Anti-Tech Protesters Are Telling Kevin Rose’s Neighbors That He’s A “Parasite”(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Anti-Tech Protesters Are Telling Kevin Rose’s Neighbors That He’s A “Parasite”
http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/06/kevin-rose-protesters-parasite/
28 comments
SF is now the most expensive city to live in, in the US base on a few sources. While it's true normally growth and new jobs is seen as a good thing, here, it's specifically the tech sector that is growing with the majority of hires and wage increase focused entirely on developers mostly.
Imagine if rent goes up 300% or more in the past few years and you work as a waiter or any other number of non-tech jobs. Increase salaries and demands for hires in the tech sector would have nothing to do with you nor would you probably qualify for a job yet you suffer from all the consequences of the growth and demand happening around you aka your wage is the same but trying to rent a place now costs several thousands of dollars more than it did 5 years ago. That's essentially the problem locals who aren't in the tech field are facing.
Imagine if rent goes up 300% or more in the past few years and you work as a waiter or any other number of non-tech jobs. Increase salaries and demands for hires in the tech sector would have nothing to do with you nor would you probably qualify for a job yet you suffer from all the consequences of the growth and demand happening around you aka your wage is the same but trying to rent a place now costs several thousands of dollars more than it did 5 years ago. That's essentially the problem locals who aren't in the tech field are facing.
>yet you suffer from all the consequences of the growth and demand happening around you aka your wage is the same
What would a $15-$17 minimum wage SF look like?
What would a $15-$17 minimum wage SF look like?
SF already have the highest minimum wage in the united states. It has it's own minimum wage as a city compare to the state. That said, even if you increase to say $20/he, that roughly translate to about $40k/year. Compare that to where 6-figure salaries are the norm for entry developers (where is was maybe just $60k for fresh grads a few years back) and you can see the growing discrepancy. I understand that developers are viewed as providing greater value this they should be paid more than minimum wage laborers but that doesn't change the situation with housing costs for both buying and selling. In some cases a two bedroom place these days can go average around 3-4k for a decent place in a decent neighborhood.
Isn't Kevin Rose that guy who killed Digg?
I think he's the guy who started it in the 1st place. Also brought the "like" function to the masses. Now he works mainly in VC.
He's probably most well known as one of the founders of Digg.
So making jobs makes you a parasite?
The movement seems to have been appropriated or at inspired by people claiming to be anti-capitalism anarchists. In that idealogy, the very existence of jobs is considered parasitic. Wage labor, which they call "wage slavery," is seen as inherently exploitative. They aren't just against high paid jobs in the technology sector, they're against the very idea of division of labor and capitalism.
[deleted]
Inspired enough to protest individuals, but not enough to learn the skills needed to be paid the 4x wages they cite the parasites move to SF for.
Imagine if all that rage time was spent learning rails and mobile development.
Imagine if all that rage time was spent learning rails and mobile development.
Well.. if it hadn't been for the cock-sucking bubble in the 90s, they might be alright today.
Growing up in the 90's, we sure did love to get our cock sucked. Our generation has grown up though, now all we want is for our kids to be watched and our floors to be mopped.
TBF we also want our cabs driven.
This pains me to read. Are you really so convinced that the techie crowd got ahead from its own savvy and motivation and everyone else is too lazy to do so?
There's nothing like writing off huge swathes of people based on an utterly distorted view of reality.
There's nothing like writing off huge swathes of people based on an utterly distorted view of reality.
I'm not writing off "huge swabs". I'm writing off anyone with enough time to form a formal protest but not enough time to do anything with their career but drive cars and wait tables.
>...convinced that the techie crowd got ahead from its own savvy and motivation..
As opposed to what?
As opposed to what?
Sucking cock
I don't think these particular protestors are being productive, but what you're describing doesn't scale. Not everyone can be a programmer.
Fair enough. Then they can go to medical school. Or law school. Or be an accountant. Or an investment banker. They could take up the trades (electricians, plumbers, carpentry). Maybe help animals--be a Veterinarian. Work on the dark side...be a mortician. Be an airplane mechanic or a civil engineer. Dispense drugs...be a Pharmacist. Build bridges and buildings.
Something tells me they will find an excuse for why any and all of those options presented are not options to them. They are professional complainers.
