Its also conveniently leaving out the policy ideas on reducing policing, and introducing mental health crisis workers which have been tried in the US (SF) and worked disastrously.
On policing, Urban Alchemy is the company that was contracted in SF. Having worked directly with Urban Alchemy for years in LA, their staff are severly underqualified and 95% of the time will do nothing once arriving on site. The most I've ever seen them do is break up a fight. Is doing nothing better than actively harming people and making the situation worse, as the police often do? Yes. Is it improving the situation? No. Also, what is your definition of success? No first responder can prevent a crime from happening, all responders arrive after crime has occurred. Putting people into cages as the only option actually leads to worse outcomes for crime. And after decades and billions of dollars spent on the failed war on drugs, we know that is not a viable or successful approach. Part of the job these alternatives are supposed to be doing, is addressing root upstream causes of crime.
On the other hand, the alternative to policing pilot in Denver, Support Team Assistance Response (STAR), has been a wild success.
I've never understood this claim. Are you unaware of the concept of deterrence, or do you reject that it exists?
Mamdani and politicians with similar 'progressive' positions are those advocating for reducing them (either through budget cuts, or moving resources to worse initiatives), while the most robust studies on crime have shown beat cops to be pretty effective for reducing crime (see the Philadelphia Foot Patrol Experiment, and other meta analyses)
Denver is the best example in the US that saw limited success, and one of the very few - in most places similar approaches were tried (in the US), we were worse off then just keeping police as the primary responders. In NYC specifically we tried a pilot recently, and it was (unsurprisingly) ineffectual - where police had to be called as backup 65% anyway(https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/audit-of-the-behavioral-...). So no in NY at least police don't make the situation worse thats a myth.
Is that the case with groceries?
It's so thoroughly different in goals from the NYC plan that I'm in awe people would conflate them.
[1] For example Seven Deadly Zins wine is $19 in NH, currently very on sale for $13. Or its just $11.49 at Total Wine in Mass without any sale at all! Ketel One vodka is $38 in NH, or $28 in Mass.
NYC tax revenues are not growing and even optimistic estimates of the proposed tax increases (which the mayor doesn’t have the power to impose anyway) top out at $8 billion.
This is the epitome of magical thinking. Even with the most optimistic estimates of revenue increases and conservative estimates for the proposed spending, the numbers are miles away from adding up. And we’re talking about some municipal grocery stores? Like even if he really screws it up, the cost is probably only in the hundreds of millions.
"Zohran’s revenue plan will raise the corporate tax rate to match New Jersey’s 11.5%, bringing in $5 billion. And he will tax the wealthiest 1% of New Yorkers—those earning above $1 million annually—a flat 2% tax (right now city income tax rates are essentially the same whether you make $50,000 or $50 million). Zohran will also implement common-sense procurement reform, end senseless no-bid contracts, hire more tax auditors, and crack down on fine collection from corrupt landlords to raise an additional $1 billion."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14-aM9DKG337SDMilmfQtLRR-pDw...
Would be great if Democrats can stay the party of serious governance and not style drift to the post-truth style embraced by modern Republicans. I’m glad we’re nominating young, charismatic candidates, but we need to stay in reality.
For a more sober look at the proposals (you sent a link to campaign material) see https://www.cato.org/blog/mamdanis-wishful-thinking-tax-reve...
99pi has a nice podcast on food deserts. It puts the blame on the decision from the FTC to stop enforcing the Robinson-Patman Act, and only use consumer prices as the metric for antitrust rulings.
This is more one of the causes: Too much theft so they cut their losses.
That's a pretty important difference you're eliding. "state run" is where most of the objection is. Coops get nowhere near the pushback (if any) that state run businesses (ie. "communism") get from Americans.
"state" in this case refers to "government", not US "states". You see this type of usage elsewhere, for instance "state" schools[1], which are often operated at the city/county level, not state level.
Schools operated at the city/county level are called public schools in the US, no? So in the same vein these stores should either be called public or city stores.
Note that the Guardian article instead talks about "city-run" and "municipal-run" grocery stores. And the reason I'm mentioning this is that "city-run" sounds harmless while "state run" is exactly what you mention: "Coops get nowhere near the pushback (if any) that state run businesses (ie. "communism") get from Americans."
Right, I'm pointing out that "state" in the english language isn't limited to just US states. If you're not convinced by that, there's also "state" owned enterprises in countries that don't even have "states" (eg. China).
>Note that the Guardian article instead talks about "city-run" and "municipal-run" grocery stores. And the reason I'm mentioning this is that "city-run" sounds harmless while "state run" is exactly what you mention: "Coops get nowhere near the pushback (if any) that state run businesses (ie. "communism") get from Americans."
The only difference between municipally and states owned enterprises (both the US state kind and "government" kind) is in scale. Objections to state ownership mainly revolve around state coercion (you can't opt out of a municipal grocery store, especially if it's funded by tax dollars), and potential for self-dealing. Both these concerns exist for municipal grocery stores, but not coops.
> in countries that don't even have "states" (eg. China)
China is the state.
I've read it has worked very well, though not necessarily in SF in particular. Do you happen to remember where you read that?
It's hard to imagine why having mental health professionals address mental health problems would be a bad idea.
Could you point out if I'm missing something?
The general points i'm trying to get across is
- Responder safety/back-up needs mean you can’t fully “swap out” police. This program still needed to bring in police most of the time. - Coverage and scale are hard in an actually big city, like NYC. (also why denver's success in a tiny city is sort of a useless comparison)
So why not just equip police to better handle mental health cases instead of creating a different task force which doesn't have any of structure the police already has? This isn't rhetorical - the reason is idealogical stubbornness, there are better solutions for achieving mamadanis goals.
I don't think so: Pick something that supports your claim. Right now it looks like you linked to it without even knowing what it said, hoping nobody would read it and you could claim some authority.
> Responder safety/back-up needs mean you can’t fully “swap out” police. This program still needed to bring in police most of the time.
The audit specifically says that they can't evaluate that; they don't know because they lack the appropriate data.
Is there something else you base that claim on?
> why not just equip police to better handle mental health cases
Because it takes a lot of training that police don't have time or possibly the propensity for. Even police have long complained that they are given jobs that they aren't suited for.
> the reason is idealogical stubbornness
You answered your own question with that ... there is nothing more I can add!