Booms, busts, PG&E and the bloated police budget

I’ve had too many booms and too many busts in San Francisco, which is the state of the city, and I’ve always argued, contrary to the prevailing narrative, that busts can be better than booms.

Economic downturns mean high unemployment and lower tax revenues for the city, which almost always means cuts to social services. This is a big problem for working class people.

On the other hand, economic meltdowns also mean lower, or at least more stable, housing prices, and for at least half of the city’s population, particularly working-class and low-income, housing costs are by far the most important component. in their economic stability.

And prosperity is pretty much a disaster for anyone who is not an owner/investor or very rich.

I was glad to see Lincoln Mitchell of the Examiners made the point on January 11:

Much of what San Francisco contributed to the rest of the world from about 1960 to 2000 would not have been possible if the local economy had been thriving throughout that time.

The gay rights movement, women’s liberation movements, blacks, Native Americans, Chicano liberation movements, and the music and social changes that emanated from the city could not happen in a San Francisco that was so expensive that everyone had to work all the time just to be honest. to earn rent, and where there are no empty or cheap places to train, hold meetings or concerts or put on culture and …