San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities
- Downloads：3317
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-11-15 08:51:51
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Michael Shellenberger
- ISBN：0063093626
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
National bestselling author of APOCALYPSE NEVER skewers progressives for the mishandling of America's faltering cities。
Progressives claimed they knew how to solve homelessness， inequality， and crime。 But in cities they control， progressives made those problems worse。
Michael Shellenberger has lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for thirty years。 During that time， he advocated for the decriminalization of drugs， affordable housing， and alternatives to jail and prison。 But as homeless encampments spread， and overdose deaths skyrocketed， Shellenberger decided to take a closer look at the problem。
What he discovered shocked him。 The problems had grown worse not despite but because of progressive policies。 San Francisco and other West Coast cities -- Los Angeles， Seattle， Portland -- had gone beyond merely tolerating homelessness， drug dealing， and crime to actively enabling them。
San Fransicko reveals that the underlying problem isn't a lack of housing or money for social programs。 The real problem is an ideology that designates some people， by identity or experience， as victims entitled to destructive behaviors。 The result is an undermining of the values that make cities， and civilization itself， possible。
Progressives claimed they knew how to solve homelessness， inequality， and crime。 But in cities they control， progressives made those problems worse。
Michael Shellenberger has lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for thirty years。 During that time， he advocated for the decriminalization of drugs， affordable housing， and alternatives to jail and prison。 But as homeless encampments spread， and overdose deaths skyrocketed， Shellenberger decided to take a closer look at the problem。
What he discovered shocked him。 The problems had grown worse not despite but because of progressive policies。 San Francisco and other West Coast cities -- Los Angeles， Seattle， Portland -- had gone beyond merely tolerating homelessness， drug dealing， and crime to actively enabling them。
San Fransicko reveals that the underlying problem isn't a lack of housing or money for social programs。 The real problem is an ideology that designates some people， by identity or experience， as victims entitled to destructive behaviors。 The result is an undermining of the values that make cities， and civilization itself， possible。
Reviews
Trey Davis
，
I live in a small community outside of Portland， OR and prior to the pandemic， I went into Portland weekly， visited SF perhaps three times a year， and LA and Seattle a couple times annually each。 I also used to make it to NYC three times a year on average。 I was always perplexed why there were so many more homeless sleeping on the street on the west coast than the east。 I once went on a “mission trip” to the Tenderloin and got to see and talk to many residents there up close。 Most of the last do I live in a small community outside of Portland， OR and prior to the pandemic， I went into Portland weekly， visited SF perhaps three times a year， and LA and Seattle a couple times annually each。 I also used to make it to NYC three times a year on average。 I was always perplexed why there were so many more homeless sleeping on the street on the west coast than the east。 I once went on a “mission trip” to the Tenderloin and got to see and talk to many residents there up close。 Most of the last dozen or times I went ti SF I would stay in Hayes Valley and walk through the Tenderloin to Market St， etc。 During the day， of course。 My small town has exploded with homeless people who， according to the bus driver I spoke with， said they weren’t from here。 Since that conversation， more people have told me the same thing。 Here we have a faith based shelter that requires sobriety， me ysl health counseling， job counseling， etc。 But we also have a large “camp” that looks like a needle truck， septic truck， and a fleet of garbage trucks collided in a cat。 V hurricane and dropped there。 It’s appalling。 A local council member has been interviewing its occupants for a few years now and the results are （I’d like to say shocking） as you would expect after reading this book。 Even though there is a local shelter， and many services， most of the occupants want to continue to stay on drugs， and many also want to be free to commit crimes to support their habits。 I hope this book educates and inspires enough people to do something about this problem for all of us， particularly the suffering drug-addicted citizens who need help， even if it means forcing them to get it and holding them accountable。 。。。more
Philip
，
3。5
Hatten Caine
，
Too much information from too many people about too many subjects。 It is hard to see what the author is getting at until the end of the book。 His solution has merit， but I don't foresee much hope of it happening because of the politics。 Too much information from too many people about too many subjects。 It is hard to see what the author is getting at until the end of the book。 His solution has merit， but I don't foresee much hope of it happening because of the politics。 。。。more
Jon-Erik
，
