If we take a look at today’s San Francisco, we can’t help but ask, “What exactly is happening here?”
What’s wrong with this city? What happened to the city that everyone loved? What happened to the city shining on the hills? One must understand that this city once inspired dreams, memories, and good times for millions of people, who lived or visited here, raised families and built careers, or came from all directions to experience a unique lifestyle in its beautiful environment.
To answer this question, we must look back at the history of San Francisco and see how it has evolved into what it is today: a piece of real estate open to the highest bidder. The operating model here is “pay to play,” with a city government controlled by the political elite for at least thirty years, constantly catering to ever-changing highest bidders.
Since the Gold Rush of the 1880s, through two World Wars, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, until the 1970s, San Francisco has been a city that all visitors envied, because the lifestyle here was vastly different from other American cities. It had the metropolitan charm of European cities, the mystique of the Far East, the bold attitude of the Wild West, and a thriving commercial atmosphere comparable to cities ten times its size, all nestled in a magnificent setting with renowned institutions of higher learning.
To outsiders, San Francisco might be mistaken as a conservative place, exuding a traditional, hospitable, generous, and quality lifestyle vibe. Despite a comparatively small population, it is filled with a palpable sense of civic pride that is enviable. The governance of this city is predominantly led by individuals who have risen up the ranks from the local levels, with the goal of making the city a better place.
Most elected officials are locals, working towards improving San Francisco for the benefit of its residents, rather than for their own party’s interests. People detest actions driven by personal gain, considering them distasteful and often attributing them to “outsiders,” as many who live in this city have grown through hard work and won’t let unscrupulous merchants and bullies destroy what they have painstakingly built.
This is not to say that this city is free of crime or corruption – which city can claim moral perfection? However, in this rare environment, people handle existing crime and corruption issues in a unique way, accepting all other objective phenomena.
Entering the 1970s, the “me-only” culture started taking root in America. Virtues like honesty, integrity, loyalty, and pride gradually lost significance for the new privileged class, who didn’t want to be bound by these values in their quest for everything.
Although small and compact, San Francisco has a harmonious tradition, where people from all walks of life have successfully created an enviable environment. The locals are obsessed with local politics, calculating which ruling group will become the next “ruler.” The city has a reputation for being fond of adventure, the unusual, and thrilling things, making it an ideal escape from the monotony, boredom, and routine of big cities.
San Francisco, this romantic city with all its uniqueness, is primed for a takeover, ignorant of the impending impact!
In the early 1990s, San Francisco experienced an influx of politicians and political hackers from across California who never cemented their roots in the local political arena. Their views on governmental arts and socializing contrast starkly with the traditional San Franciscans who prioritized family.
These individuals mostly hailed from humble beginnings but found an opportunity to flourish in a place small enough to penetrate while enjoying a reputation, respect, and recognition nationwide. To achieve this goal, they strategically engaged in the local Democratic Party, with many San Franciscans choosing to identify with the Democratic Party due to their racial, social, or immigrant backgrounds.
They established a network comprising club members, neighborhood groups, and idealistic volunteers, all wanting to shake up the world. While the locals were busy working, taking care of their families, and enjoying life, these exploiters fooled the hospitable and generous San Franciscans, taking power by manipulating elections to become elected officials.
San Francisco has become a town ready to be taken over by these individuals, who lack interest in improving the city or even maintaining its current state. They just aim to secure elected positions for themselves. They’ve succeeded in achieving goals not possible in a less open and tolerant environment. Here, on their newfound fertile ground, they monetize city services to acquire various powers and wealth, establishing a political base to export their disciples to higher government positions nationwide.
Thus, this once great city began to decline, with officials based in San Francisco rising to prominence and showcasing their prowess on the statewide and national stages.
San Francisco is a uniquely positioned city, distinct from others, with a consistently positive cash flow, at least until now, attracting many interlopers initially.
San Francisco’s active cash flow thrives due to its booming world-class downtown commercial sector and the taxes it generates; the nation’s priciest real estate market; flourishing tourism, conventions, entertainment, and shopping destinations; and numerous revenue-generating entities like airports, transportation, ports, and utilities, all managed by the city government.
San Francisco is an administrative district combining city and county functions. Unlike other areas with independent county-level administrative bodies, it is governed by a mayor and a single Board of Supervisors representing the city’s 11 districts. As a side note: perhaps the divine does not allow any Supervisor to represent too many districts, as one might challenge the authority of the ruling machine.
San Francisco elects candidates through ranked-choice voting, a system overly complex for the average voter, but at least ensuring the most popular or qualified candidates do not always win! Perhaps this is also seen as an advantage for the ruling machine. San Francisco’s diverse and fractured population is often manipulated by excessive and abnormal political advertising.
