[rce]

I don't think this really makes sense. If the city were really just for rich people who don't care about others, then why don't they kick out all the homeless? And why would they pass a high tax on businesses? And how can you say the wealthy don't care about jobs leaving or tech decline when most of the money here is from tech and the rich people work in tech?

I could just as easily say the poorest run city policies:

Housing - don't want gentrification and are rent-controlled anyway

Thefts - don't care about rich store owners or home owners and don't want to be hassled by the police

Schools - if they can't do advanced math then get rid of it so that no one is ahead of them

Tech - they don't work in tech and don't want to compete against rich techies for housing

I think the truth is that it's run by the entrenched, which is a mix of the rich and poor: people who already own property (because their families have been here a long time or because they're rich) and people who have rent-controlled apartments

[chelical]

The wealthy can and often do benefit from rent-controlled units. Not only that, but they trade rent controlled units within their social circle.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Rent-control-s...

To the first commenter's point, most of the policies you mentioned are painful for middle class residents, but don't really affect the wealthy elite.

[coolso]

> then why don't they kick out all the homeless? And why would they pass a high tax on businesses

Maybe they’re mostly liberal?

[saargrin]

i dont see how you can practically kick out the homeless even if you really wanted to , without it being an absolute bloodbath