Something tells me they will find an excuse for why any and all of those options presented are not options to them. They are professional complainers.
I'm not sure if you're intentionally sidestepping my point or not.
We're always going to need people to do tasks that don't require education. Being a janitor isn't punishment for not "working hard enough". We're always going to need janitors and other workers. They're valuable members of society who help make civil life possible.
We're always going to need people to do tasks that don't require education. Being a janitor isn't punishment for not "working hard enough". We're always going to need janitors and other workers. They're valuable members of society who help make civil life possible.
Isn't this basically harassment?
This is what scientologists do, harass your neighbours with flyers carefully worded as to avoid libel and post them all over the neighborhood. Pretty weak resorting to Scilon tactics
Such methods are despicable in and of themselves, not for being associated with a particular faction. If that was how it worked, Germany would have outlawed vegetarian diets, art school, mustaches, and pants.
Lets see, it's an article about how tech workers are being targeted because of high earning potential by anarchist service workers, who in the past have harassed other employees of Google and anyone else who is part of the SF tech/startup scene.
Which in turn, becomes a place to discuss whether their complaints are valid, and either way, what courses of action might be taken.
Which in turn, becomes a place to discuss whether their complaints are valid, and either way, what courses of action might be taken.
Yes, it's clearly of great interest to people here on HN, and people who are part of the SF tech/startup scene.
Its fair that HN readers in far flung locales might not relate to this.
Originally, I was optimistic about the movement. The rent in SF is indeed too damn high.
Sadly it's completely radicalized into an organization which harasses individuals for the crime of spreading capital and demands that Google fund anarchist communes.
So much for anything positive (ex. better zoning) coming of it.
Sadly it's completely radicalized into an organization which harasses individuals for the crime of spreading capital and demands that Google fund anarchist communes.
So much for anything positive (ex. better zoning) coming of it.
In any protest movement there will be a group who wants to turn the disagreement into a zero-sum conflict. The first thing to do is convince the people who disagree with you that those on your side who are amenable to compromise are just as radical as you are.
On the other hand, this provides a good opportunity for any group who wants to position themselves as more moderate to do so.
Welcome to politics.
On the other hand, this provides a good opportunity for any group who wants to position themselves as more moderate to do so.
Welcome to politics.
These guys are assholes, but the issue remains a huge problem. I just hope people can see through the idiots to see that the issue that they are complaining about is real.
More or less, the same thing happened with Occupy. Its more that SF is a major hub of rebellious anarchists who are utterly inept at running political campaigns or creating anything useful.
Occupy kind-of sorta had meaning, until those west-coast anarchists started storming banks, breaking windows, and turned the whole event into a "F* the Police" festival.
That sort of behavior scares away the Teachers Unions, the Police Unions... and the many others (who are part of the 99%), and greatly hampers the movement. Nevertheless, you can be sure that the non-assholes are hoping for a solution.
Occupy kind-of sorta had meaning, until those west-coast anarchists started storming banks, breaking windows, and turned the whole event into a "F* the Police" festival.
That sort of behavior scares away the Teachers Unions, the Police Unions... and the many others (who are part of the 99%), and greatly hampers the movement. Nevertheless, you can be sure that the non-assholes are hoping for a solution.
Agreed, Sadly I think this movement is doomed to go the same way as Occupy.
Sometimes I wonder if these kooks are hired by the real plutocrats and parasites (ex. real estate developers) to undermine the movement. Or if it's not just one giant surrealist joke.
Sometimes I wonder if these kooks are hired by the real plutocrats and parasites (ex. real estate developers) to undermine the movement. Or if it's not just one giant surrealist joke.
Never underestimate the left's propensity to defeat themselves from the inside out, to choose a personal sense of moral and/or ideological superiority over coalition building and meaningful progress. Especially in the SF Bay area.
We are the ones who serve them coffee, deliver them food, suck their cocks, watch their kids, and mop their floors
...
To this end, we now make our first clear demand of Google. We demand that Google give three billion dollars to an anarchist organization of our choosing.
On the one hand I feel sorry for Kevin having to deal with these crackpots, on the other hand these crackpots are so bad at PR it's hilarious.
...
To this end, we now make our first clear demand of Google. We demand that Google give three billion dollars to an anarchist organization of our choosing.
