[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

[DrScump]

We agree exactly on what should happen. But I, as a realist and a careful observer of local political dynamics for over 20 years, see how it actually plays out.

And it's much, much worse than the local media ever report. And violations of the Brown Act (open meetings law) are constantly increasing.

It's quite an eye-opener reading an account of a public in the paper as seeing the reporter outright lie about the events and the makeup of the audience (this was easier back when city council meetings were not videoed by staff, only secretly by members of the audience).