I don't think you can understand SF today without starting from this foundational assumption, which is something of a narrative violation, actually. I don't see many starting from this point of view - but I do, and I think it explains almost everything in his article.
That assumption is:
San Francisco is a city for the rich.
That's what really explains the motivations and the things that matter, politically.
Furthermore (starting from there), as a city for the rich, SF cares proportionately less than other metropolises would, about things that in other places would make for strong incentives.
So, housing. Remember, city for the rich: they are housed, in nice houses that should keep their value (not have it lowered by apartments). So new housing doesn't get built.
Thefts: Eh, too bad, but if most if your shopping takes place through Postmates & Instacart... did it really happen? Do you really care? You don't feel the pain all that much. So your response is kind of lethargic. You're not personally losing money so it's not so bad really.
BART: You don't use that, lol. I mean it'll keep running and you can get from place to place on it, for the sake of working people, sure. But beyond that... whatever.
School Board: Your kids go to private school. Next.
Tech: We already have money, and jobs. We (the voters) are already very well off. It's fine it tech wants to add to our economy, but we don't need tech and we're not threatened by its departure. And that's very much what happened.
If you look at most of the problems in SF, and the way the voting public has responded, to me this model has the most explanatory power.
Now maybe the average SF voter isn't rich - but the people who shape the conversation & have the most impact are. SF is very much a city that caters to them.