# Interesting article- SF progressive policies / failed city **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 8, 2022, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882 "2022-06-08T15:06:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2022, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/121 "2022-06-19T21:16:41Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > And you’ve got to refocus on the specific environment. Remember the median home price in San Fran is almost 4 times the nationwide average. I am typically hesitant to look to places like San Francisco or New York as good examples of anything for the rest of us to follow. As insufferable as residents of both places can be, they’re both right about their respective cities being unique. ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2022, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/122 "2022-06-19T21:24:05Z")
Tennessee Williams said “America has only three cities: New York, San Francisco, and New Orleans. Everywhere else is Cleveland.” And, like a lot of his other pithees, that wasn’t an original observation at the time. Unlike the first two, New Orleans isn’t a victim of its success, but is threatened by geography. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2022, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/123 "2022-06-20T00:36:38Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Would you agree that if progressives had an overwhelming majority of the vote in a city, then any major failures should be on them? …why would I agree to that? Hillary Clinton got the majority of the vote in 2016. But that wasn’t enough to even get her elected. Because that isn’t the way things work. > [@Polerius](#): > > At what point do we say that an ideology has been tried and failed/succeeded? This thread is literally about an article that declared San Francisco a “failed city” due to the progressive ideology of a single District Attorney (who was in office for less than a year and a half who began his term right at the start of the pandemic) , and something that apparently happened at a school board. Based on that: do you think it’s fair to declare that “progressive policies are a failure”? Whether an “ideology has failed” is entirely dependent on the lens that you view it with. So you need to start with determining what measure you use to decide if something is “successful” or something is a “failure.” Good luck with getting an agreement on that. Let’s look at one progressive policy blanks that Boudin ran on: eliminating cash bail. The ACLU make their case for why cash bail is bad [here](https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/bail-reform). There are more people locked up in America per capita than [anywhere else in the world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate). Just _think_ about what that means for a moment. How did that happen? Why is that happening? > [@ACLU](#): > > Poorer Americans and people of color often can’t afford to come up with money for bail, leaving them incarcerated in jail awaiting trial, sometimes for months or even years. Meanwhile, wealthy people accused of the same crime can buy their freedom and return home. > > … > > This bail system has increased the jail population and made America’s incarceration problem worse. According to a [report](https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/incarcerations-front-door-summary.pdf) by the Vera Institute for Justice, the number of annual jail admissions doubled in the past three decades to 12 million, and the average length of stay increased from 14 to 23 days. > [@](#): > > Across the country, money bail is set at levels that are far too high for many people or their families to pay. Defendants face an impossible choice: remain locked up in jail as the case moves through the system; pay a nonrefundable fee to a for-profit bail bonds company; or plead guilty and give up the right to defend themselves at trial. Cash bail is just a part of the [prison-industrial complex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_complex). Progressives don’t think cash bail works as a means “to ensure people return to court to face charges against them.” They think it’s largely unnecessary because the evidence suggests that in most cases simply sending a court reminder is enough. They argue the practice is unconstitutional. The Republicans think the cash-bail system is just fine. The moderate Democrats think that the bail system should be reformed, and talk about reform a lot, but they don’t do anything about it. The progressive Democrats argue for the elimination of bail, and when they get power they just go ahead and do it. Which was why just weeks after he took power Chesa Boudin announced “that his office will no longer ask for cash bail as a condition for defendants’ pretrial release.” [https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-DA-Chesa-Boudin-ends-cash-bail-for-14996400.php](https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-DA-Chesa-Boudin-ends-cash-bail-for-14996400.php) So I put the question back to you. Does the recall of Chesa Boudin mean that the progressive ideology as a whole is a failure? Should the progressive movement stop advocating for things like the elimination of cash bail, even though they believe it to be unconstitutional, predatory, and discriminatory? I cannot stress this enough: but this isn’t a story about people being fed up with “crime on the streets” and deciding to reject the progressive ideology. It’s a story about the people who financially benefit from a fundamentally corrupt system circling the wagons to protect their own. > [@Polerius](#): > > I would have thought though, that of all cities, SF would likely to have one of the highest ratios of progressives