“ Y'all colonized the poorest parts of the city and gave the poorest folks nowhere to go, and you still complain when they dare to pop up where you are.”
Nope. One of the wealthiest cities in the world fails to look after its inhabitants. A failure of government
People who moved to SF in 96 like GP are much more politically influential than the "colonizers" who arrived more recently. And yes, someone who arrived in the late 90s calling other people "colonizers" is hilarious.
I think you're using the term "inhabitants" loosely here. The US doesn't have much of a social safety net, which means that any city that attempts to build one may suddenly find that "its inhabitants" include the 330 million people living in other parts of the country who need help. Or who would just like some money and an opportunity to do meth and fentanyl and shoplift and commit property crime in a place with very little law enforcement. I personally would include that in the definition of "needing help." Any version of "help" that will help in SF will have to be coercive, which is another thing SF's political culture is having tremendous difficulty accepting.
But really, if you took Stockholm out of Sweden and plunked it down into the middle of the US, how long do you think the social safety net would last before it went bankrupt? And this is assuming you retain the european willingness to be coercive about mandatory rehab and confinement (something US based progressives are reluctant to note is a feature of the european social safety programs they otherwise praise).
Nope. One of the wealthiest cities in the world fails to look after its inhabitants. A failure of government