You have failed to provide any real support for either of your claims.

“the reason i brought up MacPhee was to show that, historically, the CAO was not free of corruption”

The article does not claim that the CAO was corruption free, just that it was better than the system we have today. That’s also one small part of the article (they only discuss the CAO in 3 paragraphs of a 6 page article), and they made no suggestion that a return to the CAO is the only means of correcting the current problems.

The SF Weekly’s political leanings have no relevance to the validity of their article.

SF talks a good game, but where are the results? NYC recognized that it has to grow (it’s the sustainable thing to do for the region) and will grow by 1.5 million people by 2030 so the City developed a comprehensive green plan for sustainable growth, PlaNYC, that guides development, brownfield remediation, city parks, affordable housing, etc. This plan is being implemented–everywhere, from how city agencies are organized to how land use and transportation decisions are made.

What is continually frustrating about SF is that the government talks about all these issues too, but rarely implements policies. NYC adopted really progressive pedestrian, transit and bike policies, has been closing streets for bikes and pedestrians all over the city and even decided to close Broadway in Times Square–SF has been talking about closing Market Street for 10 years now and the Bike Plan is tied up in the courts.

A sustainable city does not merely recycle it’s trash, it must also continually grow and change, a fact that SF seems to have great difficulty accepting. Affordable housing is a problem in SF, yet the city fights development left and right. The unfortunate truth of the market is that scarcity drives up prices for everyone. The most sustainable thing SF could do would be to densify in areas that makes sense–transit corridors, downtown, south of Market. Doing so would also make MUNI work better–density equals more transit patrons (studies repeatedly show this).

The challenge of the SF Weekly article is not whether the writers are carpet baggers or whether they set up a false argument. The issues are real. The City does spend an obscene amount of money with really poor results. Honestly, 100s of millions of dollars (and at least 2x overbudget) for Laguna Honda for 700 or so patients? Why? Perhaps, a rational (not interested-based politics) response might have realized that it would be cheaper and more efficient for the city to pay to have those patients in private facilities?

And, I’m sure I’ll be attacked for this, but the transients situation in SF is out of control. I worked for years at 6th/Market and every day witnessed things that were beyond the pale. The hardcore transients are not “there but for the grace of God go I” homeless folks–they are people with serious social pathologies that are obviously not being addressed. NYC has programs that work, why can’t SF?

The city needs leaders who are not afraid to ask such questions. If money spent is not measurably working, then stop spending the money. Accountability is critical. Again, NYC has citywide accountability measures, why not SF?

SF is an amazing place, but I wonder if people are so in love with their own micro visions of the city and their own politics, that the forget about the collectivity. SF needs leadership, but it also needs a touch down in reality. The constant micropolitics of the city are killing it because there is no plurality in such a system, so there is no incentive to look at, and solve, problems citywide.

I don’t think this is a San Francisco only problem (see stimulus package). It’s a difficult balance between democracy and technocratic experts (real planning and efficiency). The old way, razing the Western Addition as an example, was a bad thing too clearly

Today there very little room for visionaries or big plans. We would be unable to build BART or Hetch Hetchy today. At some point this might be a problem. There is a real chance we will fail to build HSR. This is a problem. SFO needs new runways? Well you can’t fill at all, EVER, into the bay.

Simple Market Octavia plan takes 12 years and that turd called the Central Subway that no engineer or transit planner worth a damn would support is our generational transit infrastructure improvement.

My fathers generation build highway 101, 280, BART. My grandfathers generation the Key System, interurban rail lines, the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges

Mine? I am not very hopeful

There is always going to be tension between these two extremes and there is always going to be corruption in city government but at the margins so much can be improved.

Start by maintaining the streets near my house and giving me a decent school to send my kid too. Let builders build middle class housing. Increase regional cooperation on regional transit improvements. Maybe a little less bum hugging would help

i think you missed my argument. as i said, i’m not prepared to challenge the veracity of the article’s factual claims. instead i am claiming that the SF Weekly should not be given the benefit of the doubt regarding intentions, AND, that the prescription of less democracy and more centralized control is ridiculous.

Example, you ask “Would they be talking about notorious land speculator Chester MacPhee”?

The answer is obviously no, since the quote you chose explicitly states that the CAO started long before him, and survived long past his term.

the reason i brought up MacPhee was to show that, historically, the CAO was not free of corruption, and to suggest that the Weekly has less of a problem with corruption when it benefits corporate-leaning politicians and administrations.

“Your whole premise seems to be that if anybody says anything bad about any part of San Francisco, somehow they are a hater of San Francisco.”

that’s just silly.

Jeff you throw that around quite easily. I assume you are from an old San Francisco family?

This city has been living on its past, its beautiful setting and now its proximity to the Silicon Valley for decades now.

Just my opinion but I prefer a city with a middle class, a city that grows and takes the lead in being the regional center of the Bay Area (that’s “green” not strawberries on a bus shelter), a city without rent control so blue collar locals can form families here, a city that can provide at least decent schools and services.

What we have now: truly dysfunctional and corrupt transit planning and operations, a dysfunctional city government (the worst in the nation), an interminable anti growth (highly democratic though) planning process, anti family laws about condo conversion and rent control, absurdly high spending on inefficient social services and a total lack of leadership and vision, have really distorted the demographics of this city.

You have no argument with me that it’s a great place to live when you are young and for those who never move on to mainstream lives. Is that all we aspire to? And what about the people who are unable to choose to live here because of these polices?