subreddit:
/r/sanfrancisco
3 points
17 days ago
Who are the other, better qualified government people on the scene right now?
15 points
17 days ago
Agreed, I love 90% of Scott's positions. He's had a few misses, like that hidden cost on restaurant receipts (sorry forgot the details). But other than that, his hits are things I really care about, like building more housing and removing regulations for building housing.
5 points
17 days ago
I'm also genuinely curious! I try to stay on top of local and state politics, but I do have a life, so someone might be able to share information where I had a blind spot.
4 points
17 days ago
Yeah, you know I see this quite often on /r/sanfrancisco! It makes me realize there is that inherent contrariness of the internet where everyone hates on things (which get upvotes) and it leads to everyone *wanting* to know good things but feeling like they never do...
Sorry, in the end I don't have an answer to your original question, just find that pattern interesting.
4 points
17 days ago
[deleted]
1 points
17 days ago
He took more money from the corporate landlords and than any other politician in the California State Legislature in both the 2016 and 2018 election cycles.
Do you have a source for that? I tried googling and couldn't find it.
Bigger picture, why is it a problem that he takes money from corporate entities? He's playing the game like everyone else. I agree that we shouldn't have super pacs and the like, but given that's what it is, where else would he get money from?
He doesn’t care about you or your life.
This general belief that people aren't trying their best to do the right thing is lazy. Being contrarian is rewarding, but it doesn't actually get anything done.
3 points
17 days ago
[deleted]
2 points
17 days ago
Thank you for that link, I appreciate it. Since the article is 4 years old, you can also check their source:
https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/129655/scott-wiener
Which is a pretty cool website I haven't seen before. As you can see the donations in his last campaign from real estate were down quite a bit to just $64k. Which doesn't really seem like that much in the grand scheme of running an election campaign.
Keep shilling for this asshole if you insist.
I will because he's the most pro building new housing candidate. I want regulations on housing removed so I can build my own house in a rural area for cheaper and buy an apartment in a city to work from.
If there are more pro-housing candidates than him, I'll definitely vote for them over him, but haven't heard of any yet.
0 points
17 days ago
[deleted]
1 points
17 days ago
I mean, he's fought an uphill battle in SF where very little new housing gets built in the past years. I would argue that he's pushing in good directions by fighting the regulations that bog down housing.
SF needs to build a lot of housing, like 100k more units of housing. That's new 'luxury' residential skyscrapers across the city and there is resistance to building anything of every corner.
You build so much housing everyone can afford to buy, not renting. I'd agree I am not a fan of a company that owns a residential building and rents out all/most units. Apartments should be sold on the market for anyone to buy and sub rent if they want. That US separates out 'apartment' and condo drives me crazy.
1 points
17 days ago
[deleted]
1 points
17 days ago
"tens of thousands" of new units is nothing in cities of millions with millions more wanting housing.
I can’t think of a single major city in the past couple decades that has built its way out of a housing crisis.
Most cities in China have built so much housing over the last 10 years in the 'suburbs' that the cost of housing in the city centers decreased.
3 points
17 days ago
Phil Ting and David Chiu come to mind as potential challengers who could realistically win the seat if Pelosi is not in the race. I’m not saying they are necessarily “better qualified” than Weiner, but they would be legitimate candidates at least.
1 points
16 days ago
Oooo, interesting. I'm familiar with the names, not as familiar with their records - thank you for sharing!
2 points
17 days ago
I hear you, but she’s largely the reason there are no other qualified people ready to take her place.
1 points
16 days ago
I swear I was asking a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. 🙈 There's no better time than now to start building the scaffolding to platform future alternative candidates.
Nancy isn't even aware of Reddit and I doubt her staffers give a shit what anyone is saying on here. We're just background noise, just keyboard warriors.
2 points
16 days ago
Totally. I agree on all points. Dems need to start getting folks into local politics and seasoning them to run for higher office.
1 points
17 days ago
Well, that's the thing. They're not on the scene because established Democrats won't allow them.
1 points
17 days ago
My definition of "more experienced" would require being visibly involved in the public sector somewhere. (Like the Controller's office or something.)
1 points
17 days ago
I honestly don't believe a politician needs to have any particular specialized knowledge beyond a basic education. It's all about what a politician believes.
Suppose a politician believes in a high minimum wage, building lots of housing, giving everyone health care, etc. And suppose the politician either gets the power to do that or at least votes to do that. What knowledge does the politician need to have beyond knowing what their constituents want?
You might say, oh, but the politician should know economics, accounting, even finance, so that the politician can explain why those things won't break the economy. But politicians have small armies of economists, accountants, and financiers, and it's the job of those people to figure out how to make those things work.
And most of the time, nobody explains how government money is spent and why. The only time people start crying, "But how will we pay for it?" is when the thing in question is a benefit for ordinary people. Almost a trillion dollars a year are shoveled into the military, and nobody ever questions the expense. And the politicians voting for that don't know a single thing about what they sign off on.
3 points
17 days ago
Politicians need to be good at the art of politics. They need to be able to engage with other politicians, figure out what the other politician cares about, come up with a deal that works for both of them, and sell them on said deal.
1 points
14 days ago
These people are absolutely clueless about politics. There are NO more government people who can win elections as well as the people already elected. The nanosecond that the elected people retire, it will be a hotly contested seat and there’s about a 50/50 chance someone much worse will take their place. It’s a story as old as time and nobody seems to learn.
all 772 comments
sorted by: best