Now, about 30 to 40 years after outsiders “enlightened” San Francisco, the vacancy rate in the downtown commercial area has surpassed 37%, and our once world-class shopping centers are no more. With people moving out of San Francisco in droves, the real estate market is plummeting. Tourism, conventions, and entertainment industries no longer flourish due to crime and homelessness. Our municipal institutions are hitting historic lows.
What exactly happened? In fact, a focus on power, political status, and self-promotion has won this battle, while doing what’s best for the city has been neglected.
Defenders of the political machine may tell the public that it’s just fate, the global impact of COVID-19, a crisis all cities face, and so on.
No, these lame excuses aren’t the answer. The answer is simple, and the sooner we realize it, the better.
The answer lies in poor governance.
Today and through the past four administrations, the leaders in control of the civic operations, aimlessly defend the public administration, the trust, responsibility, the role of good government for the people they should represent, are all ignorant and indifferent. Their primary expertise lies in presenting and selling illusory plans to aid in their ascension to higher positions, as well as mishandling the massive public funds.
The favoritism and “I know someone” cliques prevalent in past governments have now been replaced by all-encompassing corrupt bribery, showing no loyalty to the city. Ignorance and arrogance are perfect ingredients for a circle of ignorance and now rule the era.
As mentioned earlier, the current city’s government operates on a bidding system, sold to the highest bidders. Bidders need only to present enough funds, ensure their favored candidates get adequate exposure, avoid trouble, and once elected, never forget to reward the benefactors and interest groups.
Since we were “enlightened” by outsiders on a statewide scale, dealing business with the city of San Francisco and the County of San Francisco, one can earn millions or even billions. Profits from political struggles no longer contribute to the taxpayer system. Contracts, funds, bureaucracy, and perpetually unaccountable non-profit organizations (with 600 non-profits in San Francisco), are all part of the funding sources maintaining the reigning political and corporate class.
They control the only locally based news publishing outlet in the city, deciding who can be elected and even who can participate in elections. As today’s political campaigns heavily rely on public perception and a candidate’s exposure, they have driven up campaign costs to the dismay of average citizens who can’t participate in such expensive campaigns. Only wealthy individuals, or those supported by specific interest groups within the Democratic Party, can partake in the competition. Candidates need only to fight through the election process, pretend to care for vulnerable groups, and boast about themselves as if they are infallible!
Currently, we are approaching the mayoral election which will conclude in November. At least five well-known candidates have registered to participate in the election, with their opponent being perceived as the least impactful candidate since the strong former Mayor Willie Brown. With the incumbent mayor’s dismal performance, many see this as an opportunity for change, but is that really the case?
My personal judgement of sitting politicians is based on their actions, rather than their words or demeanor. These candidates have no noteworthy achievements, no significant records of true accomplishments for the betterment of San Franciscans’ lives, and thus far, no substantial substance to offer the San Francisco voters calling for good, honest government.
Localized tabloids in San Francisco inform us that this is a competition between moderates and progressives. The Mayor and one or two challengers are attempting to position themselves as conservative reformers, but a closer look reveals this is merely a contest among liberals supported by the political machine, whose ideologies have led to San Francisco’s decline, with the remaining left candidates now sensing the political machine’s vulnerability.
Yes, this mayoral election will be interesting, but for those hoping for a return to a system where residents truly benefit, don’t hold your expectations too high. While I find appeal in several of the candidates, I am yet to hear any of them display the courage needed to steer San Francisco in the right direction, even contradicting the expectations of their Democratic Party affiliation.
This monopoly group comprises individuals who have disrupted today and stolen tomorrow. As a staunch independent, I admit to having specific biases towards a certain political party, as that party has ruined San Francisco and our entire California lifestyle.
Evidently, revitalizing San Francisco will require some truly bold and stringent measures. Without such actions, San Francisco will never fulfill its potential or serve the welfare of its citizens.
Homelessness, criminal activity, and administrative corruption are the culprits stifling the entire city. These are man-made issues that can be rectified with skillful, wise, compassionate, and efficient administrative leadership. But, only when the vast majority of ordinary voters wish for it to happen, it will. Only when the ordinary voters discern that the candidates they support are mismanaging their city, can this goal be realized. Only when the ordinary voters refuse to be “duped” by candidates’ sweet talk, will change occur.
Only when ordinary voters comprehend real societal issues, rise against them, and demand the right actions be taken, will these changes transpire. Taxpayers foot the bill – they deserve better treatment. Our city is in dire straits due to the existence of exploiters. The methods to address this issue may not be elegant, accepted, or understood by all, but they must be implemented.
It’s with this notion in mind that I present the following propositions to those truly concerned about the welfare of San Francisco residents. This is also a challenge to the mayoral candidates, allowing the public to judge your performance based on these criteria.
Currently, the funds we allocate towards homelessness rival any jurisdiction worldwide, as we’re facing homeless individuals from across the nation, drawn here to enjoy the welfare, weather, and favorable conditions. Imagine if we restricted our efforts to those homeless individuals from San Francisco alone – we’d have enough funds and resources to smartly and compassionately solve their specific predicaments, reintegrating them into society.
