Great WSJ piece on real estate collapse in San Francisco--never mentions rampant crime or open drug use

The thousand or so comments are priceless!  The same moronic Dem shill posts 20 times, bleating "You're all crazy Trump cultists!  Everything is fine here!"  But the truth is, we've just begun to see the ripples--what the Brits call the "knock-on effects" of the initial collapse--play out.

One of the un-spinnable data points in the WSJ piece is that ridership in BART is down over 60% from 2019.  Assuming that same figure applies to drivers too, roughly 40% of the former downtown workforce isn't coming to the city every weekday.  So what do you think that does to the city's tax revenue?
 
Of course restaurants and retail are only a fraction of the city's tax revenue, but have nevertheless cut the city's tax take by roughly 20% so far.  And if the city's budget was balanced before, now they're a billion dollars in the red.  (Many analysts have noted the same figure.)

A competent city would have already axed spending on fluff (like hiring die-versity "consultants") and other unnecessary crap to reduce the bleeding.  But of course the totally corrupt, always-Democrat-ruled city government has done no such thing.  They haven't cut outlays a bit, despite losing roughly 20% of their tax revenue.  In fact they've proposed such insane waste as paying trannies $2,000 per month because...reasons.  It's literally insane.

What do continuous deficits mean for the city?  C'mon, stupid Democrats, think hard!

But of course the Dems won't think it through.  They refuse to recognize reality, because if they did it would be harder to blame anyone or anything else for the disaster that has only just started.  They foolishly think that with covid a distant memory, happy days are here again.  They don't realize the worst is still to come.

Democrat:  "Dat not true!  Covid beez over!  Ev'ryt'ing FINE now!  All back to normal!  You go now!" 

Really?  See, as rational adults know, duh money to run the city (like any level of govt) has to come from somewhere, right?  If the city rulers are spending more than they take in, where will they get the difference between those two HARD numbers, eh?

Simple: Just like "your" fedrul gruberment:  rather than reducing spending, they'll borrow it.  And they'll always find a sharpie willing to lend to 'em--first at only a percent or two above normal rates, but later at ten or 12%.

Borrow a billion dollars a year at ten percent and the interest cost is...?  C'mon, Democrats, you say you're reel smaht, so you should be able to do that without a calculator.

Typical Dem:  "Uh...my calculator says that would be a million dollars a year.  Dat not much, so we kin afford to pay that!"

Nice try, sparky.  You're only off by a factor of 100.  The actual interest on a BILLION-dollar loan at ten percent is obviously one-hundred-MILLION dollars a year.  Just in interest.

But corrupt morons like the city's black female hypocrite mayor, London Breed, don't get it, and never will.  Same for the board of supervisors (like a city council but more corrupt).  So the city will never reduce spending.

So after it becomes obvious to anyone who can read a balance sheet that the city will never cut spending to balance its budget to match its reduced income, what do ya think the city will do, eh?

Sure:  They'll demand that the federal government bail them out.  And if the Dems own the White House, that's a sure bet since a corruptocrat like Porridgebrain will do it by executive order.  Even if the Dems aren't in control, corrupt RINOs (like the corrupt California rep Kevin McCarthy) will ensure the city will get whatever billions it demands from taxpayers in flyover states.

But even if, by some miracle, congress balks (since the fedrul gruberment debt is now $33 TRILLION), San Francisco's Dem rulers still have ways to continue to continue to spend as much as they like, by borrowing money from banks.  But since private lenders can easily see that the city will never be able to repay such huge loans, lenders will eventually start requiring the city to pledge city assets, like parks, as collateral for new loans.

Rational adults would think the city's citizens would scream bloody murder at that.  But the residents of San Francisco are virtually all Democrats, and the Democrats who've ruled the city for 70 years have long-since become very skilled at using their Media allies to spin anything they want to do--regardless of how corrupt or dumb--as totally faaaaabulous.  So they'll spin it as "We have to do this cuz if we don't, we'll have to cut the number of firefighters and cops."

In every city it's always the same:  "Vote yes on our tax increase or we'll HAVE TO cut firefighters and cops!"

So voters will allow the city to pledge city assets to keep from having to cut stupid outlays demanded by corrupt Democrats--like paying trannies for being tranny.

Of course liberals don't believe any of this--which doesn't bother me a bit.  They're like kids playing with lethal drugs, or a loaded gun:  Rational adults know the risk, and warn the kids, but of course it doesn't do any good, cuz kids almost never listen to adults.  Kid gets killed, and Democrats are like "Who could possibly have predicted that, eh?  

So totally, utterly, easily predictable--unless you're a Democrat or "progressive," in which case the bleat is that no one could possibly have predicted it.

You may hate math, but math doesn't care.  It's a measure of reality, and if you reject it--whether because you don't believe it, or don't like what it predicts--you just automatically signed up for the consequences.

It's a real tragedy that there are so many 40-year-old reality-deniers--so child-like in their ignorance and fantasy--in positions of power.  When any of their faaabulous ideas produces horrible results they blame Trump, or "global warming," or deplorable conservatives, or...anything but their policies.

Source.

https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/commercial/watching-the-real-estate-bust-from-the-streets-of-san-francisco-9708bb91?mod=djemalertNEWS