to centrist Democrats, though maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know why you would think that this matters. The biggest problem with progressive policies are that they address things that are so complex in scope, you almost need to write a novel to explain them. And they are easily countered by a pithy talking point. A good faith argument is often quite easily taken down by a bad faith one, especially in an environment where the bad faith actors hold all the cards. Hillary Clinton’s emails is a classic example of this. To actually understand the _nuance_ of the story one has to read numerous explainers like this: > **[What Hillary Clinton's email scandal is really about, explained with a cartoon](https://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12941006/clinton-email-scandal-cartoon)** > > There are actually two different issues here. You’ve got the nuanced version: then you get the talking point. “But her emails.” Which one, do you think, won out? Even if SF did have one of the highest ratios of progressives to centrist Democrats, that doesn’t make it any easier to sell the progressive message, even to the converted. Almost nobody in this thread actually knew what “progressive things” Boudin actually did. “Progressive” just became a monolith term to describe, what I would best describe as “a vibe.” Nellie Bowles never really made a case for why progressive policies were the reason why SF was a “failed city.” She just said it was so. And that, for many people, was enough. ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_Sudan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chad_sudan/32/4509_2.png) [@Chad\_Sudan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chad_Sudan)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2022, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/124 "2022-06-20T01:46:23Z")
I agree that Chesa Boudin’s recall does not discredit progressive ideology as a whole. I feel like this debate would be a whole lot more constructive if we could all agree on that. Chesa Boudin is one progressive individual who had a set of policies that were implemented in real-world circumstances. Other progressive policies, or other circumstances, might have produced different results. As a San Francisco voter, I voted for the elimination of cash bail (Prop. 25, 2020) and still believe that we desperately need to reform the bail system. There is undoubtedly more than one way to do that! It would also be more constructive to evaluate the facts alleged in the article based on actual evidence and not based on who the author is married to. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2022, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/125 "2022-06-20T02:04:10Z")
> [@Chad\_Sudan](#): > > It would also be more constructive to evaluate the facts alleged in the article based on actual evidence and not based on who the author is married to. …fortunately for everyone here, I have made a fair evaluation of the facts in the article! The fact that the author happens to be married to an alt-right grifter is merely incidental to all the other points I’ve made in the thread. Nellie Bowles has plenty of bad opinions of her own. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2022, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/126 "2022-06-20T18:46:29Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Cash bail is just a part of the [prison-industrial complex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_complex). Progressives don’t think cash bail works as a means “to ensure people return to court to face charges against them.” They think it’s largely unnecessary because the evidence suggests that in most cases simply sending a court reminder is enough. They argue the practice is unconstitutional. Bail is a holdover from the medieval English common law. It’s not some fiendish modern invention intended to screw the poor and enrich the rich. The fundamental problem is that bail amounts are fixed based on the crime, and as such are usually unduly onerous to the poor, and very little of a hindrance to the well off. And there’s also the disproportionate policing of people of color, meaning that the typical Republican thinking of “Don’t break the law, and you won’t have to worry about bail” doesn’t actually hold, except maybe for other white people. I’d bet there’s a happy middle ground between no cash bail, and onerous bail fees- maybe only felonies have cash bail, or something like that? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2022, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/127 "2022-06-20T22:38:59Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I’d bet there’s a happy middle ground between no cash bail, and onerous bail fees- maybe only felonies have cash bail, or something like that? This is getting off-topic, but excessive bail is already prohibited in all 50 states and territories of the U.S. “Like the ancient practice of securing the oaths of responsible persons to stand as sureties for the accused, the modern practice of requiring a bail bond or the deposit of a sum of money subject to forfeiture serves as additional assurance of the presence of an accused. Bail set at a figure higher than an amount reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose is ‘excessive’ under the Eighth Amendment.” _Stack v. Boyle_, 342 U.S. 1, 5 (1951). If it were granted for the sake of argument that any specific cash bail exceeds an amount reasonably calculated to ensure the defendant’s presence at trial, unless the individual presents a danger to the community (see _US v. Salerno_, 481 U.S. 739), setting the bail above that amount is _necessarily_ unlawful. