How do you get from liking Guilliani and Bloomberg to thinking that "benevolent dictators are the way to go"?
You say you didn't like NYC as much pre-1993, which is when Koch left office after 12 years. But didn't the mayor then have much of the same powers as the mayor now? Doesn't that suggest that the 'benevolent dictatorship' then was the source of the problems?
In any case, and quoting Wikipedia: "Most major and large American cities use the strong-mayor form of the mayor–council system, whereas middle-sized and small American cities tend to use the council-manager system." And yes, San Francisco uses a 'strong mayor' system.
Which seems to imply that a benevolent dictatorship system can also lead to disaster.
(You suggest that the alternative is to leave things up to the market. That is not the case. There are other forms of municipal government.)
Therefore, I don't understand how your observations of recent NYC history can be applied to other large cities in the US.
> "But didn't the mayor then have much of the same powers as the mayor now? Doesn't that suggest that the 'benevolent dictatorship' then was the source of the problems?"
His train of thought is consistent. The idea is that benevolent dictatorships can either be a great force for good, or wildly incompetent. As compared to a market or ballot-based governments that are practically guaranteed to be incompetent. Lesser of the evils, if you will.
> "(You suggest that the alternative is to leave things up to the market. That is not the case. There are other forms of municipal government.)"
OP specifically cited North Virginia, with a market-based government, as a failure. How does that interpret as an endorsement of market-based government?
It's not the form of government, it's the willingness and ability of the mayor to rule with singular vision without getting bogged down with the concensus building. Not every mayor uses his power in that way.
You say you didn't like NYC as much pre-1993, which is when Koch left office after 12 years. But didn't the mayor then have much of the same powers as the mayor now? Doesn't that suggest that the 'benevolent dictatorship' then was the source of the problems?
In any case, and quoting Wikipedia: "Most major and large American cities use the strong-mayor form of the mayor–council system, whereas middle-sized and small American cities tend to use the council-manager system." And yes, San Francisco uses a 'strong mayor' system.
Which seems to imply that a benevolent dictatorship system can also lead to disaster.
(You suggest that the alternative is to leave things up to the market. That is not the case. There are other forms of municipal government.)
Therefore, I don't understand how your observations of recent NYC history can be applied to other large cities in the US.