Anyone who is interested in empirically driven policy making should not be too offended to give this book a chance。 For me， the book is not saying anything too radical。 It's saying something evident， that a lot of people have an interest in not admitting。 It's self-evident that whatever California has been doing about homelessness （and the evidence mounts that we are making mistakes in crime as well） isn't working。 That a series of policies and programs adopted by political leaders have failed m Anyone who is interested in empirically driven policy making should not be too offended to give this book a chance。 For me， the book is not saying anything too radical。 It's saying something evident， that a lot of people have an interest in not admitting。 It's self-evident that whatever California has been doing about homelessness （and the evidence mounts that we are making mistakes in crime as well） isn't working。 That a series of policies and programs adopted by political leaders have failed makes it likewise extremely likely that a lot of people will have an interest in defending it。It's not just the non-profits and the activists。 A lot of the political class made these choices and they never， ever like to admit mistakes。 Tribalism goes not just for national party ID， but smaller very local political tribes exist as well。 The shortfall of the book is when he goes beyond diagnosing the problem and tries to shrink the heads of the far left， as if it has some sort of essential hivemind high on Foucault and Mao and Gramsci。 He also seems to take as proven sociology some recent discoveries that may or may not stand the test of time and seems just as confident about his big government Cal-Psych proposal as the proponents of Prop 63 and numerous other silver bullets were。That what we are doing now isn't working is clear; that there is a simple solution we just are refusing to do isn't。 It's possible he's right。 It's possible that looking to European solutions holds the key。 It's also possible that European style solutions just aren't politically obtainable in the United States， even in California。At least since George W。 Bush was elected， the California left has overcome objections by more pragmatic Democrats by criticizing them for not "moving the Overton window" while allowing the right to do the same。 In other words， if the other side is taking a maximalist position， you must too or you lose。 The problem with this is that this contradicts with the proposition that solving problems is the best politics， racking up approval from your tribe is。 There is a very strong sense of mistrust among the activists of those who express any kind of desire to poll test things。 But the same thing goes on the right。 Shellenberger doesn't get that。 He doesn't get that it's not just progressives or the far left that politically resists things it doesn't like。 Most political groups do this now， many with no regard for its effect on their electoral prospects。 In other words， democracy is an inconvenience。 You win some， you lose some， but when you win you do what you want， and when you lose you fuel people with enough outrage to win again。 Simply enacting big policies just because they might work is a naive view of politics。 The constituency for that type of thing is small。 Did Shellenberger really think the activists he worked with in the 90s lost their way， or that he was duped？ If so， how do we know he isn't duped now？ A convert should be humble about his certainties。 This points to the largest omission from this book: is any analysis of the effect that non-progressives have had on this issue。 Like Shellenberger's work on nuclear power， it was he that was fooled by the activists in the first place， not the policy expert community。 Activists duped him， not the people who studied energy policy， as I did。 My super liberal professors thought nuclear and hydrogen was the most likely solution to carbon emissions， but because it allows the economy to continue with little disruption it doesn't matter if it works， if your real goal is something else。But forgetting that it was the right， funded by fossil fuel companies， that denied and largely continues to deny that global warming is a problem。 The fact that we can't persuade the far left because they haven't had an epiphany like Shellenberger has is not a change in the status quo。 The far left refused to vote for Al Gore。 The far left foisted Henry Wallace on FDR and let Nixon win twice。 The far left found every pretext it could to turn against the Clinton presidency and the Obama presidency， and now the Biden presidency。 It has always been such。 The only reason they hold as much power right now is because there's no partner on the other side to hold the middle。Republicans could have nuclear power in every town if they'd vote with Democrats to do it in a climate bill。 They won't。 So now we have to bargain with political people on the other side。 Why does it surprise him that their demands are ideological too？California's state and local governments are all almost impossible to govern due to the scattershot ballot initiatives， complex constitutional provisions， and expansive network of local government agencies doing overlapping work （I was elected to one such government agency in 2014）。Citizens have no idea who is supposed to solve what problem。 Is it the water district？ Oh， the cops are the County， but the schools aren't run by the county。 But it's not the state？ This too makes hyperlocal issues trump cards against certainly higher-level needs， for example the NIMBYism Shellenberger cites。 But the far left was full NIMBY and "No Growth" for decades， using the environment as a pretext; now it's their identity politics that dominates their thought， and so building lots of housing is OK。In my town when our electeds tried to deal with a growing homeless population， the locals （median house price: $775，000） lectured us for being insensitive to the poor， but our only intersection with the issue was increased emergency services， so even if we wanted to pass a "right to camp" rule， we didn't have the authority。 In order to understand any policy failure in California， you have to understand how broken our constitution is， something that has more to direct impact that Shellenberger's attempt at comparing the left to a Jim Jones cult or using fancy new psychological concepts， something he doesn't appear to be an expert in。 。。。more
Ben
，
