A budget twice the size of the state of Idaho’s – for 800,000 residents.
What’s worst? That the city spends more per-capita than any other in the country, or that all the spending is doing nothing to curb the problems it targets.
Despite its spending more money per capita on homelessness than any comparable city, its homeless problem is worse than any comparable city’s. Despite its spending more money per capita, period, than almost any city in the nation, San Francisco has poorly managed, budget-busting capital projects, overlapping social programs no one is certain are working, and a transportation system where the only thing running ahead of schedule is the size of its deficit.
The story offers a myriad of examples, most from the Parks and Rec department – nothing strange if you’ve had dealings with government or union types over the years, but on a grander scale given San Francisco’s taste of all things progressive.
Perhaps this bit was funniest:
The city’s ineptitude is no secret. “I have never heard anyone, even amongliberals, say, ‘If only [our city] could be run like San Francisco,’” says urbanologist Joel Kotkin. “Even other liberal places wouldn’t put up with the degree of dysfunction they have in San Francisco. In Houston, the exact opposite of San Francisco, I assume you’d get shot.”
H.T: Instapundit
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
They’re just waiting for “The Big One!” That should take care of things.
As goes California (San Fran standing in ably as a rep), so goes the nation … just like Arnie and Pres. Obama want.
Love the schooling Ahnuld got from Palin, regarding that wicked awesome green economy he’s got goin’ in Cali.
So wait a minute, wait a minute…are you saying…government spending isn’t helping?
Veruckt, it’s obvious that they just haven’t spent enough money yet. They just need to keep spending more and more, and eventually the problems will be fixed.
Agreed Jimmy. Afterall look at the massive success throwing money has had with public education. If San Fran-sicko simply increased their budget to $16 quintillion dollars all of their problems would vanish.
I assume that budget includes monies for new needles for the drug users and condoms for the hookers?
And to pay for unionized employees with pooper-scoopers to follow the so-called “homeless” who leave little piles behind.
If Houston is the direct opposite of San Francisco why did they just elect a gay mayor?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/us/politics/13houston.html
Same question came to mind. But, given the gay mayor is a fiscal conservative, I’m sure San Fran would still to ‘em into the bay.
A fiscally conservative lesbian from Texas? That’s just…hot.
No Jimmy… no it’s not. This is real life — not Cinemax.
I always wondered what happened to Cinemax’s late-night ratings once internet porn became available.
Buh. San Francisco deserves whatever it gets for all its reckless spending. Gee, make the city extremely homeless friendly… don’t do anything to get these people homes or jobs or anything useful, just give them tents and free reign throughout… and you get more homeless. Wow. Never saw that one coming.