On the one hand I feel sorry for Kevin having to deal with these crackpots, on the other hand these crackpots are so bad at PR it's hilarious.
Their employers are parasites? I don't think they know what that word means.
I think they mean that without their employers, they would get what their work is worth.
Of course, that's easy enough to prove. But these sort are usually afraid to try and prove it. They want everything arranged for them and someone else to bear all the risk.
Of course, that's easy enough to prove. But these sort are usually afraid to try and prove it. They want everything arranged for them and someone else to bear all the risk.
Yeah, I totally lost it at that last line. Still, I don't understand how people with grievances think it's ok to vilify and hurt others. The solution to one's suffering shouldn't be found by spreading the pain.
Seeing hateful messages about you spread out to your neighbors must feel like an emotional knife to the heart no matter how famous or successful you are.
Seeing hateful messages about you spread out to your neighbors must feel like an emotional knife to the heart no matter how famous or successful you are.
The worst part is they're vilifying people who have no other crime other than being successful. These are people that may very well actually agree with the goals of the protestors (e.g. according to the article Kevin Rose does agree that the rent problem and others need to be solved). Or they would, if the protestors would actually try to talk to these people instead of attacking them.
They often seem blind, deaf and dumb to facts. Which is probably more the reason for the predicament of some than someone else being successful.
On the whole, life is made better when people achieve things. They shouldn't be treated shabbily.
On the whole, life is made better when people achieve things. They shouldn't be treated shabbily.
Of course, why would they, 'ordinary' (bear with me) people not caught up in the world of PR and media and product promotion, have any talent at PR?
I think they're allowed to be mad regardless of their media savvy.
I think they're allowed to be mad regardless of their media savvy.
That last line is quite curious, though. As far as I know, only a very small fraction of modern day anarchists is self-describing as anarchists. Most of the others consider the term unfashionable and derogatory.
Here in Europe the self-describing Anarchists are the Punks and the Black Block and they tend to drive people away from a cause by co-opting it.
Here in Europe the self-describing Anarchists are the Punks and the Black Block and they tend to drive people away from a cause by co-opting it.
Black Bloc is a tactic, not a group. The anarchists here have all turned into Maoists who venerate the Naxalite rebellion in India. Chairman Mao figures prominently in the old anarchist space I used to go to back when it was also a hacker space. Peasant armed revolt is ridiculous in a first world country, I stopped going also it's full of state spies to watch for anti pipeline protest planning another good reason to avoid the space.
[deleted]
To be mad, yes. To make demands under threats, no.
They have precious little other way to make demands.
You don't have to take them seriously. You can condemn them for making threats, sure, if you disagree with that tactic. It's /writing them off/ that I hate - like they don't deserve a voice because you (=the top level commenter) think they haven't tried hard enough in life.
You don't have to take them seriously. You can condemn them for making threats, sure, if you disagree with that tactic. It's /writing them off/ that I hate - like they don't deserve a voice because you (=the top level commenter) think they haven't tried hard enough in life.
Funny, those words are roughly cribbed from a line in "Dirty Pretty Things":
The doctor: How come I've never seen you people before? Okwe: Because we are the people you do not see. We are the ones who drive your cabs. We clean your rooms. And suck your cocks.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0301199/quotes?qt=qt0159994
Whoever is writing these notes needs to come up with something original if they're going to accuse someone of being a parasite.
The doctor: How come I've never seen you people before? Okwe: Because we are the people you do not see. We are the ones who drive your cabs. We clean your rooms. And suck your cocks.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0301199/quotes?qt=qt0159994
Whoever is writing these notes needs to come up with something original if they're going to accuse someone of being a parasite.
Yeah! ... I saw that movie only a week ago and remember that bit. Audrey Tatou and Chiwetel Ejiofor, I recommend it.
[Edit] Its about illegal immigrants in London, their troubles, exploitation and attempts at a better life. It's currently available on netflix.
[Edit] Its about illegal immigrants in London, their troubles, exploitation and attempts at a better life. It's currently available on netflix.
Someone's been reading/watching too much Fight Club. That's close to verbatim of what Project Mayhem would spew on the elite, along with the smiley face. None of which seems threatening to me at all.