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2022, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/128 "2022-06-20T23:00:23Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > unless the individual presents a danger to the community (see _US v. Salerno_, 481 U.S. 739) Error on my part. Even if the individual poses a danger to the community, etc. it is still unlawful to set a higher bail for that reason. The _Salerno_ case was about pretrial detention _without_ bail. If bail is set to begin with, it is unlawful to set it higher than an amount reasonably calculated to secure the defendant’s presence at trial. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2022, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/129 "2022-06-21T00:23:39Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Bail is a holdover from the medieval English common law. It’s not some fiendish modern invention intended to screw the poor and enrich the rich. …the fact that bail is a holdover from medieval English common law doesn’t materially change the fact that it is now a part of the industrial-prison complex, being used to screw the poor and enrich the rich. > [@bump](#): > > The fundamental problem is that bail amounts are fixed based on the crime, and as such are usually unduly onerous to the poor, and very little of a hindrance to the well off. Is it really, though? Is this really the fundamental problem? and not the fact that the ACLU suggests (based on the evidence) that simple solutions like court reminders often can achieve the same purpose of cash bail? If there are cheaper, less onerous, as effective methods of making sure people turn up to their court date, then why would you go with the more expensive, arguably unconstitutional method instead? > [@bump](#): > > I’d bet there’s a happy middle ground between no cash bail, and onerous bail fees- maybe only felonies have cash bail, or something like that? Or how about a " “risk-based system” that weighs whether a defendant might flee or poses a threat to public safety?" Like the one that Chesa Boudin tried to introduce? Because, again one of the problems here is that people are being held in pre-trial detention for months, even _years_. So a person accused (not convicted) of a felony has to choose between being incarcerated for months or longer, paying a non-refundable fee to a for-profit bail bonds company, or pleading guilty. Does that sound like a fair and just system to you? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2022, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/130 "2022-06-21T01:12:32Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Or how about a " “risk-based system” that weighs whether a defendant might flee or poses a threat to public safety?" Like the one that Chesa Boudin tried to introduce? They’ve _already_ got that in most jurisdictions in the setting of bail, and indeed **IF** bail is even offered. I don’t think bail is necessarily unjust. That was my point- for a lot of people and/or crimes, it’s not necessary. For others, maybe a token amount might be enough to enforce someone to come back for the trial- not enough to financially break them, but enough for them to want to get that money back by showing up. For others, it may need to be very high, because they’re a risk in some way, and they want to ensure that they show up. Part of the problem is that with showing up to trial, you sort of have to aim the system at the worst actors, not the best, or the average. I mean, _most_ people will show up of their own accord. Fee-based penalties aren’t any different- a $200 speeding ticket would be annoying to me, but would in essence come out of “petty cash”. There are a LOT of people out there for whom that would be a crushing unexpected payment. The just fee would probably be more for me, and less for them. Why would bail be any different in concept? I would show up because I respect the law, etc… and bail wouldn’t be necessary, but there are almost certainly people out there who would ignore the court date unless they had money to recover by showing up. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2022, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/131 "2022-06-21T01:44:36Z")
> [@bump](#): > > They’ve _already_ got that in most jurisdictions in the setting of bail, and indeed **IF** bail is even offered. …but they didn’t have it _here_. And plenty of other jurisdictions claim that they do this, but they don’t. > [@bump](#): > > I don’t think bail is necessarily unjust. What do you think the point of bail is? > [@bump](#): > > For others, maybe a token amount might be enough to enforce someone to come back for the trial- not enough to financially break them, but enough for them to want to get that money back by showing up. For others, it may need to be very high, because they’re a risk in some way, and they want to ensure that they show up. The ACLU says that the evidence suggests that other methods are just as effective as cash bail in ensuring that people turn up to their court date. If, for the sake of debate, what they say is true, then why would you continue with cash bail? > [@bump](#): > > Part of the problem is that with showing up to trial, you sort of have to aim the system at the worst actors, not the best, or the average. I mean, _most_ people will show up of their own accord. Well that would explain then why the United States of America have more people incarcerated per capita than anywhere else in the world. Perhaps designing a system where everyone is treated like “the worst actors” isn’t the best of ideas. > [@bump](#): > > Fee-based penalties aren’t any different- a $200 speeding ticket would be annoying to me, but would in essence come out of “petty cash”. Well, they are different. Because a penalty is applied _after_ a conviction. Cash bail is applied _before_. That distinction is quite important. Cash bail isn’t supposed to be a punishment. It’s supposed to make sure that the person turns up at court. > [@bump](#): > > but there are almost certainly people out there who would ignore the court date unless they had money to recover by showing up. _Sometimes_ they recover that money. If you have to use a bondsman, then 10-15% of that is paid in fees. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2022, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/132 "2022-06-24T17:36:10Z")
