http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-city-in-the-u-s/1 ***********660000]Comments[/COLOR] (147) By ***********660000]Benjamin Wachs[/COLOR] and ***********660000]Joe Eskenazi[/COLOR] Wednesday, Dec 16 2009 Despite its good intentions, ***********660000]San Francisco[/COLOR] is not leading the country in gay marriage. Despite its good intentions, it is not stopping wars. 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
Exactly. My first thought when I saw this thread was, "Detroit." There's no way in hell you could ever get me to move there. Maybe if you gave me some millions, but that's another story. I'd still end up moving.
Only some right-wing nut job would say SF is worse run than Detroit. I guess it's a matter of homophobia vs. racism.
Both have mayors who makes the Three Stooges more competent, but SFO is still a 'tourist spot'. DTW, on the other hand is finished, until people who know what the hell they're doing take charge.
What's so wrong with SF's mayor? He's no Marion Barry or Kwame Kilpatrick, I know that much. I keep saying that the only thing to save Detroit is a full blown land rush like the Old West, what you can grab you can have, no taxes for new residents for 10 years, and armed security for newcomers so the crackheads can't jump 'em. Oh and a white mayor.
Well, my granddad always said that White people will eventually have to move back into the city to save it (he had predicted that they would eventually have to build casinos to compete with Canada). Well...you're right about the mayors. LOL.
