Kamala Harris supports Civil Forfeiture?

[Warren DeMontague]

35. I don't know.

Unless Gavin Newsom had a time machine and went back to convince Hewlett, Packard, Jobs, etc. to originally set up shop in the South Bay, he is no more "responsible" for the "tech takeover" of SF than he is for World War One.

What, you really thought all those people were going to move to Gilroy?

The simple, flat-out obvious problems with San Francisco- and I love the place, don't get me wrong - are that it is geographically bounded on 3 sides by water, it sits close to a fault line, and politically the voters there want to "keep it the way it is".

But if you "keep it the way it is", you are going to have a high demand/low supply situation for real estate, and oh did we mention the billions of dollars passing through the headquarters of Google, etc. down the 280?

It wouldn't take Nostradamus to figure out what would happen, with that. Oh, then, affordable housing? Sure. Great idea. Where you gonna put it, in San Francisco? Where will the voters approve of it? How are you going to build it... up? Oh yeah, fault line.

And as much as anyone might want to blame someone like Newsom for "selling out to luxury developers", the fact is that NIMBYism is a real phenomenon, especially when voters are weighing their property values in the context of "luxury developments" versus any alternatives.

Honestly the ONE glaringly logical solution or at least minor amelioration to the perpetual problem of Gawdawfulcommutes/nowhereaffordabletolive that has plagued the bay area forever, was proposed in 1972 or so and it makes just as much sense or more, today, namely, run BART across the unused bottom level of the GGB.... up all the way to Sonoma County.

Unfortunately, the NIMBYism in Marin is even worse than it is in San Francisco. Oh well.

As for Newsom, I thought he was just another blow-dried yuppie at first, but he has led on issues like marriage equality and cannabis legalization. Both he and Harris have a lot going for them, IMHO.