In poop-covered San Francisco, the super-rich prey on the Left's merely wealthy

San Francisco is a city covered in excrement, and now even the wealthy inhabitants of its Embarcadero are going to experience more of it, up close to home and quite personal.

Here's the news from the Guardian:

Authorities in San Francisco have approved plans for a homeless shelter that had faced fierce protests from wealthy local residents.

Tuesday's unanimous vote by San Francisco's port commissioners was the culmination of weeks of contention that began with residents of one of the city's most desirable waterfront neighborhoods raising more than $101,000 in a crowdfunding campaign to pay for an attorney to fight the construction of the Navigation Center.

They got steamrolled.  This comes despite what locals say was "nearly 100% opposition," along with a swift raising of more than $100,000 from a GoFundMe campaign to legally fight the coming nightmare.  They're about to learn they've become the latest sacrificial lambs, because they're now the low men on the San Francisco totem pole.  They've become the new peasants, and they probably don't even know it.

But they do know that something has gone wrong.  The Guardian continues:

"We believe that in the mayor's haste to meet her campaign promises, she has failed to follow the law," he said.  "It's pretty disrespectful to the people who live there to shove it down their throats like this.  I have been practicing law in this city for almost 30 years and I have never seen so much disregard for the feelings, thoughts, and opinions of thousands of people."

Maybe they should have thought of that before they elected an incompetent weakling like Mayor London Breed based on color considerations, or passed Proposition C in that same election, taxing big businesses to pay for More Homeless programs.  The residents aren't the most sympathetic people out there, given their voting patterns.  All the same, this could be some kind of watershed, widening a new fault line on the left, given that tech billionaires were the ones behind this, making a sort of warfare on the merely wealthy.  After all, in San Francisco, there's no one else left. 

The residents' interests were steamrolled and without a significant concession, as activists from San Francisco's vast 'homeless industrial complex' (who stand to make a lot of money from the project) heckled their protests as "stand up to hate."  That's not just a steamroller going over a lot of people; that's a pave-over.  The ironically named 'SAFE' navigation center for the homeless will go up no matter what they think, and as part of all that safety from the "SAFE" center, the city promises two new beat cops in the vicinity to protect residents.  (Assuming they show up.)

It's not going to work, of course.  The city already spends $77,000 per homeless person (the money going to activists and nonprofits), which is higher than the mean average income of the average U.S. resident, wrote Rich Cibotti in a data-filled 2017 piece for the Daily Wire.  It has a $10-billion city budget (in stark contrast to the $3-billion city budgets of much larger cities such as San Diego and San Jose) and doles out $600 million among homeless agencies and non-profits to pay for 'homeless services,' which is an amount that is higher than its police or fire budgets.  The homeless cash is expected to keep rolling in in coming years, with Proposition C expected to bring in another $300 million (assuming the large companies targeted for the homeless tax stay around to pay it), and the homeless problem will proliferate.

The city itself says it's ramping up its homeless services in 2019 by about 17% even as other city services are cut to pay that.

During the next year, we will increase the number of Navigation Center beds by nearly 150 percent.  In addition to increasing Navigation Center capacity and services, we will add 172 units of new supportive housing placements as well as millions in rental subsidies to assist people in need of housing.  This budget also includes additional funding to expand programs tailored to the specific needs of different populations experiencing homelessness — families, youth, LBGTQ and veterans. 

Net result: A city covered in more poop than it knows what to do with.  As Thomas Sowell has observed, you can have all the poverty you want to pay for. 

The Embarcadero people, who likely have extended themselves financially to live there, aren't going to be happy about going underwater on their mortgages as the homeless move in.  But on the left, money talks, and these poor souls just don't have the political clout it takes in San Francisco to keep the homeless off their doorsteps the way the super-rich do.  They are, after all, merely wealthy, not tech billionaires.

Now, the measure was opposed by residents, but it was loudly supported by the super-rich, such as Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff (formerly an Oracle biggie), who are fully sheltered from any 'interaction' with the city's abundant homeless or their "byproducts."

Benioff loudly supported Proposition C, which is likely to drive businesses and tax revenue from the city, but apparently not his company, which will have to shell out only $10 million in new taxes.  The company itself paid $7 million to get the measure passed.  (Dorsey opposed it.)

Benioff's influence is present in other areas, too.  The homeless SAFE center's location is weird stuff. 

Way back in 2014, something called the Presidio Trust squelched another project that might have eventually gone up at the SAFE site known as Seawall Lot 330, which was George Lucas's proposed "Cultural Arts Museum," at another location, Crissy Field, and Lucas was then offered the Seawall Lot 330 location, which he spurned as too little, too late, and after legal challenges, he eventually took to Los Angeles.  Interestingly enough, that federal board, a place where political plums are offered to political donors (and President Obama certainly played this game), has since seen the appointment of Benioff's wife and another Oracle scion to the body in 2015.  Lucas dismissed the entire board and its offers as 'they hate us,' so there was something in the air about keeping Lucas out of the site and replacing it with a homeless services center instead.

Does it sound as though someone wanted to lower property values, chasing the local residents out, and then cleaning up later?  The homeless center is, supposedly, "temporary," with a lease to be renewed or not in two years.  It almost sounds as though the super-rich are seeking to drive enough residents out by ruining the quality of their lives as they pay high costs, driving their mortgages under water, and getting the market low enough to make a killing.  The super-rich can do that; the merely wealthy cannot.  Makes you wonder why Benioff and Dorsey were just so enthusiastic as advocates for the homeless industrial complex.  They seem to be using the homeless as guided weapons targeting the merely wealthy hoi polloi.

