Oh man, thats funny. I know very little about SF, other than it has lots of "causers". Seems to me they keep voting for this terrible managment, so there are plenty of causes to rally for/against. Seriously half of those examples solve one problem (sending the causers home with a "we fought the good fight" feeling) only to create 2 more cause-able problems (e.g. the old-folks-home/mental hostpital overflow -- cause A: save the old people from criminals, cause B: mentally ill are people too, they need homes).
Pluses: It's a gorgeous city, the people are generally nice, the weather in the whole Bay Area tends to stay pretty close to perfect year round, lots of cultural variety, lots to do and see.
Minuses: the parking sucks, the traffic sucks, the myriad one-way streets suck.
In short, its a great tourist destination, but you probably wouldn't want to live there.
That's a rather generous description of the downsides of San Francisco. Parking and traffic suck in a lot of places, and the one-way streets aren't so bad once you get used to them.
The two worst problems of San Francisco are still the filth (both the rubbish-in-the-streets form of filth and the human form of filth) and the ridiculously high cost of living. The first means that you can't walk down the street for more than a couple of minutes without some weirdo either pestering you for money or trying to sell you drugs. The second means that having a reasonably nice place to live (say, a three or four bedroom detached house with a backyard -- the kind of modest middle-class dwelling that most modest middle-class families inhabit) is completely out of reach for all but the super-rich.
San Francisco is a great place to be at a certain stage in your life, but unless you do become super-rich it's an awful place to stay.