Both informative and provocative。 Shellenberger is most convincing at the small scale， and least convincing when he tries to draw large conclusions about， e。g。， wokeness and victimization culture。 I still appreciate the perspective， but would rather the pages had been spent investigating homelessness policies in more concrete detail。 > starting in the late 1960s， Baby Boomers and the New Left turned against redevelopment。 They were inspired by an influential 1961 book， The Death and Life of Grea Both informative and provocative。 Shellenberger is most convincing at the small scale， and least convincing when he tries to draw large conclusions about， e。g。， wokeness and victimization culture。 I still appreciate the perspective， but would rather the pages had been spent investigating homelessness policies in more concrete detail。 > starting in the late 1960s， Baby Boomers and the New Left turned against redevelopment。 They were inspired by an influential 1961 book， The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs， which blamed redevelopment， like that which had occurred in the Fillmore neighborhood of San Francisco， for destroying neighborhoods with freeways and high-rises， evicting low-income residents， and making them unlivable， as compared to highly walkable neighborhoods like Greenwich Village。> There is a provision in Care Not Cash that allows recipients to get full payment if they agree to work for a nonprofit homeless service provider。 “If you identify as homeless， you only get $60 per month plus food stamps because of Care Not Cash，” noted Tom Wolf。 “But if you volunteer at a non-profit for twelve hours per month， you get full General Assistance payment。 You collect three months before they kick you off and you never volunteered。” That’s what Tom did。 “[The homelessness nonprofits’] whole intention is to keep more people in this cycle，” he said， “because they’re getting money for it。”> There is evidence that privacy and solitude created by Housing First make substance abuse worse。 A study in Ottawa found that， while the Housing First group kept people in housing longer， the comparison group saw greater reductions in alcohol consumption and problematic drug use， and greater improvements to mental health， after two years。> California has a 30 percent higher rate of mentally ill people in jails， and a 91 percent higher rate of mentally ill people on the streets or in homeless shelters， than the nation as a whole， despite spending $7，300 per patient on mental health services， which is 50 percent more than the national average。> for Mizner and the ACLU， the mentally ill are too impaired to be held accountable for breaking the law but not impaired enough to justify the same kind of treatment we provide to other people suffering mental disabilities， such as dementia。 Understanding this， and the power of the ACLU in progressive cities and states such as San Francisco and California， goes a long way toward understanding the addiction， untreated mental illness， and homelessness crisis。> Just 2 percent of Americans who graduate from high school， live in a family with at least one full-time worker， and wait to have children until after turning twenty-one and marrying， in what is known as the “success sequence，” are in poverty。 According to research by the Brookings Institution， 70 percent of those who follow the success sequence enjoy middle-class or higher incomes， defined as at least 300 percent of the poverty line。> There is evidence that probation programs that are “swift， certain， and fair” reduce arrests， recidivism， and drug use in probationers， in contrast to traditional programs， which tend to be arbitrary and slow with punishments。 One such program is Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement。 It incentivized offenders to follow probation rules by applying guaranteed， immediate， and short jail time for parole violations like failing a drug test。 One study found that HOPE reduced drug use by 72 percent， future arrests by 55 percent， and incarceration by 48 percent。 … The state of Washington implemented it for 70，000 of its inmates， which reduced jail stays by two-thirds。 One researcher estimated that swift， certain， and fair could halve the United States’ prison population> The decline of traditional religion has allowed for the rise of untraditional ones。 Unlike traditional religions， many untraditional religions are largely invisible to the people who hold them most strongly。 A secular religion like victimology is powerful because it meets the contemporary psychological， social， and spiritual needs of its believers， but also because it appears obvious， not ideological， to them> Between 2010 and 2020， the number of homeless rose by 31 percent in California but declined 19 percent in the rest of the United States。2 As a result， there were， as of 2020， at least 161，000 total homeless people in California， with about 114，000 of them unsheltered，> it also has to do with the neoliberal model of outsourcing services。 Instead of governments providing such services directly， they give grants to nonprofit service providers who are unaccountable for their performance。 “There is no statutory requirement for government to address homelessness，” complained University of Pennsylvania researcher Dennis Culhane。 “It’s mainly the domain of a bunch of charities who are unlicensed， unfunded， relatively speaking， run by unqualified people who do a shitty job。 There’s no formal government responsibility。> They divert funding from homeless shelters to permanent supportive housing， resulting in insufficient shelter space。 They defend the right of people they characterize as Victims to camp on sidewalks， in parks， and along highways， as well as to break other laws， including against public drug use and defecation。 They intimidate experts， policy makers， and journalists by attacking them as being motivated by a hatred of the poor， people of color， and the sick， and as causing violence against them。 