If only they would apply anarchism to the government's housing construction restrictions in SF. I think they would find that, without any tribute from Google, the capitalism they so hate would quickly lead to vast improvements to the housing market.
[deleted]
I'd love to know who's actually putting the effort into this nonsense. While gentrification causes obvious problems, particularly around housing, the rampant doublethinky ignorance of literally pointing out that tech money is providing jobs and investment in the area is a bit hard to swallow… feels like there's something else going on here.
I don't know, maybe they prefer to live on benefits in a cheaper place? If you live on government support, jobs in your area don't help you and the higher prices worsen your situation.
They want to live in San Francisco. SF has always been a "rebel hub" of freedom and anarchy. Its that rebellious spirit that somewhat made the valley what it is today.
Ultimately, they call that place their home and wish to say. Market economics however are forcing them to move. Therefore, conflict exists.
Honestly, the solution is to build more Apartment complexes and strike down the zoning laws that prevents the new buildings from going up.
Ultimately, they call that place their home and wish to say. Market economics however are forcing them to move. Therefore, conflict exists.
Honestly, the solution is to build more Apartment complexes and strike down the zoning laws that prevents the new buildings from going up.
You got that right. Everything yellow in this map is zoned 40-X, a.k.a. buildings taller than 4 stories are not welcome:
http://i.imgur.com/Tn7CSTX.jpg
(You can make maps like this at http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/)
(You can make maps like this at http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/)
[deleted]
Who gives a shit where they "want" to live. I'd like to live on the upper east side in Manhattan. Time for them to move to a place they can afford and stop the whining. I hear Detroit has a lot of cheap housing.
Ironically, this is the true anarcho-capitalist approach to the problem. Part of Anarchy is that when the prices go up and you can't afford the area you're living in... you should move out to a place you can afford.
It is strange to see Anarchists as the ones who are most rebellious against gentrification.
It is strange to see Anarchists as the ones who are most rebellious against gentrification.
Different anarchism branches disagree very strongly on some issues. That's not surprising at all.
However, the housing market in SanFran is anything but free.
However, the housing market in SanFran is anything but free.
That doesn't explain that they resent the creation of service jobs as they seem to do. That would only explain that they resent the creation of highly paid tech jobs and the increased demand for housing.
Unfortunately, San Francisco has more than its share of untreated mentally ill, and this note reads like that to me.
I think that's a bit of a trivialisation of the issue. There's clearly a literate, intelligent, and reasonably well-organised group that's been pushing this stuff recently, and I struggle to picture who they are, and why they're wasting their time like this.
Resentment, plain and simple. The tech industry represents a missed chance for those who did not hop on board. And compounded by SV's tendency to produce lots of self-serving products (and not to mention the implicit elitism), this sentiment was bound to emerge.
To be fair, I don't think anarchists in SF envision silicon valley as a "missed chance". Silicon Valley has been there for 50 years. Silicon Valley came to them.
Whether or not anyone agrees, that's how they see it. Genrtification isn't about winning--or losing--for them its about killing a place/era they used to calll home.
Think woodstock or other "lost eras". Those times only last a short while and are fleeting. Because they are a function of the fact that they were new and unknown (at the time). Once everyone tramples into the place, whatever place it was before is gone.
Even if you still are theree: it sucks having "new neighbors" thay you just don't like. Even if you're a landowner or an established person.
See, eg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7540842
(Similar story in NY)
Whether or not anyone agrees, that's how they see it. Genrtification isn't about winning--or losing--for them its about killing a place/era they used to calll home.
Think woodstock or other "lost eras". Those times only last a short while and are fleeting. Because they are a function of the fact that they were new and unknown (at the time). Once everyone tramples into the place, whatever place it was before is gone.
Even if you still are theree: it sucks having "new neighbors" thay you just don't like. Even if you're a landowner or an established person.
See, eg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7540842
(Similar story in NY)
http://www.examiner.com/article/anarchists-occupy-abandoned-...
They're the San Francisco Anarchists, well known for Black Bloc protests. They believe in a more extreme means to protesting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/8...
Rebellion, vandalism, and property damage are their tools. Anarchists have their own philosophy (arguably, its just a more extreme branch of Libertarianism).
They're the San Francisco Anarchists, well known for Black Bloc protests. They believe in a more extreme means to protesting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/8...
