"Progressive Bad" isn't really the takeaway here. It turns out nuance is important. Questionable policies combined with a complex socioeconomic situation due to decades of perverse incentives isn't, in fact, an optimal strategy of governance.
Also, San Francisco is pretty much the quintessential example of such policies getting voted in place without challenge. So maybe you could argue that certain progressive policies were enacted that hurt so bad they significantly outweighed those that would have actually made things better. If that's the case, which progressive policies do you feel led to this situation?
This isn't to say progressivism is doomed in America or we must force socialist policies onto all outlying areas, just that the process of learning how to properly roll out socially responsible policies is still ongoing and one of the major issues is rapidly growing polarization with no interest in nuance.
What goals are compromised to "keep the corporations pleased"? How would these goals be defined if the corporations were not be taken into account?
> and second never truly taxing the rich
You hold "taxing the rich" as some sort of high level independent goal to be done in and of itself. Can you quantify what the lack of funds are that available to SF from not "taxing the rich"? How much is the budget shortfall, and what would this extra budget go to if San Francisco were to "tax the rich"?