They reduce penalties for shoplifting， drug dealing， and public drug use。 They prefer homelessness and incarceration to involuntary hospitalization for the mentally ill and addicted。 And their ideology blinds them to the harms of harm reduction， Housing First， and camp-anywhere policies， leading them to misattribute the addiction， untreated mental illness， and homeless crisis to poverty and to policies and politicians dating back to the 1980s。> What California needs is a new， single， and powerful state agency。 Let’s call it Cal-Psych。 It would be built as a separate institution from existing institutions， including state and county health departments and health providers。 Cal-Psych would efficiently and humanely treat the seriously mentally ill and addicts， while providing housing to the homeless on a contingency-based system。 Cal-Psych’s CEO would be best-in-class and report directly to the governor> Too often progressive idealism creates greater loyalty to a highly romanticized view， one that allowed progressives to justify defunding and shutting down core institutions， including psychiatric hospitals， police stations， and homeless shelters 。。。more
Debby HuntingtonDelgado
，
Best read this year！I am a staunch California conservative。 Rare， I know。 I saw Mr Shellenberger interviewed about hos book on an Spicy Times podcast and downloaded the book immediately。 That was about a week ago and I just finished it。 I couldn't believe so many of the things he said were things I've been saying for years！ From MLKs commandment to how to solve the drug and mental illness issues。 So。。。。。let's get started！ You have my vote！ Best read this year！I am a staunch California conservative。 Rare， I know。 I saw Mr Shellenberger interviewed about hos book on an Spicy Times podcast and downloaded the book immediately。 That was about a week ago and I just finished it。 I couldn't believe so many of the things he said were things I've been saying for years！ From MLKs commandment to how to solve the drug and mental illness issues。 So。。。。。let's get started！ You have my vote！ 。。。more
Jan Wollet
，
Very intriguing read。
Jim Cullison
，
Mixed bag。 Started strong， then plunged off the rails。 The most powerful and persuasive chapters of the book appear early on， contending that cities' homeless problems are actually utterly anarchic drug use crises that collide and commingle with mental illness to steadily erode civilization by the hour。 Shellenberger will convince you that strong government action is necessary to curtail this ever multiplying chaos and squalor， and that attitudes of permissiveness and empathy have only served to Mixed bag。 Started strong， then plunged off the rails。 The most powerful and persuasive chapters of the book appear early on， contending that cities' homeless problems are actually utterly anarchic drug use crises that collide and commingle with mental illness to steadily erode civilization by the hour。 Shellenberger will convince you that strong government action is necessary to curtail this ever multiplying chaos and squalor， and that attitudes of permissiveness and empathy have only served to translate Dante's Inferno from the page to a city street near you。 THAT SAID。。。his book lost me with a weird foray into free will and the thought of Viktor Frankl that was neither useful or clear as to where it was going or what thematic purpose it was serving。 I'd wait to check this book out of the library。 。。。more
Joseph Hamilton
，
Another great book by Michael Shellenberger that explains and clarifies popular modern misunderstandings about homelessness and drug addiction。
Chaz Darling
，
A few years ago I tried to help a homeless man in my city with little luck and ever since understanding the worsening situation has been an interest of mine。 In my opinion， if you're coming to the book with out any context and see the title， you might think it was written by some right-wing lackey but it's not。 I appreciated Shellenberger's approach to the topic and willingness to ask tough questions to people in leadership in some of these cities that think they are helping but only making it w A few years ago I tried to help a homeless man in my city with little luck and ever since understanding the worsening situation has been an interest of mine。 In my opinion， if you're coming to the book with out any context and see the title， you might think it was written by some right-wing lackey but it's not。 I appreciated Shellenberger's approach to the topic and willingness to ask tough questions to people in leadership in some of these cities that think they are helping but only making it worse。 He makes the case for a carrots AND sticks approach to rehabilitating the homeless which， based on other solutions I've seen so far， makes a lot of sense。 The far-left solution to the issue hasn't worked and ruins lives of the homeless and the people who live/work in these cities。 He also details what a successful solution might look like that balances compassion/resources for the person with accountability for their actions while incentivizing progress and disincentivizing regression。 I highly recommend the book if you're interested in the topic。 。。。more
Susan Tunis
，