Rebellion, vandalism, and property damage are their tools. Anarchists have their own philosophy (arguably, its just a more extreme branch of Libertarianism).
[deleted]
Vis-à-vis Wall Street's dalliance with the left coast: this is what you get for dating crazy.
Here's the source post from the protest organizers http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/04/06/18753651.php
He is alone in his battle with their neighborhood raccoon problem.
[deleted]
I wonder about these folks. Are they the gays, hippies, yuppies, and beatniks or the children thereof that changed San Francisco to the chagrin of the previous generation?
And yet, it is the "Rich who wage war on the poor".
Granted, this is San Francisco. They've always been a roudy bunch over there. But this kind of behavior negatively looks upon the "99%". (or more specifically, the activists who claim to be the 99%).
Gendrification happens all across the country, and the renting-class poor are forced to move out of neighborhoods as they get more expensive. But only in San Francisco does gendrification seem to be so painful...
Granted, this is San Francisco. They've always been a roudy bunch over there. But this kind of behavior negatively looks upon the "99%". (or more specifically, the activists who claim to be the 99%).
Gendrification happens all across the country, and the renting-class poor are forced to move out of neighborhoods as they get more expensive. But only in San Francisco does gendrification seem to be so painful...
[deleted]
Nice to see that crazy hasn't disappeared.
Fluctuations in property values, and thus rents, are driven by Federal Reserve policy. These problems are created in Washington and real estate lobbying is more to blame.
That lobby has promoted, and our leaders have accepted, the notion that recoveries are led by the housing market. They believe consumption, not production, is the source of prosperity.
Its all designed, they say, to help the little people. But its the little people that are abused the most by these policies.
Yes, asset prices and thus rents ought to be stable and increase in a predictable way. These rapid rent increases compel people to buy (assuming they can), only to set them up for the next crash in real estate prices.
Overall, we don't benefit from these bubbles. Some get lucky for owning when they start and others get unlucky for owning when they collapse.
But those charging 6% on every transaction profit more when people buy and sell more. And bubbles are great for causing lots of transactions.
That lobby has promoted, and our leaders have accepted, the notion that recoveries are led by the housing market. They believe consumption, not production, is the source of prosperity.
Its all designed, they say, to help the little people. But its the little people that are abused the most by these policies.
Yes, asset prices and thus rents ought to be stable and increase in a predictable way. These rapid rent increases compel people to buy (assuming they can), only to set them up for the next crash in real estate prices.
Overall, we don't benefit from these bubbles. Some get lucky for owning when they start and others get unlucky for owning when they collapse.
But those charging 6% on every transaction profit more when people buy and sell more. And bubbles are great for causing lots of transactions.
I see that all you have is a hammer (re: Federal Reserve paranoia), and every problem looks awfully like a nail.
There are legitimate, well-developed arguments against specific Fed policies that can, and are, debated in economic circles. This mismatch of paranoid delusion isn't one of them. Even if I were to charitably grant your thesis for the sake of debate, the effects of Fed policy on rent wouldn't be isolated to just one city in one state. San Francisco's rents have seen a roughly three-fold increase over the national average the past this last December alone. Were the problem "Washington," this wouldn't be the case.
There are legitimate, well-developed arguments against specific Fed policies that can, and are, debated in economic circles. This mismatch of paranoid delusion isn't one of them. Even if I were to charitably grant your thesis for the sake of debate, the effects of Fed policy on rent wouldn't be isolated to just one city in one state. San Francisco's rents have seen a roughly three-fold increase over the national average the past this last December alone. Were the problem "Washington," this wouldn't be the case.
Whatever is already rising when the Fed is inflating gets the most bubbly. Sectors that have been dropping don't attract speculators as readily.
Tech has been rising and is dominate in this area of the country. Its also a good place to buy if your trying to move wealth out of China. A lot of other places in the US are less appealing to both tech and to Asia.
The activities of the Fed are not the only relevant factor. San Francisco is a tight space and its a great place to be. These are pre-existing conditions that make it more susceptible to the effects of asset inflation.
Tech has been rising and is dominate in this area of the country. Its also a good place to buy if your trying to move wealth out of China. A lot of other places in the US are less appealing to both tech and to Asia.
