[the_watcher]

> Honestly, at this point it's too late to start "preparing" for a pop. I'm dubious the city can come up with 6 years of money to ride out any kind of economic turmoil without great pain.

So cities and states should just give up? Just because they won't be able to protect against everything doesn't mean they shouldn't be working on sound budgeting plans to offset whatever amount of pain that they have. You're right that the regulatory structure of the city makes it very difficult to make the kind of infrastructure investments truly necessary to address the issues of the city, but building up cash reserves is simply sound planning.

[matt_wulfeck]

how about a follow up: be prepared individually to ride out economic pain. Don't be afraid to move. If you have a successful business then beware the city is going to have a keen eye on you as a potential source of income that it will badly need.

I predict the city will try and suck any profitable enterprises dry before they cut back on social spending, despite what the messaging suggests.

[the_watcher]

Sure, but that isn't mutually exclusive with the city doing its best to put together a financial emergency fund.

[DrScump]

Has that ever happened in SF?

[the_watcher]

Does that make it mutually exclusive? Does the fact that it has never happened in SF mean that the city should just punt on even attempting any fiscal responsibility?

[DrScump]

My point being that in the two generations of one-party rule in SF, there has never been any semblance of fiscal responsibility. I wouldn't rely on that happening now.

[the_watcher]

Again, that does not, in any way, mean that the city should not be attempting to budget somewhat responsibility. Just because you don't like how the city has been run doesn't mean they shouldn't ever try to be better