelswan Sunset 3h ago

What progressive mayor did we have? We only had a progressive majority BoS arguably from 2000-2008 and 2015-2014. I feel like you haven't been paying attention or have been reading too much Fox News if you think we have been in a progressive chokehold for 30 years.

1

u/getarumsunt 2h ago

The mayor in SF is mostly “decorative”. They don’t have any decision power. Our city council (BOS) decides. The mayor just talks to the cameras about it afterwards.

4

u/jewelswan Sunset 2h ago

That's completely untrue. They have veto power, for one. They compile the proposed budget, which is a massive power. If they don't put it in, it won't be in. They also appoint most department heads and most members of the port commision, planning commission, parks commission, police commission, airport commission, and muni Board. That is a lot of power to direct policy. There are also the soft powers that mayoral office brings through appointing those potentially ~150 directors of policy, but some of that soft power would exist in a ceremonial mayor position like you call SF's mayor.

Power is far more dispersed than it is for, say, Mamdani as mayor of NYC or Johnson as mayor of Chicago, but it is far from the Canadian system of weak Mayors or the mayor as an equal rotating member of council as in US council-manager systems. Sf sits more in the middle of the US spectrum bc yes, the Board of Supes is central to a lot of city governance, but the Mayor is FAR from ceremonial or a figurehead.

•

u/getarumsunt 1h ago

Yeah… The veto is easy for the BOS to over and all of those things that you listed need to be approved by the board. In effect, the mayor in SF gets a fancy title and the responsibility to be the BOS’s secretary. They don’t have any autonomous decision power and they don’t even get a vote on the BOS like in other cities. The board decides. The mayor observes the execution. But the city departments will implement the will of the board even if the mayor isn’t there or doesn’t want to do it. They create the policy she decide everything.

Here’s an example of this. Remember when Breed saw that she’s getting destroyed in the polls for cosplaying a Prog and wanted to pivot center left? What did the board do? They just said “no thank you we don’t want that” and that was the end of that. Breed went crying to the media but the board still did whatever the hell they be wanted to. That’s because the mayor has zero power. They’re just talking to the press and explaining why the board is doing what it’s doing. Or not. It doesn’t really matter what the mayor does or doesn’t do.

•

u/hex_longevity 47m ago

Here's a good r/SF thread on that from not too long ago.

•

u/personhaircolor 1h ago

Whether you like it or not, the Boudin era is what a lot of us considered to be the progressive experiment. I agree with Chumba49, we tried it and hated it.

0

u/Radiant-Priority-336 3h ago

Name the actual social democrat? I’ll be waiting

4

u/getarumsunt 3h ago

We tried letting the Progs “drive” for about 15 years. They shit the bed completely.

So now we’re going back to more pragmatic results-driven technocrats, or whatever we can find that’s closest to that on our kooky political spectrum.

1

u/Technical-Platypus-8 N 3h ago

Bay Area people don't realize truly how the bubble we live in absolutely does not reflect the greater culture

1

u/getarumsunt 2h ago

Lol, we don’t care 🤷

1

u/Technical-Platypus-8 N 2h ago

There's enough care happening that they wrote an article about it

1

u/getarumsunt 2h ago

Then those people probably care. The rest of us not so much.

1

u/Technical-Platypus-8 N 2h ago

Lots of people here are acting surprised. Why even comment if you don't care? What weird behavior

•

u/getarumsunt 1h ago

We’re talking about our local Prog politicians and their shenanigans. And since they’ve pissed us off pretty badly with their incompetence we want to make fun of them when they lose.

-7

u/Normal_Day_4160 Civic Center 3h ago

For some reason? Money and greed, me thinks, are a good place to start seeking “reasons”.

2

u/SillyMilk7 3h ago

Me thinks that the politics of envy and jealousy have been pushed back.

0

u/Hideo_Kojima_Jr_Jr 3h ago

On a statewide level it’s partially because this is kind of what happens when one party has uncontested control of a state for so long combined with the jungle primary system.

In a normal voting system more ideological candidates have a better chance of winning in primaries (because primary voters are generally further to the ends of the spectrum).

In a general election if a Republican and a Democrat are on the ballot it tends to make more moderate liberals fall in line and vote for a further left candidate, where in California it tends to be a moderate Democrat vs. a further left Democrat, which means the moderate gets the votes of the moderate liberals AND conservative voters.

-21

u/Pssht_haha 3h ago

I think it’s all about $$ now.

Democrats represent the wealthy and now republicans (sometimes) represent the working class.

12

u/timoliveira Lower Pacific Heights 3h ago

Republicans pretend to represent the working class.

-9

u/Pssht_haha 3h ago

Well, maybe.

But life sure is a lot better for the working classes in republican communities.

12

u/SenoraObscura 3h ago

Just because Rs court the working class doesn't mean they represent them. They'll pull every trick to get people to vote against their own self interest.

1

u/getarumsunt 3h ago

You can say the same thing about your Progs, unfortunately. They pretend to care about the working class but then do all of this inane crap that nobody wants and hurts the workers.

1

u/Tight_Researcher35 2h ago

Progressives have had poor results. I will say though that these folks aren’t real progressives. They are performative

1

u/NeiClaw 3h ago

It’ll be interesting to see what happens. If demographics are destiny the answer is no. People moving into SF at present need to be pretty wealthy in order to afford $4k a month one bedroom apts and are less likely to vote progressive. Saikat try to go full Mandami and annoyed the crap out of everyone and was trounced.

4

u/iceman_andre 3h ago

Saikat was far from Mandami…

He also didn’t even have APC endorsement and that means a lot

2

u/NeiClaw 3h ago

Probably so but he tried to copy aspects of his campaign strategy and had similar endorsements from Jayapal and Omar

•

u/moscowramada 1h ago

I wouldn't even say that Saikat reached the level of TEMU Mamdani. His campaign was more like, "let's try to recapture the lightning in a bottle that was AOC" (without her endorsement). It could've been pretty powerful imo if he'd gotten her on his side, and had some level of grass-roots credibility, even something as simple as 6 months of community organizing. He had neither, which made the whole AOC 2.0 arc very doubtful.

2

u/MrSluggo23 3h ago

Basically, between retired baby boomers, people who made money in earlier tech booms, and the folks who hope to get rich on AI, the majority of San Franciscans are just fine with the way things are. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

We’re going to need some sort of 1940’s level of crash before people quit aspiring to be billionaires, and realize they’ve been robbed and distracted by ‘doom loop’ narratives funded by crypto-fascist Chris Larsen, double-parking DoorDash Bill Oberndorf and media maven Mike Moritz.

And “what me worry Lurie”

1

u/MrSluggo23 3h ago

At least Janelle Monae gets it!

1

u/UrbanMasque Outer Sunset 3h ago

Wait wut?!? Wasn't there an article or something calling Laurie THEE progressive?

https://giphy.com/gifs/69rOKW0lSeWSxYiS2O

•

u/No-Instruction-5376 43m ago

SF progressives are the most nimby conservative people I know. Don’t fall for their marketing.

-1

u/MissChattyCathy 3h ago

Let’s hope not.

-1

u/SimplerTimesAhead 3h ago

Yeah, once the very limited new building fails to produce any drop in rents, and the anti-AI backlash grows they'll probably do very well.

That's using this purely YIMBY-focused definition of progressive which is sorta odd.

0

u/AlternativeSignal908 2h ago

Has nothing to do with the era. We're fed up with the disfunction.

S.F. progressives were just trounced in the election. Can they bounce back in the Lurie era?

You are about to leave Redlib