The activities of the Fed are not the only relevant factor. San Francisco is a tight space and its a great place to be. These are pre-existing conditions that make it more susceptible to the effects of asset inflation.
What the hell does Washington have to do with local zoning laws?
San Francisco is a densely populated city with very little land. However, buildings taller than 4-stories are outlawed. If a couple of 20+ floor apartment complexes are built, you can be rest assured that the more typical / mundane housing will become available for the rest of the citizens.
SF needs more housing, period. Local laws are what is screwing the pooch on this one.
San Francisco is a densely populated city with very little land. However, buildings taller than 4-stories are outlawed. If a couple of 20+ floor apartment complexes are built, you can be rest assured that the more typical / mundane housing will become available for the rest of the citizens.
SF needs more housing, period. Local laws are what is screwing the pooch on this one.
Its things like QE2 that are creating demand for real estate. The tech boom is driven by venture capital, which is driven by cheap money. And real estate is financed by it as well.
Making it easier to build would help too, of course. But building HAS been going on. Isn't Rincon Hill 50 stories tall? Did zoning prevent it?
Making it easier to build would help too, of course. But building HAS been going on. Isn't Rincon Hill 50 stories tall? Did zoning prevent it?
The techboom was happening long before QE2, QE1, or the 2008 crisis. In case you haven't noticed, Google's been around since 1998, founded near the tail end of the previous tech boom. They didn't suddenly hire all of these Googlers in 2008, Twitter, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, etc have been hiring like crazy for a long time.
I dunno, call me crazy, but maybe this time, it's time to let go of the libertarian 'gubmint did it' angle and admit that natural booms exist.
I dunno, call me crazy, but maybe this time, it's time to let go of the libertarian 'gubmint did it' angle and admit that natural booms exist.
Natural booms do exist. Technology booms do occur. I'm not arguing that they don't. What I argue is that expansion of the money supply exaggerates unnecessarily and causes other damaging distortions.
Government is the use of force. It makes sense that it is sometimes damaging to distort economic choices. Moreover, there is little proof that all the interference has any benefit. Usually, they benefit a tiny group of well-connected individuals, with the rest of us paying the costs.
Government is the use of force. It makes sense that it is sometimes damaging to distort economic choices. Moreover, there is little proof that all the interference has any benefit. Usually, they benefit a tiny group of well-connected individuals, with the rest of us paying the costs.
Well, another way of looking at the excesses of the market is that the rest of the world had a glut of savings, while America had a huge trade deficit and a lack of saving, so this naturally dictates a capital account surplus/net capital inflow.
People in Europe and Asia have to put their money somewhere, and if the US is generating higher returns for less risk, they're going to go there, for either safety or opportunity. So if you have a huge influx of funds hungry for American assets, it is no surprise you see asset price inflation, as well as cheap, easy money.
You could argue that perhaps, if it weren't for the fact that the US dollar is the world's reserve currency, we wouldn't be able to print dollars and run a trade deficit, and foreigners would never be storing up huge amounts of dollars to reinvest or loan to the US, but you could just as easily argue that raising taxes would increase national savings and reduce the trade deficit.
People in Europe and Asia have to put their money somewhere, and if the US is generating higher returns for less risk, they're going to go there, for either safety or opportunity. So if you have a huge influx of funds hungry for American assets, it is no surprise you see asset price inflation, as well as cheap, easy money.
You could argue that perhaps, if it weren't for the fact that the US dollar is the world's reserve currency, we wouldn't be able to print dollars and run a trade deficit, and foreigners would never be storing up huge amounts of dollars to reinvest or loan to the US, but you could just as easily argue that raising taxes would increase national savings and reduce the trade deficit.
Yes, there is a net capital inflow. If you're building a lot of oversized houses and financing a trillion dollar annual budget, you need to import everybody else's savings. I don't think financing these unsustainable things will be a good investment in the long run.
Zoning is preventing any tall buildings from getting built wherever this map is yellow.
http://i.imgur.com/Tn7CSTX.jpg
So yeah... methinks the problem here is the local government's poor zoning laws.
http://i.imgur.com/Tn7CSTX.jpg
So yeah... methinks the problem here is the local government's poor zoning laws.