Having lived in San Francisco longer than anywhere else， it's probably no surprise that I'm pretty progressive。 But I actively seek out differing voices; it's good to get my head out of my liberal bubble on a regular basis。Mr。 Shellenberger lives in Berkeley， and the first thing I'll note is that he doesn't come across like an alt-right lunatic。 In this book， he talks about major urban issues like homelessness， mental health， addiction， crime， policing， the social safety net， housing， wealth ine Having lived in San Francisco longer than anywhere else， it's probably no surprise that I'm pretty progressive。 But I actively seek out differing voices; it's good to get my head out of my liberal bubble on a regular basis。Mr。 Shellenberger lives in Berkeley， and the first thing I'll note is that he doesn't come across like an alt-right lunatic。 In this book， he talks about major urban issues like homelessness， mental health， addiction， crime， policing， the social safety net， housing， wealth inequality， etc。 And while there are asides and references to other major cities， the book largely uses San Francisco and the Bay Area as it's prime example， making it feel very much a part of my life。 It got even weirder when people I know IRL started showing up or being quoted in the book。 It's definitely not the first time time that's happened， but it's always weird。So， the author throws a lot of statistics around and references a lot of studies about， say， the outcomes of incarceration vs。 treatment for addicts--and a million other things。 And some of it can definitely give you food for thought。 But I'd also have to do a lot more research before I take his word on any of it。 You know the old saying about there being "lies， damned lies， and statistics"？ It's kind of like that。 Data can be manipulated and twisted。 For instance， at one point he talks about how the social safety net is more robust than it's ever been， and he proceeds to list about a dozen different programs as if anyone who needs help can just ask for it and receive it。 And probably a lot of the successful， well-educated readers of this book will think it's true。 When the reality is that the available help can't even touch the levels of need， and actually gaining access to the help offered by any of those programs is nigh on impossible。 Especially for those most in need of aid。 So， everything isn't exactly as presented， which makes me suspicious of the things he says that I don't know about。 But， it's an interesting and provocative book。 I may spur me and other readers to check his premise further。 And it was definitely food for thought--just take it in with a healthy dose of skepticism。 。。。more
Steve Scanlan
，
Shellenberger interviews better than he writes。 He's been red-pilled for sure， but can't stop himself from mentioning all sort of sub-groups that just distracts from the subject。A fine read。 Shellenberger interviews better than he writes。 He's been red-pilled for sure， but can't stop himself from mentioning all sort of sub-groups that just distracts from the subject。A fine read。 。。。more
Mark O'mara
，
Highly recommended。 Great follow up to the author’s Apocalypse Never。
Cav
，
"Go， Francis， and repair my house， which as you see is falling into ruin。。。"—instruction to Saint FrancisSan Fransicko was a well written look into the topic。 The author opens the book with the above quote。 Apropos， as the city of San Fransisco got its namesake from Saint Francis of Assisi。Author Michael Shellenberger is a journalist and writer。 He has co-edited and written a number of books， including Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility， An Ecomodern "Go， Francis， and repair my house， which as you see is falling into ruin。。。"—instruction to Saint FrancisSan Fransicko was a well written look into the topic。 The author opens the book with the above quote。 Apropos， as the city of San Fransisco got its namesake from Saint Francis of Assisi。Author Michael Shellenberger is a journalist and writer。 He has co-edited and written a number of books， including Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility， An Ecomodernist Manifesto， and Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All。 Michael Shellenberger: Ground Zero for the modern American culture war; much of the recent accelerating leftist political orthodoxy had its genesis in The Golden City。 San Fransisco has played a central role in the modern story of American politics。 Establishing itself as a beacon for leftist progressives since at least the mid-60s， the story of partisan America cannot be properly told without it。San Fransicko is my second book from the author， after his 2020 book: Apocalypse Never， which I enjoyed。 Shellenberger starts the book off on a good foot， with a well-written intro。Shellenberger writes with an easy， engaging style， and the book is very readable。 Although the title may put some potential readers off， it is a mainly data-driven look into the topic。 Shellenberger himself identifies as a liberal/progressive。 He says this about the current state of cities like San Francisco: "I am not unfamiliar with radical politics。 As a socialist youth in the late 1980s I had read books by America’s most famous anarchist， Noam Chomsky， excoriating US imperialism in Latin America。 From 1996 to 1999， I worked with eco-anarchists seeking to save old-growth forests in California and the Pacific Northwest。 And in 1999， I protested alongside so-called black bloc anarchists against economic globalization in the streets of Seattle。 While I knew anarchists wanted to abolish government， it never dawned on me that a major city government would actually participate in its own abolition。 What was going on？"If you've ever been to San Francisco， or parts of many other large West Coast cities， you may ask yourself the same question。 It's hard not to notice that something is wrong。 Deeply wrong。 Homeless encampments， public defecation， open drug use， graffiti， trash strewn everywhere。 You can't seemingly can't avoid many of the symptoms of this societal sickness and blight。 But when did this start？ And what is to blame for this SNAFU？Shellenberger tries to address these questions here。 He focuses on San Francisco， but other cities like Seattle and Portland are briefly touched on。I visited San Francisco when I was very young。 I remember it having the worst homelessness that I had ever seen， and even still have seen to this day。 I remember having to literally step over people on the sidewalks to go out for dinner。 It was super-depressing to my younger， naive self。 I remember being deeply saddened by the extent of human misery on display there。That "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is as true now， as when it was first coined。 