I think there is a correct perception that many west coast cities are shitholes relative to what their per capita tax expenditures buys in most other cities. It is an argument about relative ROI, not absolute quality of life. If I spend $150k on a car, I don’t expect a used Toyota Corolla.

Cities like Seattle generate inexplicably little public value for the extremely high per capita spending. It should be much nicer for the amount of money it spends. The quality of services relative to expenditure is not defensible. Many cities do far more with far less. I’ve lived in Seattle around downtown for a long time, but it is far from the only city I spend time in. If per capita spending was correlated with quality of city experience, Seattle should be one of the best cities in the world to live in, but I don’t think anyone would make the argument that this is the case. As with San Francisco, most of that taxpayer money is lit on fire with no accountability and no contribution to the public good.

This is similar to the observation that on the same stretch of highway, California somehow manages to spend 10x per mile as its neighbors for visibly and audibly worse roads. People have made jokes about it for decades because the contrast is so stark if you drive on those roads.

It is not unreasonable for taxpayers to expect better than what is available in other cities when they are spending several-fold what those other cities are to achieve, at best, the same results. It doesn’t have to be a total shithole to be grossly mismanaged. People in Seattle spend enough tax money per capita that their city experience is far worse than what they have a right to expect.

It isn’t a political issue.