info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
San Francisco is second-worst-run city in US
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Rudy Canoza
Jun 29, 2022, 6:25:28 PM6/29/22
to
Two Bay Area cities ranked poorly in a recent study by WalletHub that examined
the operating efficiency of 150 U.S. cities and identified which are run well
and which are not. The personal finance website looked at metrics related to a
city's operating budget and the quality of the services it provides — everything
from public school to transit — to quantify who's at the top of the list and
who's at the bottom.
San Francisco came in at No. 149, making it the second-worst-run city in the
country, according to WalletHub's metrics. Only our nation's capital,
Washington, D.C., was worse.
"San Francisco ranked particularly poorly when it comes to long-term debt
outstanding per capita, where it was second to last," WalletHub analyst Jill
Gonzalez wrote in an email to SFGATE. "It also has the lowest quality of roads
in the country — 18 times worse than No. 1 Jacksonville. The city did, however,
rank better when it comes to its health and education numbers."
The study scored each city by measuring the per-capita operating budget against
the quality of 38 services spread across six categories: financial stability,
education, health, safety, economy and infrastructure and pollution. The city's
credit rating by Moody's and the outstanding long-term debt per capita were
considered under financial stability. Public school ratings and the high school
graduation rate fell under education, and infant mortality rate, average life
expectancy and quality of the public hospital system were among several factors
weighed in the health category.
The violent and property crime rates, as well as motor vehicle fatalities per
capita, were among those factors considered in safety, and under the economy
category there was a long list of metrics including unemployment rate, median
household income and share of population living in poverty. Finally, quality of
roads, bike and transit score and air pollution were among more than a dozen
metrics included in the infrastructure and pollution category.
San Francisco scored well in many of the metrics, including its credit rating,
walk and bike score, school-system quality, infant mortality rate, public
hospital system, unemployment rate, job growth, transit access, water quality
and parkland.
San Francisco scored well in many of the metrics, including its credit rating,
walk and bike score, school-system quality, infant mortality rate, public
hospital system, unemployment rate, job growth, transit access, water quality
and parkland.
"The city is able to offer its residents high quality services, but its budget
is the second largest, which is what dragged it down," WalletHub spokesperson
Diana Polk said. "SF is spending more money than other cities to offer its
services."
San Francisco's operating budget per capita is $17,829. By comparison
Washington, D.C.'s is $21,252, Oakland's $11,567, and Nampa, Idaho's $2,414.
WalletHub pulled its operating budget data from the Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/sf-named-second-worst-run-city-17271311.php?utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR2ieTJgn3yhm-47o0_4mQq3ai4kmWRuJVTQWwc4zDjpADy1L5hW8zvFCdQ
The irony in this is that Friscans are strong believers in big city government,
but theirs is really shitty, yet they don't seem to care.
the operating efficiency of 150 U.S. cities and identified which are run well
and which are not. The personal finance website looked at metrics related to a
city's operating budget and the quality of the services it provides — everything
from public school to transit — to quantify who's at the top of the list and
who's at the bottom.
San Francisco came in at No. 149, making it the second-worst-run city in the
country, according to WalletHub's metrics. Only our nation's capital,
Washington, D.C., was worse.
"San Francisco ranked particularly poorly when it comes to long-term debt
outstanding per capita, where it was second to last," WalletHub analyst Jill
Gonzalez wrote in an email to SFGATE. "It also has the lowest quality of roads
in the country — 18 times worse than No. 1 Jacksonville. The city did, however,
rank better when it comes to its health and education numbers."
The study scored each city by measuring the per-capita operating budget against
the quality of 38 services spread across six categories: financial stability,
education, health, safety, economy and infrastructure and pollution. The city's
credit rating by Moody's and the outstanding long-term debt per capita were
considered under financial stability. Public school ratings and the high school
graduation rate fell under education, and infant mortality rate, average life
expectancy and quality of the public hospital system were among several factors
weighed in the health category.
The violent and property crime rates, as well as motor vehicle fatalities per
capita, were among those factors considered in safety, and under the economy
category there was a long list of metrics including unemployment rate, median
household income and share of population living in poverty. Finally, quality of
roads, bike and transit score and air pollution were among more than a dozen
metrics included in the infrastructure and pollution category.
San Francisco scored well in many of the metrics, including its credit rating,
walk and bike score, school-system quality, infant mortality rate, public
hospital system, unemployment rate, job growth, transit access, water quality
and parkland.
San Francisco scored well in many of the metrics, including its credit rating,
walk and bike score, school-system quality, infant mortality rate, public
hospital system, unemployment rate, job growth, transit access, water quality
and parkland.
"The city is able to offer its residents high quality services, but its budget
is the second largest, which is what dragged it down," WalletHub spokesperson
Diana Polk said. "SF is spending more money than other cities to offer its
services."
San Francisco's operating budget per capita is $17,829. By comparison
Washington, D.C.'s is $21,252, Oakland's $11,567, and Nampa, Idaho's $2,414.
WalletHub pulled its operating budget data from the Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/sf-named-second-worst-run-city-17271311.php?utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR2ieTJgn3yhm-47o0_4mQq3ai4kmWRuJVTQWwc4zDjpADy1L5hW8zvFCdQ
The irony in this is that Friscans are strong believers in big city government,
but theirs is really shitty, yet they don't seem to care.
Rudy Canoza
Jun 29, 2022, 6:49:42 PM6/29/22
to
On 6/29/2022 3:36 PM, Somebody too wrote:
> That is Nasty Piglosi's shithole.
She isn't in the city government.
She isn't in the city government.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jun 29, 2022, 7:20:31 PM6/29/22
to
>The irony in this is that Friscans are strong believers in big city government,
>but theirs is really shitty, yet they don't seem to care.
Only an idiot refers to residents of San Francisco as
>but theirs is really shitty, yet they don't seem to care.
"Friscans."
You probably refer to the City as "Frisco," too.
emanuel
Jun 30, 2022, 3:49:57 AM6/30/22
to
Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5G4vK.46409$f81....@fx43.iad:
Both cities are run by blacks. Blacks are like Jews, turds, and termites.
When they move in everything else leaves, crime follows.
Yet, Democrats continue to kiss their asses and vote them in.
Why?
news:5G4vK.46409$f81....@fx43.iad:
When they move in everything else leaves, crime follows.
Yet, Democrats continue to kiss their asses and vote them in.
Why?
0 new messages