In part of a broad-based cultural and societal trend， there has been a wide expansion of social support programs， ostensibly aimed at reducing poverty， crime， and social blight。 However， in a pattern that's often more common than not， the results of these noble intentions often vary greatly from their initial aims。 This is the bigger story told here。To increase， eliminate， or reduce social programs is a discussion that lies on a political fault line， and has been going on for decades now。 Those on the left will say that these programs are needed to help the most vulnerable in society。 Those on the right will point to the often ineffectual （and often paradoxical） end results of these policies。So， how do progressives ruin cities？ Well， by carrying out policies that are just about the opposite of what actually should be done。 Shellenberger summarizes with this quote: "How and why do progressives ruin cities？ So far we have explored six reasons。 They divert funding from homeless shelters to permanent supportive housing， resulting in insufficient shelter space。 They defend the right of people they characterize as Victims to camp on sidewalks， in parks， and along highways， as well as to break other laws， including against public drug use and defecation。 They intimidate experts， policy makers， and journalists by attacking them as being motivated by a hatred of the poor， people of color， and the sick， and as causing violence against them。 They reduce penalties for shoplifting， drug dealing， and public drug use。 They prefer homelessness and incarceration to involuntary hospitalization for the mentally ill and addicted。 And their ideology blinds them to the harms of harm reduction， Housing First， and camp anywhere policies， leading them to misattribute the addiction， untreated mental illness， and homeless crisis to poverty and to policies and politicians dating back to the 1980s。。。"Shellenberger notes that many progressives blame the massive dysfunctionality of San Fransicso on former Governer （and later， American President） Ronald Regan。 He writes: "。。。Others point to the fact that Governor Reagan in 1972 signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act， which aimed to significantly reduce involuntary hospitalization of the mentally ill。3 California’s mental hospitals closed and by 2019 there were 93 percent fewer patients in California’s mental institutions than their peak， sixty years earlier， when adjusted for population growth。4 The rest of the United States saw a similar decline。5 If the United States still hospitalized its mentally ill at the same rate it did in 1955， its mental health institutions would house almost 1。1 million people any given day。 Instead， they house fewer than 50，000 patients。6Many of the mentally ill discharged from state hospitals went to live in neighborhoods like the Tenderloin， where they mixed with people with serious alcohol and drug problems。7 On a single day in late June 1972， Agnews State Hospital released over 3，800 patients into the San Jose area， creating a “mental health ghetto。” Local mental health service providers were forced to quickly convert vacant buildings into supportive housing。8 About one-fifth of the homeless on Skid Row in Chicago were mentally ill。 The “new，” post-1980 homeless had 50 percent more chronic mental illness than the old homeless。Based on a review of multiple homelessness studies from major US cities， one researcher estimates that one-quarter of the homeless had been patients in mental hospitals and one-third showed signs of psychosis or affective disorders。9"However， Reagan was not to blame， he says: "While it is true that， as California’s governor， Reagan oversaw the closure of mental hospitals， he didn’t start deinstitutionalization。 It began nationally in the 1930s， mostly to save money。10 The closure of California’s mental hospitals began in earnest in the 1950s， more than a decade before Reagan became governor。11 The mptying of state mental hospitals continued at the same rate between 1959 and 1967 under a Democratic governor as it did under Reagan。 By the time Reagan took office in 1967， nearly half of the patients in California’s state mental hospitals had already been released。12As for the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act， it was a creation of civil libertarians， mental health professionals， and antipsychiatry activists， sponsored by two Democrats， and passed in a 77–1 vote。 It would have passed even had Reagan vetoed it。13 And while Reagan， as president， cut over 300，000 workers from Social Security Insurance and Social Security Disability Insurance， he reversed his cuts just a year and a half later， and by the end of his presidency， nearly 200，000 had won back their benefits。14In reality， it was a Democrat who got the deinstitutionalization of psychiatric hospitals rolling。。。"Accurately described here as "pathological altruism，" Shellenberger both uses the term， as well as details many objectively idiotic stances taken by those in power who identify as "progressive。" Correctly labeling this sickness a "religion of the victim，" he cites a few anecdotes from history to make his case。 He talks about Jim Jones's "Jamestown" Doomsday Cult; which received widespread praise from many in the progressive intelligentsia。 Also mentioned is progressive support for the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution。 Michael Foucault supported this revolution， and hailed it as a progressive success against the "oppressive" system of Capitalist America。 This is a theme that is not only still going strong， but has picked up momentum and hit a tipping point recently。 The book is replete with examples of this object lunacy; from people turning a blind eye to drug addicts shooting up and shitting on the sidewalks because it's "not their faults，" to police refusing to arrest violent criminals out of political concerns， to widespread calls to actually defund or abolish the police， to the mayors of large cities allowing parallel anarchist/communist pseudostates to be set up within the confines of their cities because speaking out against this would be frowned upon somehow。 