What these people really want is for all of the "other people" to go away. That's the only way you could ever see housing prices in SF go down given the current market circumstances. You have a city that's surrounded by water, a convoluted regulatory environment that actively depresses development activity, and a total unwillingness to build vertically.
In the long-term, either the people leave, the water somehow disappears, or you rewrite city codes and start building vertically. Of the three, only the lattermost is even feasible.
In the long-term, either the people leave, the water somehow disappears, or you rewrite city codes and start building vertically. Of the three, only the lattermost is even feasible.
There was a plan to disappear the water, but don't worry, "we stopped them".
http://blog.savesfbay.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Bart-Ad...
http://blog.savesfbay.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Bart-Ad...
Do they honestly think idle threats will lead to anything apropos of anything the opposite of nothing?
Well, is he?
These sentiments aren't new and aren't unique to SF (unfortunately). I haven't seen such blatant assaults on people in LA, but Santa Monica went through a similar transformation where it became super desirable relatively quickly, driving up rents.
There is a law here called TORCA (Tenant Ownership Rights Charter Amendment). When I first heard the name, it took me a bit to comprehend it, as in my book "Tenant" and "Ownership" are mutually exclusive and make the term an oxymoron.
But when you learn about how powerful the renter's rights lobby is in SM city council, you realize that the joke is on the landlords, at least for the life of the TORCA tenant.
There is a law here called TORCA (Tenant Ownership Rights Charter Amendment). When I first heard the name, it took me a bit to comprehend it, as in my book "Tenant" and "Ownership" are mutually exclusive and make the term an oxymoron.
But when you learn about how powerful the renter's rights lobby is in SM city council, you realize that the joke is on the landlords, at least for the life of the TORCA tenant.
Are they aware that if the techies leave, the demand for their jobs like making coffee and mopping floors will drastically decrease?
These are not very forward thinking people.
These are not very forward thinking people.
Not that intimidation or vilification of gentrifiers is acceptable (it's not), but I'm a bit surprised how just how simply that most people here brush off the problems that the so-called 'anti-tech' crowd are complaining about. We consider ourselves such great problem solvers, but I don't see anyone in software solving the housing problem in our major cities. Admittedly, it's a hard fucking problem and some of the people who would dare suggest that it's easily solvable aren't taking any of this seriously. Building codes, while imperfect and prone to abuse by corrupt politicians and business people, do exist for reason (especially in earthquake-prone SF and LA). If it were such a easily problem as some people suggest, it would have been solved and monetized by now.
Everybody loves when their community gets all the amenities that pop up when people with more money move in, but then what's the point when you're being forced out a year later when your rent or property taxes explode? That shit sucks.
My intention isn't to attack and start a conflict here. I would hope that maybe we could start taking the problem more seriously and maybe start thinking harder about how to actually solve the housing problem. It's a little more complex than just sitting around wishing that our current pay-to-play political system will all of the sudden magically grow a absolutist moral center and fix zoning laws and building codes.
Everybody loves when their community gets all the amenities that pop up when people with more money move in, but then what's the point when you're being forced out a year later when your rent or property taxes explode? That shit sucks.
My intention isn't to attack and start a conflict here. I would hope that maybe we could start taking the problem more seriously and maybe start thinking harder about how to actually solve the housing problem. It's a little more complex than just sitting around wishing that our current pay-to-play political system will all of the sudden magically grow a absolutist moral center and fix zoning laws and building codes.
Guess the nerds aren't allowed to get a break from the bullying as adults either huh.
It's interesting that this got flagged off the front page. At least I assume it was flagged off, as there are several stories on the front page right now that older and with less votes.
A little bit off topic, but related to the rents in SF: I've been to San Francisco and the first impression to me is that as a city with large population, why there's so little high-rise buildings? Is there any law which limits the buildings' height?
Usually people welcome new business opening in their area so long as it's not something that is polluting, because these businesses can do things like provide lots of jobs to people across the income/skills spectrum and also drive investment in local infrastructure and support local organisations and charities.
In these cases the rising house prices can be a good thing because those who get positions at the new companies can buy these houses and price increases protect their investments.
Is the difference that tech companies are only providing small numbers of jobs to people with specific skills who are brought in from other areas of the country/the world?
Perhaps also tech companies are only interested in doing good on a global scale and not starting in their own back yard?