Our existing 3,200 shelter beds can easily accommodate San Francisco’s homeless (about 2,800 individuals), so let’s establish residency limits based on their past living periods. The shelters and services will prioritize families, marginalized groups, and singles in dire straits, with remaining beds assigned to those enrolled in drug abuse treatment or mental health therapy programs. Those who refuse shelter and treatment due to self-determined barriers must leave San Francisco.
Funding currently allocated to drug abuse and mental health treatment facilities will be redirected towards directly providing these services and facilities rather than being indirectly managed through irresponsible non-profit networks, as is done now.
Given the city government’s financial constraints, individuals coming from other areas will have 60 days to arrange to leave San Francisco. Based on economic surveys, they may receive travel assistance to depart San Francisco and return to their most recent permanent residences. This policy will spark a nationwide reaction encouraging other cities to aid their own homeless population. This policy is not rooted in vagrancy laws but in the health and safety considerations of all San Franciscans, which should hold sway in the courts.
All service providers within the non-profit homelessness industry must undergo strict scrutiny, covering aspects like profitability, efficiency, and service provision capability, before being selected by a consulting group comprised of San Francisco taxpayers.
Our streets and sidewalks must be cleared of all encroachments so that taxpayers, who pay for street and sidewalk maintenance, can once again use these pathways without worrying about stepping on sleeping vagabonds on the street or deliberately bypassing malodorous campsites.
All tents and campers must be relocated to designated areas within the city, undergoing a review of their identities to determine if they should vacate or be addressed before receiving temporary placement.
The Chief of Police for San Francisco must step down, to be succeeded by a current police officer who understands the city’s culture and nuances, commands respect from the department’s members, and exhibits leadership qualities to encourage other officers to perform better.
The San Francisco Police Department must swiftly staff up and deploy in the most rapid, efficient, and forceful manner to combat all types of crime in the city. All existing laws must be strictly enforced.
Establish an online public tracking system recording all accused crimes and the progress of each case within the legal system (including the courts), allowing the public to hold accountable responsible parties ruling on such matters.
Any form of corruption within the civil service or municipal bureaucratic institutions is intolerable; upon confirmation, individuals involved will be terminated and subject to civil and criminal litigation under applicable laws.
All departmental budgets for each fiscal year must adopt a zero-based budget. As budgets for the next year will see significant cuts, city agencies will be streamlined and reassessed to retain only essential personnel to provide basic municipal services.
In recent years, the prevalent “commission system” enacted to relieve accountable individuals will be substantially reduced or even abolished.
All non-profit organizations currently contracted by the city government will undergo a review covering profitability, efficiency, and service provision capabilities before their contracts are terminated.
The reinstatement of a merit-based civil service hiring system is crucial, eliminating the current patronage system. Reverting to a performance-based civil service hiring system and fully eradicating the existing patronage system.
Once the downtown area is clean, safe, and convenient, commerce will naturally rebound.
All regulations and permit procedures relating to downtown companies and small businesses will be reviewed and simplified to encourage their lawful operation, instead of being exploited or hindered as currently observed.
The practice of conducting business on the streets must be stopped, and our streets will be reopened, repurposing them to promote efficient traffic flow. The Director of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency must be replaced.
Roadside parking spots downtown will be reopened, with specific loading and unloading times stipulated based on usage.
Parking fees at municipal parking garages will be reviewed to encourage parking rather than punitive charges.
Policies that remove curbside parking spaces for downtown business expansions will be reviewed; they may even be repealed if deemed necessary.
An evaluation of all local government operations will be conducted to ascertain their concrete performances in serving the people of San Francisco.
The principle of minority subjection supported by the majority will be applied in all matters affecting the city’s residents.
Explore and establish sensible alternatives, opposing destructive statewide mandatory plans like the “Housing Element Mandate” requiring the construction of 83,000 new residences in San Francisco, along with the latest “Daylighting” parking plan threatening to dismantle 14,000 residential parking spaces.
Utilize the Mayor’s office to spearhead and support candidates embodying the following traits: Members of the Board of Supervisors who prioritize the welfare of the constituents they represent, District Attorneys who understand how to effectively prosecute crimes to uphold public safety, and City Attorneys versed in addressing legal challenges faced by the city in implementing the above policies.
Advocate for the abolition of our incorrectly labeled “sanctuary city” status, district elections, and ranked-choice voting.
Author’s Biography:
Tony Hall served as Supervisor for the 7th District of San Francisco, California. Over 33 years, he held executive and administrative positions across seven different city departments within all three branches of government. He is also a highly regarded singer and performer in the Bay Area.
Original Title: How to Fix San Francisco
Published in English on Epoch Times.
The author’s views are solely personal and do not necessarily reflect the stance of Epoch Times.