Predictable results ensue。Stop this ride， please。 I'd like to get off。。。Some more of what is covered in these pages includes:• Viktor Frankl's Logotherapy。• Collective punishment; victimology as an identity。• San Fransisco politician Harvey Milk; his "clean up your poop" campaign。• The mayhem， violence， and homicides inside 2020 Seattle's anarchist CHAZ/CHOP zones。 Seattle's progressive mayor Jenny Durkan called it a "summer of love。"• Open-air drug markets in many major American cities; the associated violence and crime that accompany these markets。• The "moral foundations" theory。• The "Dark Triad" personality traits of psychopathy， Machiavellianism， and narcissism。• The erosion of merit-based admission in institutions of higher learning。***********************I enjoyed San Fransicko。 And although the picture it paints was depressing as hell， this is a book that should be read by those interested in the culture war。 The book is also a good case study in leftist social policy run amok， and a detailed look into what happens when those in charge of social policy place ideology over evidence。4 stars。 。。。more
Craig Cunningham
，
The destruction of American values， one city at a time。 Enabling the sick is not the answer。 Accountability is。
Jack
，
sad storyIt really saddens me to hear how progressive ， by focusing on caring and ignoring accountability ， are destroying the country。 They define victims and only care about them 。 They never consider the suffering and destruction committed by these self defined victims on the people who are trying to live a clean， safe， drug free， crime free life。 They manipulate language to make their victim class seem more respectable 。 It’s insane。 The same people who throw a fit if someone’s yard abuts a sad storyIt really saddens me to hear how progressive ， by focusing on caring and ignoring accountability ， are destroying the country。 They define victims and only care about them 。 They never consider the suffering and destruction committed by these self defined victims on the people who are trying to live a clean， safe， drug free， crime free life。 They manipulate language to make their victim class seem more respectable 。 It’s insane。 The same people who throw a fit if someone’s yard abuts a wetland， or if someone’s pond isn’t pristine will make excuses for people pissing and shitting on the street。 You have to pick up after your dog， but street people can shit on tor sidewalk。 They think it can be fixed with money。 We’ve tried that。 The want to give people free houses。 We’ve tried that。 Their solutions， like most progressive ideas have been proven ineffective over and over again。 More money， less accountability 。 It never works。 The care industrial complex keeps begging， taxing and failing。 。。。more
Jeremy
，
Very thought provoking read， however could have been about 100 pages shorter。
Joshua Mingo
，
This book has a lot of obvious truths。
Nolan
，
The videos are everywhere。 People nonchalantly walk into a California store， remove its contents， and casually walk out with no fear of punishment; and indeed， no punishment comes。 In return， once fully emptied or nearly so， those same stores close down。 Though California comprises some 12 percent of the nation's population， it includes massive numbers of homeless people。 Despite the billions that legislators pour into the problem， it grows。He rejects the idea that homelessness is a poverty prob The videos are everywhere。 People nonchalantly walk into a California store， remove its contents， and casually walk out with no fear of punishment; and indeed， no punishment comes。 In return， once fully emptied or nearly so， those same stores close down。 Though California comprises some 12 percent of the nation's population， it includes massive numbers of homeless people。 Despite the billions that legislators pour into the problem， it grows。He rejects the idea that homelessness is a poverty problem， providing statistics that indicate that it is a mental illness and drug abuse problem first。 In fact， there are so many fascinating statistics here as to be almost dizzying。 The audio narration is excellent， but I would have gotten more out of this had I been able to digest the braille edition so I could mark pages and return to them as needed。He questions the viability of the housing first believers。 He points out systems in Holland and Portugal where abusers are first sent to shelters where they are later rewarded with better housing depending on their ability to work at getting clean and sober。 He'll doubtless take a lot of heat from the group who insist that the house is the most important part。 I'm no sociologist， but I see a lot of merit in the premise of providing shelter initially then helping someone move up as they take some personal responsibility。I enjoyed the author's ability to build bridges between those progressives who see homeless people as victims who should never be blamed for any wrongdoing they commit because of their victimhood and those who would take far more draconian measures。 He writes that demands to defund the police will result in greater police misconduct because those who are left will be forced to work longer hours under far worse conditions。 Defunding the cops and holding everyone blameless because they are victims isn't the answer， he asserts。Those ideologues who are molecularly bound to their specific position will find much about which to grumble here。 But those who realize that current projects aren't working， those who wonder whether other solutions might work better will find much for thought here。 Clearly， a status quo approach will bring about the end of civilization as we know it if that's allowed to expand to other cities throughout the country。 。。。more
