Saturday, June 25, 2005

Economist on Pelosi and Hasterts' districts

Economist published this back in December 2003.

I live in Hastert's district and love to visit San Francisco. Below quote from article probably explains why it's just love to visit.
There is also a class difference. Mr Hastert's district is as resolutely middle-class as it is cheerfully mid-American. A few businessmen live in multi-million-dollar houses, and send their children to private schools. But most people send their children to public schools, shop in giant shopping malls and eat in chain restaurants. The region's varied economy means that you do not need a higher degree to get ahead: people do well in farms and factories as well as in office suites. And the almost universal commitment to the public schools reinforces the sense of equality. Sue Klinkhamer, the mayor of St Charles, points out that her local school district is so big that people living on fairly modest incomes can send their children to the same schools as do millionaires.

San Francisco is both higher- and lower-class. The city is home to some of the richest people in the country, many of them, like the Hearsts, Haases and Crockers, the heirs to rather than the creators of huge fortunes. It also has a disproportionate number of single professionals with big disposable incomes. Yet it is also host to one of the country's biggest concentrations of homeless people. Over 8,000 of them, perhaps twice that number, many drug-addicted or mentally ill, live on the streets. “A mixture of Carmel and Calcutta”, is the verdict of Kevin Starr, California's state librarian, on his native city.

3 comments:

DownLeft said...

This article looks like another chapter in the Republican Party's desperate attempt to bridge the gap between their big-business agenda and the middle class and rural votes they need to get elected.

The anecdotes don't mean much. You could just as easily pick Lane Evans' district and make almost the exact same discription given for Hastert's and claim it applies to Democrats. In fact, Lane Evans has a more rural and more working class district than Hastert. The article's descriptive language suggest the district is more like what Evans represents, while it glosses over the fact that much if it is suburban, not rural. The intent and methods of the article seems disengenuous and flimsy.

Bill Baar said...

The demographics on kids is striking. San Francisco well on it's way to not having any. It's not a kid friendly city any more.

If the test of gov is as Humprhy said:
"It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped,"

Then San Francisco is failing by driving out the kids.

Bill Baar said...

Here's a recent Sacunion column on San Francisco losing population under 18 http://www.sacunion.com/pages/california/articles/4996/

It's more complicated then being a gay city.