Sunday, November 27, 2022
50.8 F
Oxnard
More

    Latest Posts

    United States Socialist Republic book by HG Goerner

    New Poll Finds San Francisco Voters Are Moving Back To The Center

    By Evan Symon

    Mayor London Breed has only a 36% approval rating compared to 64% disapproval

    According to a new poll by the San Francisco Standard published on Thursday, voters in the city have moved back towards the center in the past few years following economic toil, massive political changes, rises in crime, and a growing number of homeless in the city.

    revival of tough-on-crime policies by District Attorney Brooke Jenkins has particularly won over many in San Francisco compared to prior policies put in place by recalled DA Chesa Boudin and proposed policies by her main opponent in the DA race John Hamasaki. Jenkins currently holds a 56% approval rating compared to Boudin who under 30% earlier this year in May before the recall election. Also tellingly, Jenkins is currently winning against Hamasaki and fellow opponent Joe Alioto Veronese in polls, holding a double-digit point lead, albeit with over 50% of voters still not knowing who they would vote for.

    Jenkins also proved to be one of the only entities and lawmakers in the city who had above a 50% approval rating. The Standard poll showed that Mayor London Breed has only a 36% approval rating compared to 64% disapproval. The Board of Supervisors fared worse, with only 23% of citizens approving of them compared to a whopping 77% disapproval rating. The San Francisco Public School system fared low as well with a 31%-69% approval disapproval split. The only entity to come close to approval was the SFPD, with a 41%-59% split.

    SF public schools were particularly shown to be complex. While 69% of citizens disapproved of how they were being run, around 3 out of every 4 parents in the city disapproved of the schools.  And these were encouraging numbers, as approval ratings had been even lower earlier this year prior to a school board recall election and subsequent reversal of many policies made under the former board.

    Unsurprisingly, San Franciscans said that homelessness and crime were the top two concerns in the city. 63% of those in the city said that City Hall doesn’t know how to solve the homelessness issue, with 71% agreeing that the high number of unhoused people are making the city less safe.

    Political reversals begin in SF

    The new tough-on-crime prerogatives, some of which have seen judges being stubborn in going along with the new policies, such as a recent incident in which DA Jenkins tried to prosecute drug dealers for murder following drugs that they sold leading to overdoses, have also been seen as more positive. While judges in the city blocked that murder charge policy attempted by Jenkins, 69% of San Francisco citizens now approve of that policy according to the poll. Majority support was also found for forcing repeat drug offenders into treatment, a greater police presence in the city, and requirements for street vendors to have licenses.

    Overall, while the poll still found many in the city to still be in favor of progressive and liberal policies that have defined the city for over half a century, commentators noted that  the city seemed to have hit a peak in those values in the 2010s when the city was coasting on a roaring tech economy. Now, with crime rising, home prices dropping, and many tech and retail companies either reducing office space or leaving the city outright, many now are beginning to shift in a different direction politically.

    “The poll should not come as a surprise to anyone even remotely familiar to the situation of the city,” explained Frank Ma, a former law enforcement official who now works as a security advisor for businesses in San Francisco and cities in the Peninsula, to the Globe on Thursday. “People just got fed up. And now we have a situation where some very liberal people who are lefter than left on some issues are suddenly asking for an expansion of the police or want some people out of office because of the things they did hurting the city or causing crime to go up.”

    “We were bound to hit our peak in that regard at some time, but it took a lot of crime, open drug use, and the economy to turn here to finally get people to start fighting back against the endless reforms that only kept hurting the city. I mean, we had two major recalls this year oust very-left people. Many clients I have, who are very liberal and supported people like Boudin, have even asked me about the legality of rounding up homeless people and sending them to other cities like the Florida and Texas Governors have done with illegal immigrants sending them to New York and Massachusetts. There are people I know who marched in the George Floyd rallies and called for police defunding who then had a lot of break ins and are now demanding that the SFPD hire more officers.”

    Click here to read the full article in the California Globe


    TELL YOUR FRIENDS ABOUT CITIZENS JOURNAL  Help keep us publishing –PLEASE DONATE

    - Advertisement -

    1 COMMENT

    0 0 votes
    Article Rating
    Subscribe
    Notify of
    guest

    1 Comment
    Newest
    Oldest Most Voted
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    C E Voigtsberger
    C E Voigtsberger
    1 month ago

    For many years, folks who treat drug and alcohol addiction have talked about “enablers.” Those are the folks who screen or mask the pernicious effect of such addictions on others around them and society as a whole. They convince themselves that they are “helping” the addict (using that term to describe addiction to drugs or alcohol or both) when, in fact, they are enabling the addict to continue his addiction.

    Governments at all levels are enablers, helping the addict continue in his addiction. The federal government under Barry Obama started the ball rolling by making addiction a “disability” thus enabling the addict to receive supplemental social security for his “disability.”

    That led to a whole panoply of benefits from Medical which provided free medical care; EBT cards which provided basic food; free cell phones so that they could call 911 or harass a doctor’s staff about their need for meds; access to food banks and who knows what else. In addition, well-meaning but confused citizen groups continue to provide prepared food on a regular basis to the “homeless.”

    All of this support makes life easier for the addicted who enjoy their life style.

    A recent effort by San Diego County to lead the addicted to the road to recovery enlisted the aid of several county agencies. I don’t know the exact number of folks involved in the endeavor but from the list of agencies if only three folks showed up from each, the number would be close to 50 county employees, all of whom are receiving above non-government level salaries. They, of course, had to spend several days coordinating and planning the effort and then spent a whole day in contact with the numerous “homeless” infesting San Diego County. I don’t remember the exact number of “homeless” saved, but it was less than 5.

    A more recent and more exasperating effort was the announcement of the completion of a “homeless” apartment project in LA. Each apartment in this structure cost the taxpayers over ONE MILLION DOLLARS each according to folks who had access to the figures for the project. I don’t have any idea of the cost of an apartment complex in LA with all the fees and licenses required, but I suspect that developers are bringing in apartment buildings for less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS FOR EACH UNIT even in LA County.

    The Goobinator Gabby Nuisance wants the legislature to enact laws that would force drug addicts and alcoholics and the mentally ill into facilities where they would receive treatment.

    Sorry, folks, been there and done that. Cal State Channel Islands was once a state mental hospital where the mentally ill were treated. Dick Irwin, the Public Defender considered his Hop louie case the pinnacle of his career when the Cal Supremes ruled that holding mental ill against their will was a violation of their rights.

    I wonder what Dick would think of his career pinnacle today, seeing the homeless no longer sheltered in inclement weather, no longer getting three meals a day, self-medicating on street drugs of unknown purity, not having access to clean clothing, indoor toilets and showers and not being the target of criminals, haters and each other when in a frenzied state. How much of an improvement was that?

    We also had the drug addict deferral system where criminals adjudged as being drug addicts or in danger of becoming an addict were referred to a treatment center at Norco, CA. I don’t know if that center is still in operation, but I suspect not.

    So the hand wringers got their way. No more involuntary commitments unless homicidal, suicidal or catatonic; no more organized, institutionalized mandatory drug addiction programs and lots of bennies for the folks who genuinely like their no responsibility life style which they enjoy in a drug or alcohol induced fog. You can see the results of such misguided thinking. The streets are full of the results.

    Is it any wonder none of the wonderful programs that require abstinence from such don’t succeed? They only succeed in spending more taxpayer money on wild goos chases.

    Latest Posts

    advertisement

    Don't Miss

    Subscribe

    To receive the news in your inbox

    1
    0
    Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
    ()
    x