Pete
，
San Fransicko : Why Progressives Ruin Cities （2021） by Michael Shellenberger is a fascinating take on what is wrong with San Francisco and other West Coast American Cities。 Shellenberger is an activist， mainly on environmental causes but who also campaigned for drug legalisation in the 1990s。 It’s remarkable how The Bay Area， Seattle and Los Angeles， places that generate such incredible wealth have such a large problem with homeless people。 Shellenberger tackles the issue head on。 The book is fu San Fransicko : Why Progressives Ruin Cities （2021） by Michael Shellenberger is a fascinating take on what is wrong with San Francisco and other West Coast American Cities。 Shellenberger is an activist， mainly on environmental causes but who also campaigned for drug legalisation in the 1990s。 It’s remarkable how The Bay Area， Seattle and Los Angeles， places that generate such incredible wealth have such a large problem with homeless people。 Shellenberger tackles the issue head on。 The book is full of figures and references。Joe Rogan has an interview with Shellenberger about the book and The Economist magazine also has a good review of the book。Along with Dignity by Chris Arnade and The Least of Us by Sam Quinones San Fransicko provides a dramatic view of things that have gone badly wrong in America。 San Fransicko starts by talking about a campaign against dog poo and the person who lead it – Harvey Milk。 Then it cuts to how in current day San Fransisco （SF） a new kind of excrement on the street is causing problems， this time it’s human excrement。 This leads into a description of the current serious problems with mental illness and drug abuse and how they mix with the current day homeless population in SF。 Early on Shellenberger also contrasts the homeless problem in SF with that of New York City （NYC）。 NYC and Washington DC both have more homeless people per capita that SF but don’t have the same problem with an area like SF does with the Tenderloin。Shellenberger describes how a mentality for dealing with homelessness has taken hold on the US West Coast that is different to that in other places。 He confronts issues with homelessness and drug addiction。 He looks at how Amsterdam changed the way they dealt with drug use from greater tolerance to getting addicts to undertake treatment and shutting down open air drug markets that made it easy to get opiods and meth。 Note that tolerance was fine for pot， it was harder drugs that caused the issues。 He talks with people in SF who got addicted and then cleaned themselves up after living on the streets。In a chapter on untreated mental illness and how that is part of the homelessness problem Shellenberger makes an interesting point that the de-institutionalisation of mental illness that in the US is blamed on Reagan occurred gradually over a long time frame。 He points out that there was chronic awful treatment of inmates。 He misses the role of neuroleptics and other anti-psychotics that are essentially short term chemical lobotomies that enables substantial numbers of seriously mentally ill people to function outside of asylums。 Shellenberger describes how a study done in the 1970s where graduate students got themselves admitted to mental hospitals and allegedly weren’t released is highly suspect and possibly outright fraudulent。The housing first movement that believes that housing for homeless people where the housing is given without constraints such as staying sober has not worked。 In high housing cost areas like the US West Coast it’s very hard。 He also makes the point that the housing first movement is often opposed to short term accommodation with shared facilities。 He describes that the use of this sort of short term accommodation can be a way to alleviate homelessness and help people get back on their feet。The way in which many crimes have been allowed to happen in Seattle， SF and LA is remarkable。 SFs decision to allow substantial low level property crime is something that Shellenberger sees as something that enables this sort of crime to be used for getting money to buy drugs。Shellenberger’s thesis is that a theory of homeless people being victims who should be allowed to do as they please is a disaster。 He points out that in the US places that don’t take this approach， including left leaning NYC and Washington DC have handled their homeless populations much better than SF and other West Coast cities。 He calls for a California wide agency to be set up to deal with drug addiction and mental illness and to clean up the streets。San Fransicko is really well worth a read。 Shellenberger is a long time resident of the city and clearly someone who cares deeply about what he’s been witnessing and what has happened to San Francisco。 It will be interesting to see if SF and some of the other cities turn the homeless issues around as NYC and Boston and many other US cities did with crime in the 1990s。 。。。more
Jenna
，
The author is an avowed liberal progressive， so I was utterly surprised by the history and current failings of west-coast progressives about homelessness， addiction， and mental illness that he meticulously researched。 Tragic， but wholly correct about how progressives are ruining cities with the constant victimization of people while spending billions of dollars without solving anything to unaccountable NGOs。 Eye-opening read！
Fritz
，
Did anyone else get a copy that smelled like farts？This is not a rating based on the content。 I bought a copy at City Lights in San Francisco and the book itself smells like a fatty。My coworker confirmed。Weird。
Jason R
，
An important take on why some extreme progressive policies， left unchecked， do more harm than good -- creating even more problems and in some cases exacerbating the ones they were put in place to solve。
Shannon
，
An excellent take on what has gone wrong in our beloved SF。 Great writing and actionable steps to solve these problems。
Michelle
，