San Francisco is a city covered in excrement, and now even the wealthy inhabitants of its Embarcadero are going to experience more of it, up close to home and quite personal.

Here's the news from the Guardian:

Authorities in San Francisco have approved plans for a homeless shelter that had faced fierce protests from wealthy local residents.

Tuesday's unanimous vote by San Francisco's port commissioners was the culmination of weeks of contention that began with residents of one of the city's most desirable waterfront neighborhoods raising more than $101,000 in a crowdfunding campaign to pay for an attorney to fight the construction of the Navigation Center.

They got steamrolled.  This comes despite what locals say was "nearly 100% opposition," along with a swift raising of more than $100,000 from a GoFundMe campaign to legally fight the coming nightmare.  They're about to learn they've become the latest sacrificial lambs, because they're now the low men on the San Francisco totem pole.  They've become the new peasants, and they probably don't even know it.

But they do know that something has gone wrong.  The Guardian continues:

"We believe that in the mayor's haste to meet her campaign promises, she has failed to follow the law," he said.  "It's pretty disrespectful to the people who live there to shove it down their throats like this.  I have been practicing law in this city for almost 30 years and I have never seen so much disregard for the feelings, thoughts, and opinions of thousands of people."

Maybe they should have thought of that before they elected an incompetent weakling like Mayor London Breed based on color considerations, or passed Proposition C in that same election, taxing big businesses to pay for More Homeless programs.  The residents aren't the most sympathetic people out there, given their voting patterns.  All the same, this could be some kind of watershed, widening a new fault line on the left, given that tech billionaires were the ones behind this, making a sort of warfare on the merely wealthy.  After all, in San Francisco, there's no one else left. 

The residents' interests were steamrolled and without a significant concession, as activists from San Francisco's vast 'homeless industrial complex' (who stand to make a lot of money from the project) heckled their protests as "stand up to hate."  That's not just a steamroller going over a lot of people; that's a pave-over.  The ironically named 'SAFE' navigation center for the homeless will go up no matter what they think, and as part of all that safety from the "SAFE" center, the city promises two new beat cops in the vicinity to protect residents.  (Assuming they show up.)

It's not going to work, of course.  The city already spends $77,000 per homeless person (the money going to activists and nonprofits), which is higher than the mean average income of the average U.S. resident, wrote Rich Cibotti in a data-filled 2017 piece for the Daily Wire.  It has a $10-billion city budget (in stark contrast to the $3-billion city budgets of much larger cities such as San Diego and San Jose) and doles out $600 million among homeless agencies and non-profits to pay for 'homeless services,' which is an amount that is higher than its police or fire budgets.  The homeless cash is expected to keep rolling in in coming years, with Proposition C expected to bring in another $300 million (assuming the large companies targeted for the homeless tax stay around to pay it), and the homeless problem will proliferate.

The city itself says it's ramping up its homeless services in 2019 by about 17% even as other city services are cut to pay that.

During the next year, we will increase the number of Navigation Center beds by nearly 150 percent.  In addition to increasing Navigation Center capacity and services, we will add 172 units of new supportive housing placements as well as millions in rental subsidies to assist people in need of housing.  This budget also includes additional funding to expand programs tailored to the specific needs of different populations experiencing homelessness — families, youth, LBGTQ and veterans. 

Net result: A city covered in more poop than it knows what to do with.  As Thomas Sowell has observed, you can have all the poverty you want to pay for. 

The Embarcadero people, who likely have extended themselves financially to live there, aren't going to be happy about going underwater on their mortgages as the homeless move in.  But on the left, money talks, and these poor souls just don't have the political clout it takes in San Francisco to keep the homeless off their doorsteps the way the super-rich do.  They are, after all, merely wealthy, not tech billionaires.

Now, the measure was opposed by residents, but it was loudly supported by the super-rich, such as Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff (formerly an Oracle biggie), who are fully sheltered from any 'interaction' with the city's abundant homeless or their "byproducts."

Benioff loudly supported Proposition C, which is likely to drive businesses and tax revenue from the city, but apparently not his company, which will have to shell out only $10 million in new taxes.  The company itself paid $7 million to get the measure passed.  (Dorsey opposed it.)

Benioff's influence is present in other areas, too.  The homeless SAFE center's location is weird stuff. 

Way back in 2014, something called the Presidio Trust squelched another project that might have eventually gone up at the SAFE site known as Seawall Lot 330, which was George Lucas's proposed "Cultural Arts Museum," at another location, Crissy Field, and Lucas was then offered the Seawall Lot 330 location, which he spurned as too little, too late, and after legal challenges, he eventually took to Los Angeles.  Interestingly enough, that federal board, a place where political plums are offered to political donors (and President Obama certainly played this game), has since seen the appointment of Benioff's wife and another Oracle scion to the body in 2015.  Lucas dismissed the entire board and its offers as 'they hate us,' so there was something in the air about keeping Lucas out of the site and replacing it with a homeless services center instead.

Does it sound as though someone wanted to lower property values, chasing the local residents out, and then cleaning up later?  The homeless center is, supposedly, "temporary," with a lease to be renewed or not in two years.  It almost sounds as though the super-rich are seeking to drive enough residents out by ruining the quality of their lives as they pay high costs, driving their mortgages under water, and getting the market low enough to make a killing.  The super-rich can do that; the merely wealthy cannot.  Makes you wonder why Benioff and Dorsey were just so enthusiastic as advocates for the homeless industrial complex.  They seem to be using the homeless as guided weapons targeting the merely wealthy hoi polloi.