Although the national story seems to be “Bay Area no longer progressive”, a closer look at election results show the situation is far more complex. On the same day that Chesa Boudin was recalled, voters in both Alameda and San Mateo counties defeated their incumbent sheriffs and replaced them with MORE progressive ones: > **[Alameda County sheriff results: Yesenia Sanchez leads](https://oaklandside.org/2022/06/07/alameda-county-sheriff-primary-election-results-2022/)** > > Sanchez held a considerable lead over incumbent Sheriff Gregory Ahern after updated vote totals were released Thursday. > **[Incumbent San Mateo County sheriff concedes to challenger Christina Corpus](https://almanacnews.com/news/2022/06/17/incumbent-san-mateo-county-sheriff-concedes-to-challenger-christina-corpus)** > > Conceding the primary race, incumbent Sheriff Carlos Bolanos congratulated his opponent Christina Corpus Thursday after early, non-certified results continued to show she had a steady, solid lead that began on election night. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2022, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/133 "2022-06-25T18:54:49Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > This thread is literally about an article that declared San Francisco a “failed city” due to the progressive ideology of a single District Attorney (who was in office for less than a year and a half who began his term right at the start of the pandemic) , and something that apparently happened at a school board. > > Based on that: do you think it’s fair to declare that “progressive policies are a failure”? Based on that summary, it’s hard to believe you read the article. Bowles cited a number of factors causing what she feels is a degradation in the quality of life for city residents, including rampant property crime, lack of housing due to restrictions cheered by NIMBYs intent on maintaining the status quo, poor handling of the homeless situation, disastrous drug abuse problems including a massive increase in drug-related deaths in just a few years, and a school board that couldn’t be bothered to get students back in class, but was happy to waste time renaming schools and blocking the appointment of an otherwise qualified gay man because he happened to be white. > [@](#): > > Nellie Bowles never really made a case for why progressive policies were the reason why SF was a “failed city.” She just said it was so. She made a detailed case. You disagree. Incidentally, Bowles expressed sympathy with the idea of eliminating cash bail for minor offenses, but pointed out the extremes to which reform had been taken. “Last month a man who had been convicted of [15 burglary and theft-related felonies](https://abc7news.com/sf-crime-burglary-plea-deal-chesa-boudin/11833000/?ex_cid=TA_KGO_TW&taid=6279d085b2a94c00017ecd10&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter) from 2002 to 2019 was rearrested on 16 new counts of burglary and theft; most of those charges were dismissed and he was released on probation. It really didn’t inspire confidence that the city was taking any of this seriously.” What’s happening in S.F. doesn’t seem like a right-wing reactionary coup, but instead an instance of arch-progressives losing ground to more traditional, fed-up progressives and liberals. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2022, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/134 "2022-06-25T23:08:25Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > including rampant property crime, Don’t see where you can pin this on progressives IMHO. A lot of it had to do with local thieves changing patterns during the pandemic and the impact of massive wealth disparity. See here for an [article with charts](https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-crime-rate-17065509.php). > [@Jackmannii](#): > > lack of housing due to restrictions cheered by NIMBYs intent on maintaining the status quo Again, not progressive activists. Progressives are pushing for more affordable housing. NIMBYism everywhere relates to home ownership, not ideology. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > poor handling of the homeless situation Arguable, but I’ll give you this one as a push. SF is trying to be more progressive with how it treats the homeless, so is less aggressive about clearing out encampments and such. Whether that is the right tactic is very much an ongoing argument, but I’ll note that SF weather as well as SF policy and support groups make it an attractive draw for the more mobile homeless. Few people freeze to death in SF. And of course the high SF costs and housing crunch drives some proportion of homelessness. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > disastrous drug abuse problems including a massive increase in drug-related deaths in just a few years The explosion in imported fentanyl is killing people, not progressives. