What it gets you closer to is correlation, but not causation.
We’re back to infinite complexity and tightly-coupled.
Local spending on police increased in 90% of locations we looked at from fiscal year 2019 to 2022. The San Francisco Police Department budget increased overall by 4.4% from 2019 to 2022, although SFPD saw a larger increase in fiscal year 2019-2020 before the budget dropped from that high point for the next two fiscal years.
Remember it was after 2019 that that action was taken in the San Francisco City Council to defund the police leading to hilarious results.
.
There are no large conservative cities. None. Why is that?
This thread is pretty entertaining. I love the notion that laxer laws and criminals—when reported and culprits caught—not being sent to jail aren’t major contributors to the increase in crime in places like SF. Funny stuff. I lived in SF for 15 years. I have dear friends there still. One friend who lives in a pretty nice area had his catalytic converter stolen twice and recently had 3 guys break into their home at 3AM while he, his wife and two children were sleeping. People are leaving their cars unlocked so the thieves can rummage through them without breaking the windows.
There was a TV news piece a year or two ago where a small convenience store owner lamented that the cops don’t/can’t really do anything. If he calls for shoplifters, cops can take an hour to get there. And once they arrive, all they do is write a ticket—IF the culprit is still around. He said he’s stopped calling because it is a waste of time. No one is ever punished.
Here’s an article from 2021 that gives a look into the problem and the frustration. Things have since become worse: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/walgreens-store-closures-san-francisco-shoplifting?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Pmax_USA_High-Intent-Audience-Signals&gclid=EAIaIQobChMImOaBtvPFgAMVE-fjBx1SaAP3EAMYASAAEgKXBfD_BwE#google_vignette
…firstly: the article states that Supervisor Ronen pushed for defunding, not that she achieved it.
And secondly, there is nothing hilarious about the police selectively choosing not to enforce crime in a district because of the political leanings of some of the leadership.
That’s just police corruption. There is nothing funny about it. It should not be tolerated. And it should be called out for what it is.
That’s certainly one way to ignore an argument. As long as you ignore my arguments, I’ll ignore yours.
Urban residents tend to be Democratic. Not really sure how that’s a gotcha. YOU are the one who brought up conservatism. I used a moderate Democratic city for my comparison. Speaking of that, Memphis seems to be one of the worst large cities for crime. I know it’s Democratic but does anyone know if it would be considered Progressive?
In Canada, Vancouver, on the “left coast,” is often cited as a “Mecca” for the homeless, and has been since the Great Depression of the 1930s. In the 1930s, one hobo summed up the reason for the “migration” to Vancouver: “it’s the only city in Canada where you starve to death before you freeze to death.” That is to say, climate may have more to do with where homeless people head than communists and anarchists controlling the city council.
Your argument is not worthy to be addressed as it is in no way deals with politics or even reality. Are you implying we should kill the homeless? Are you implying that Republicans would kill the homeless? Are you implying Progressives should kill the homeless? I even gave you the realistic argument that (I think) is where you are going and rather than following up you threaten to take your ball and go home. OK. Byeeeeeee.
I’m not sure why you want to argue with me, or argue with the facts. Sometimes, people (not you) like to muddy the water, in order to make it look deep. This is not complicated, no matter what people try to tell you.
Now simple doesn’t necessarily mean easy whent it comes to remedies. And then Politics and politicians get involved. Same as it ever was.
I’ve not made the claim this is a “progressive” failure, although it is certainly a failure nonetheless whether of law and order and/or a marked increase in looting of retail stores.
If you want cites for this, I don’t know what to tell you. Denying there is a problem is not going to lead to fixing anything.
I was just in San Francisco last night. Went to a concert. Full house in a large venue. Had a great time. SF has problems, but it is not a failure by any means.
…I’m sorry, but what facts?
I’m arguing with you because you didn’t bring any facts to the table.
No it isn’t complicated. America locks people up at industrial levels. More than any other comparable nation. And the minute anyone ever points this out, people complain about narrow margins in grocery stores.
The problem isn’t the grocery store margins.
Yes, I want cites for this. That’s how it always works in these debate forums. You can’t just assert something and expect everyone to accept what you say.
Democrats decriminalizing minor crimes and/or eliminating draconian sentencing, without implementing the sort of sweeping social programs that liberal think tanks talk a big game about, is exactly like Republicans cutting taxes without cutting spending. They are doing the easy part without doing the hard part.
I agree with the title of the OP but not the body. What we see in the locations cited – blue cities in blue states – is a lack of commitment. Voters don’t actually want to pay the taxes required to solve these problems, or NIMBYism gets in the way. Politicians can’t stand up to the corporations that are funding their campaigns, and so won’t extract the corporate taxes that might be required. And there’s still an overwhelming problem with states racing to the bottom to cater to corporations.
It’s rare that we see a single location actually able to enact the sort of policies that many claim are necessary. Kansas comes to mind, finally putting into practice the low tax rates = more revenue theory. As misguided as that effort was, it was a rarity in modern politics. I see the same thing here. Are there cities where Democrats are trying to revive the concept of public housing while addressing the problems that arose from those same efforts in the 70s and 80s? I haven’t seen it. Everyone seems afraid to put their tax dollars where their mouths are.
I think San Francisco and Los Angeles may be examples where progressivism has failed. Then we have all the rest of history as examples of non-progressivism failures to consider in contrast.
I’m in Seattle at least once a week. I have the same impression. It’s not thunder dome there. There are homeless issues, but my sense is that things are improving generally. Crime, homelessness, and whatever else Fox is concerned about don’t enter into my mind when I visit for business or pleasure.
No, he’s very obviously not advocating any of those things. He’s using an extreme example to highlight the logical fallacy in the argument you were making.
That’s not where I’m going. You totally misread my argument. My point is that progressive cities have more homeless people because they’re not brutal towards homeless people, while cities with hostile architecture, hostile policies, hostile law enforcement, etc., quite obviously drive homeless people away (towards cities that aren’t brutal towards them) and this explains the numbers.
Maybe you think this is a good thing – I think all cities should treat homeless people humanely.
So you agree that progressive politics tend to increase the homeless rate in that city?
I think this is the summary of your problem here. You appear to be basing your premises on anecdotal stories rather than factual analysis. This rarely leads to good conclusions
They might–but from what perspective is that a failure?
You’ve brought no facts, so we’re kinda forced into hypotheticals. Here we go.
Two cities: Omelas, and Leftissimopolis. 10,000 homeless people, 5,000 in each of city.
Omelas has a conservative government. They put armrests on park benches so homeless people can’t sleep. They outlaw panhandling and public urination and public intoxication and camping and feeding the homeless and needle exchange programs. There’s no tax funding for shelters. Homeless people who stay there usually end up in and out of jail.
Leftissimopolis has a liberal government. They decriminalize camping in public parks, install public restrooms, allow nonprofits to set up free food stations and run needle exchange programs. Low-barrier homeless shelters are funded by the city. Those with public intoxication are referred to treatment programs with heavy support.
As a result, homeless folks with the means move from Omelas to Leftissimopolis. Now Omelas has 4,000 homeless people, and Leftissimopolis has 6,000.
From your perspective, this proves the failure of progressivism, right? The lefty city’s homeless population skyrocketed.
But overall homelessness didn’t.
From a different perspective–the humanitarian perspective–the change is that now 1,000 more homeless people are getting services instead of prison. This is a huge success.
Leftissimopolis’s programs don’t make more homeless people. Longterm, they’re likely to reduce homelessness far more than Omelas’s policies.