SF Needs Citizens Not just Consumers

And that applies to its media institutions as well

San Francisco is dying. Or that’s what all the opinion pieces written about the City would have you believe.

Crime, drugs, budget deficits, housing shortages, tech recession, an ineffective government. The list goes on, building the narrative that liberals are bad at running cities.

There certainly are many things that can get better about how San Francisco operates. But it isn’t a left-wing vs the further left-wing problem. It’s a governance issue, as noted by Joe Eskenazi in response to Michael Moritz’s op-ed earlier this year (linked above).

“San Francisco’s problem is not liberalism. It’s incompetence. It’s sloth. It’s poor governance, dysfunctional bureaucracy, and casual corruption enabled by vast and steady torrents of wealth.” 

And this certainly falls on the institutions of power in the city. But it is hard to get angry at any one individual politician responding to the incentives of a system. There needs to be a better framing, narrative, and approach to discussion. And that is where looking to the media institutions covering San Francisco politics and policy to do more with their platforms is feasible.

The Editorial Board of the San Francisco Chronicle closed an an April 1st editorial with the following:

“For too long, San Francisco has been so backward-looking as to make it impossible to move forward. This is at odds with the innovation and creativity that the city takes pride in, and which it needs to foster and unleash if it wants to escape its current mold: a city preserved — stuck — in the resin of the pandemic.”  

Well put. And the Chronicle should help with that innovation and building that momentum forward. So much of the framing of politics and policy is backwards looking, or falling into the “vending machine” model of government. Pay money in via taxes, expect something out in terms of services rendered. This analogy fails unless before putting in the dollar, you recognize that you are also responsible for the upkeep of the vending machine.

But we often forget that we are citizens, not just consumers. Government is something that we help build and need to keep responsible. That part of citizenship is participating in the ideation, creation and iteration of the institutions and decision-making that happens on our behalf.

This responsibility falls to media institutions as well. Instead of just the “look at the broken government,” there can be a shift in the approach to covering how to fix our politics and processes. What if there was an essay contest, backed by one or both of the Chronicle or Standard (Michael Moritz, the author of the op-ed referenced above, funds the SF Standard)? Why not push citizens to get involved in the debate, to help solve problems, and to move beyond admiring how “broken” the city is by creating a productive debate looking forward? There could be a partnership with policy experts, advocacy groups, and/or elected officials.

Will an essay contest solve the issues facing San Francisco or fix the governance of the City? Of course not. Just as no one cititzen can be expected to generate a plan to fight poverty, crime, drug use, and the housing crisis while balancing the budget on their own. But there can be a shift in the narrative or the framing of the public debate. And that’s not nothing. If you truly believe (correctly) that innovation and creativity are needed, then mixing up how you present that need is an important consideration as well.