Although they’re never labeled as such, the San Francisco
Chronicle typically has two to three articles each week
demonstrating the inherent dysfunctions of liberalism. One recent
example was a front page
story “No Quick Fix for Life in Projects.” The article
chronicles the disheartening experiences of the thousands of
residents in the city’s 6,476 units in its 45 public housing
projects. “Residents who live in public housing told the
Chronicle they constantly deal with violence, units
infested with roaches and mice, heating that doesn’t work and major
mold and mildew problems.” Residents told the paper that they often
have to go “for weeks or months without basic repairs to their
units being completed.”
Why is it so hard to repair simple problems? One reason is that
the politicians care a lot more about their labor union supporters
than the residents of public housing. “Union rules about which
laborers can perform which tasks also can slow the process. There
are 10 unions that contract with the Housing Authority, but there
is no such position as a handyman who can unclog a toilet and
change a light bulb. Instead that takes visits from a plumber and
an electrician.”
San Francisco is one of the wealthiest cities in the world. Its
residents consider themselves to be highly sophisticated,
competent, compassionate, and, of course, liberal. The city’s
annual budget is $7.5 billion. Nevertheless, its public housing
projects are the same as virtually all public housing projects
across the country — dismal, dangerous, and dysfunctional. If they
can’t make it there, they can’t make it anywhere.
What do the bureaucrats in San Francisco say is needed to
resolve the terrible conditions in the housing projects? The
Housing Authority recently appointed City Administrator (whatever
that is) Naomi Kelly “to lead a team to devise a plan to remake the
agency with recommendations due by July 1.”
Administrator Kelly said, “It’s already clear that federal
funding just isn’t enough. There’s always room for improvement, but
it’s about the money.” She’s absolutely wrong, of course.
Government housing projects have been utter disasters wherever they
have been tried regardless of how much money was spent. It’s about
the concept, not the money. The chances for Ms. Kelly ever
recognizing that are not high.
Part of the money currently expended goes down a rat hole,
almost literally. “The agency pays the San Francisco Police
Department an extra $2.3 million a year to provide additional
police presence in the most dangerous developments.” Even though
there might be additional police, it would be extremely unwise for
anyone to voluntarily venture into one of the projects.
Some of the comments of the housing project residents would be
almost funny if they weren’t so telling. Terry Bagby lives in
Clementina Towers, a project in the South of Market section of San
Francisco. “Bagby has frequently taken his complaints to Housing
Authority Commission meetings where, he said, his gripes seem to
fall on deaf ears. Suresa Tauai, the property manager at Clementina
Towers for the past four years, said she received an e-mail from
her supervisor a few months ago reading, ‘Tell your tenants to stop
going to commission meetings.’” You have to feel for those
commissioners. Listening to complaints is so vexing!
Karla Ramos is a case manager at the Homeless Prenatal Program.
It took her nine years of advocating to get one of her clients
moved from Potrero Hill (the most dangerous of all the San
Francisco projects) to a safer project. “They’re very negligent, so
unprofessional.” Ramos said of the housing authority staff. “If you
go their office, they come up with big attitudes. I always ask
where they get these people.”
The answer to Ms. Ramos’ question is, “They create them.” They
are the all too predictable creations of a mindless bureaucracy
saddled with impossible tasks. Bureaucracies are drones carrying
out the programmed instructions of liberalism. Liberalism and its
bureaucracies are dehumanizing forces.
In a 1967 Newsweek column Milton Friedman wrote,
“Public housing and urban renewal programs have destroyed more
dwelling units than they have constructed. Concentration of the
poor, many of them broken families, in public housing has
reinforced despair and fostered juvenile delinquency. Urban renewal
has destroyed viable neighborhoods, driven the poor from their
homes to even less satisfactory and more expensive housing and
created slums where none existed before. It deserves the insidious
label of a ‘Negro removal program.’” (His column was part of a
Newsweek cover story, “The Negro in America.”)
There is no reason to think that San Francisco’s housing
projects will improve in the future. If anything conditions will
continue to deteriorate.
Three other recent Chronicle articles further
illustrate the bankruptcy of liberalism. An
article “Electric Vehicle — Charging Forward or Out of Gas?”
reported that in spite of $10,000 in state and federal tax credits,
electric vehicles are proving to be unpopular and are not likely be
a viable alternative to gasoline engines. Plug-ins accounted for
just 0.6 percent of new U.S. car sales last year. Encouraging the
switch to electric vehicles is part of the California’s “Zero
Emission Vehicle Action Plan.” That title is not exactly an example
of truth-in-labeling. Electric vehicles are not “zero emission”
since positive emissions are necessary to produce the electricity
used to power them.
In that same issue of the Chronicle is an op-ed piece
by Robert Shireman, who served in both the Obama and Clinton
administrations. The
article titled “The Enemy Within — Bureaucracy” discusses the
issue of the massive City College of San Francisco being on the
verge of losing its accreditation. “Speaking to an overflow crowd
two weeks ago, protest organizers identified the villain — they
say the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges is
corrupt and out of control.” In other words, blame the messenger.
Shireman disagrees and concludes his piece, “Now the protestors
have an appropriate target: California’s villainous regulations,
imprisoning leaders in a bureaucratic cul-de-sac.”
One final indictment of liberalism was the front page lead
story, “Flame Retardant Law May Be Scaled Back.” Regulations
requiring flame retardants in polyurethane foam furniture and
children’s products were the outcome of “Technical Bulletin 117”
passed in 1975. Because California is such a major part of the
overall market, flame retardants for such products essentially
became nationwide. In retrospect, it might not have been such a
great idea. “But critics point to studies that show the chemicals
do little to derail fires and lead to harmful health effects that
include reduced fertility, developmental problems, lowered IQs and
cancer.” Those are not good things. As Rosanne Rosannadanna used to
say, “Never mind.” Their hearts were in the right place. Their
brains, however, were missing in action.