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > a school board that couldn’t be bothered to get students back in class, but was happy to waste time renaming schools and blocking the appointment of an otherwise qualified gay man because he happened to be white I support the school board in some things, not in others (philosophically, I no longer live in SF). Mural censorship probably a bad idea IMHO, lottery admission at Lowell High probably a good one. But I have no problem with delaying the return to classes - public safety first, education second. But that’s my own bias. But if you want to blame that on progressives, like the homeless I’d say fair enough. So, I’ll weakly give you (or Bowles) two out of five, granted that I disagree with you (or her) on priorities in the other two. But at the end of the day I don’t see a “failed city” in any way shape or form. It isn’t Detroit - it’s not actively courting bankruptcy or declining in population. The population somehow managed to grow 8.5% between 2010 and 2020, pretty interesting considering it’s geographic limitations. It’s just a city with a normal amount of urban problems. Neither progressives nor reactionaries, liberals nor conservatives are ever going to solve all urban ills or make everyone happy. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2022, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/135 "2022-06-26T00:25:02Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Based on that summary, it’s hard to believe you read the article. …of _course_ I read it. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Bowles cited a number of factors causing what she feels is a degradation in the quality of life for city residents, including rampant property crime, lack of housing due to restrictions cheered by NIMBYs intent on maintaining the status quo, poor handling of the homeless situation, disastrous drug abuse problems including a massive increase in drug-related deaths in just a few years, and a school board that couldn’t be bothered to get students back in class, but was happy to waste time renaming schools and blocking the appointment of an otherwise qualified gay man because he happened to be white. An alleged “degradation in the quality of life for city residents” is **not** the same thing as a “failed city.” A school board that prioritised the safety of its students during a global pandemic that has killed millions and maybe did or maybe didn’t block the appointment of one, specific person is not responsible for the failure of the city. San Francisco is not, by any reasonable metric, a failed city. “Failed city” is the entire premise of the article. A handful of cherry picked factors allegedly causing what she feels is a degradation in the quality of life for **some** city residents have not caused the city to fail. It simply hasn’t. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > She made a detailed case. No she didn’t. Perhaps you could make one here? Convince me. For starters: what does a “failed city” look like? How are you defining a failed city? What metrics would you use? And how does San Francisco meet those metrics? > [@Jackmannii](#): > > “Last month a man who had been convicted of [15 burglary and theft-related felonies](https://abc7news.com/sf-crime-burglary-plea-deal-chesa-boudin/11833000/?ex_cid=TA_KGO_TW&taid=6279d085b2a94c00017ecd10&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter) from 2002 to 2019 was rearrested on 16 new counts of burglary and theft; most of those charges were dismissed and he was released on probation. It really didn’t inspire confidence that the city was taking any of this seriously.” From the cite: > [@7 News](#): > > _“As is the case in almost all plea deals involving multiple counts, the defendant pled to some, but not all, of the charges. In this case he pled guilty to 2 counts of second-degree burglary as well as additional enhancements,” the DA’s office wrote in a statement. “The plea deal’s agreed-upon sentence was that Mr. Picco receive credit for the days he spent on jail on this case, take part in a residential treatment program and be placed on two years’ probation.”_ > > The DA’s office says Picco is in custody in another county to clear an existing warrant. He will also be issued stay away orders, orders for restitution for all the burglaries, and be placed on electronic monitoring once he is placed in the program. If he fails to comply with any of the terms of his release, Picco faces up to five years and eight months in county jail. I’m not entirely sure what you would want to happen here? Plea deals are not _unique_ to San Francisco. And Picco is in currently in custody. Do you want to eliminate plea deals? Then perhaps you have more in common with the progressives than you might [think](https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/coercive-plea-bargaining-has-poisoned-the-criminal-justice-system-its-time-to-suck-the-venom-out). Is that what you want to happen here? Or do you just want to put him in jail and throw away the key? Because I’ll say this again: and I’ll say it in caps and I’ll bold it just in case you missed it the multiple other times I’ve said it in this thread. **AMERICA HAS MORE PEOPLE LOCKED UP PER CAPITA THAN ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD.