It is quite clear that with these types of articles, NYTimes is pushing an agenda.
From a card-carrying progressive Ezra Klein:
“If progressivism can’t work there, why should the country believe it can work anywhere else?”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/opinion/california-san-fr...
I’ve seen plenty of progressives claim “they aren’t true progressives” but that comes across as a bit of a “no true Scotsman” argument that you hear from defenders of communism.
And it begs the question - if no one has been able to attain “true” whatever, is it really even an option?
EDIT since you added more: it's not about a purity test for different shades of progressivism, it's that a hyper-capitalistic corporate investment market converging on one city is literally the opposite of anything progressivism has ever claimed to be.
How a place is governed is different from the party people run on, and the lack of accountability on results is the current failing of SF. Execution matters, not just ideas.
What is it that people think the TX government is better at? What similar challenges has the government of, say, Fort Worth faced as SF, and what solution did it have? NIMBYism and other such fun aspects are alive and well there, so if you throw the rapid change and influx of huge money at it, you're going to see some shit. Show me the policies existing in a TX city you'd use to fix SF.
You'll be helped by the massive amount of land still available to sprawl into... but that's a natural difference, not a political one!
If you had given an example where a really effective policy was instituted that at least made some small aspect better I might agree but even that’s not apparent.
For communism and socialism you are given the definition time and time again but people in your position always choose to ignore it and repeat the no true Scotsman meme.
I can tell you the definition, in exchange of you not using that meme anymore. Sounds fair?
But by the same vacuum-logic, Kansas under Brownback is what conservatism looks like in practice: a massive, unmitigated failure so big that even the conservatives themselves raised taxes. And that’s with all that free tax money from well run states helping out.
There were dozens and dozens of articles in every publication over the last decade or longer about the decline of SF, COL is too expensive, homeless, dodging shit on the street, etc.
Then the pandemic and exponentially more articles about the flight from SF, NYC, etc. people are now fleeing for good.
Of course the actual statistics show a tiny fraction of people left SF. I think an article which focuses on this reality is well warranted.
If anything the people criticizing this article have an agenda in their belief that SF is awful and everyone should leave and anything to the contrary is of course biased.
Not that I should have to say this but there is of course plenty to criticize about SF and the Bay Area. The reality is the overwhelming majority of people are not leaving anytime soon. Only a tiny fraction are leaving.