** More than China. More than Russia. You’ve got a problem with locking people up, and there is no evidence that it is making people safer, and there is plenty of evidence that it is making plenty of people very rich. > [@The Sentencing Project](#): > > ## The United States is the world’s leader in incarceration. > > There are 2 million people in the nation’s prisons and jails—a 500% increase over the last 40 years. Changes in sentencing law and policy, not changes in crime rates, explain most of this increase. These trends have resulted in prison overcrowding and fiscal burdens on states to accommodate a rapidly expanding penal system, despite increasing evidence that large-scale incarceration is not an effective means of achieving public safety. > > … > > Sentencing policies of the War on Drugs era resulted in dramatic growth in incarceration for drug offenses. Since its official beginning in the 1980s, the number of Americans incarcerated for drug offenses has skyrocketed from 40,900 in 1980 to 430,926 in 2019. Furthermore, harsh sentencing laws such as mandatory minimums keep many people convicted of drug offenses in prison for longer periods of time: in 1986, people released after serving time for a federal drug offense had spent an average of 22 months in prison. By 2004, people convicted on federal drug offenses were expected to serve almost three times that length: 62 months in prison. > > At the federal level, people incarcerated on a drug conviction make up nearly half the prison population. At the state level, the number of people in prison for drug offenses has increased nine-fold since 1980, although it has begun declining in recent years. Most are not high-level actors in the drug trade, and most have no prior criminal record for a violent offense. > [@](#): > > Crime rates have declined substantially since the early 1990s, but studies suggest that rising imprisonment has not played a major role in this trend. The National Research Council concluded that while prison growth was a factor in reducing crime, “the magnitude of the crime reduction remains highly uncertain and the evidence suggests it was unlikely to have been large.” Several factors explain why this impact was relatively modest. > **[Research - Get the Facts - The Sentencing Project](https://www.sentencingproject.org/research/)** > > The United States is the world's leader in incarceration. Get the facts and statistics on trends in U.S. incarceration. The case you cited had nothing to do with cash bail, so the fact that “Bowles expressed sympathy with the idea of eliminating cash bail” has nothing to do with Picco and his sentence. It’s just a distraction. Hand waving. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > What’s happening in S.F. doesn’t seem like a right-wing reactionary coup, but instead an instance of arch-progressives losing ground to more traditional, fed-up progressives and liberals. I never called this a “right-wing reactionary coup”. I’ve clearly stated over and over again in this thread that this is more about centrist dems, the silicon valley “elite”, and the alt-right grifters all working in tandem to get rid of someone they didn’t like. It is no secret that the centrists are not fans of progressive policies. President Biden said “Fund the police” during the State of the Union, then proceeded to give the police billions more dollars in funding. This isn’t about a “right-wing reactionary coup”. Its about maintaining the status quo. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2022, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/136 "2022-06-26T01:47:44Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Based on that summary, it’s hard to believe you read the article. Of course not; someone said that progressivism isn’t absolutely heaven-sent and perfect, and in they jump to defend it, whether or not it makes sense. And what I was saying is that I found the whole thing extremely interesting, because it was not the usual backward conservatives vs. liberals fight, but rather extreme progressives vs. more moderate (but not _that_ moderate; it’s SF after all) liberals. You don’t see that sort of fight often in American politics. ---
**Author:** ![BippityBoppityBoo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bippityboppityboo/32/5745_2.png) [@BippityBoppityBoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BippityBoppityBoo)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2022, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/137 "2022-06-26T01:49:01Z")
> [@bump](#): > > You don’t see that sort of fight often in American politics. We should be so lucky. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2022, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/138 "2022-06-26T02:53:41Z")
I guess I’m used to it, having lived in the Bay Area for almost 40 years, but I see that sort of fight all the time. That’s just what local politics is about, here. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2022, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/139 "2022-06-26T03:13:27Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Of course not; someone said that progressivism isn’t absolutely heaven-sent and perfect, and in they jump to defend it, whether or not it makes sense. …hello! I’m right here! And you are incorrect. I said so here: > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …of _course_ I read it. I’ve read the article. I understood the article. I’ve posted at length about the article. So you are wrong. And I haven’t argued that “progressivism is absolutely heaven-sent and perfect”, and I didn’t just jump into this thread to defend it for the sake of defending it, and my defence of it here, in context, makes complete sense. I look forward to your retraction. > [@bump](#): > > rather extreme progressives We aren’t talking about “extreme progressives.” Just bog-standard plain progressiveness. It’s about as vanilla a flavour of progressiveness as you can get. And it didn’t cause the failure of a city. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2022, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882/140 "2022-06-26T03:16:55Z")
Our local politics is often [clowns like this](https://thetexan.news/commissioner-j-j-koch-believes-other-factors-such-as-socioeconomic-status-should-be-the-basis-for-distributing-the-vaccine/) vs. [clowns like this.](https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/john-wiley-price-warns-dallas-city-council-against-white-liberals-11105754) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-article-sf-progressive-policies-failed-city/965882.md?page=8)