Protesters block Google bus in S.F. Mission(blog.sfgate.com)
blog.sfgate.com
Protesters block Google bus in S.F. Mission
http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2013/12/09/protesters-block-google-bus-in-s-f-mission/
187 comments
They are not paying for permits. The MTA has proposed a permit system for a limited number of shared private/public bus stops, but it has not been introduced, voted on, or even released publicly, and has lingered since as early as October 2012[1].
Even if the pilot program succeeds (maybe some time next year), and Google, et. al., start paying for bus stop permits, there's still the issue of the city turning a blind eye to all the illegal stops that have gone on for the last 5 years or so.
It's great for the city to create a program that encourages mass transportation, but subsidizing it for only a select class of people is a poor use of public funds at best, and discriminatory at worst.
[1] http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/rules-proposed-for-co...
Even if the pilot program succeeds (maybe some time next year), and Google, et. al., start paying for bus stop permits, there's still the issue of the city turning a blind eye to all the illegal stops that have gone on for the last 5 years or so.
It's great for the city to create a program that encourages mass transportation, but subsidizing it for only a select class of people is a poor use of public funds at best, and discriminatory at worst.
[1] http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/rules-proposed-for-co...
Yes, yes and yes.
Google & co. did not ask anybody before they started using the public Muni stops. They just used them. To hell with regulations, traffic laws, and the city of San Francisco.
Google & co. are bullying the city. This is the real issue.
Google & co. did not ask anybody before they started using the public Muni stops. They just used them. To hell with regulations, traffic laws, and the city of San Francisco.
Google & co. are bullying the city. This is the real issue.
The city isn't turning a blind eye at all, and there's no bullying. There's a conversation going on between the city and the private companies involved, in fact. They recognize that the coaches aren't permitted to use Muni stops, but there is currently no better solution - to eliminate them would greatly increase road traffic or choke Muni with the increased passengers.
This is a highly complex issue and you cannot pick on just one player. It doesn't help anyone.
This is a highly complex issue and you cannot pick on just one player. It doesn't help anyone.
Of course it's bullying.
The private companies have been violating traffic laws, repeatedly, for years.
They know what they are doing is against the law, but they keep on doing it.
Any impact on road traffic or Muni has got nothing do with the above violation of the law.
The private companies have been violating traffic laws, repeatedly, for years.
They know what they are doing is against the law, but they keep on doing it.
Any impact on road traffic or Muni has got nothing do with the above violation of the law.
Just to be clear - you advocate fining UCSF for a decade of back-fines as well, right? Since their shuttles do the same thing.
Or are we only ok with bullying the tech companies back?
Or are we only ok with bullying the tech companies back?
"it does nothing but positive things for the employees, the city, and the environment."
When you say something like this you really have to realize that there may be some bias here. I think these protestors feel pretty negative about this, I can't imagine that it's for no reason.
When you say something like this you really have to realize that there may be some bias here. I think these protestors feel pretty negative about this, I can't imagine that it's for no reason.
Assuming that everyone has a reasonable point, is also a bias. There are protests over gay marriage and "get the government out of medicare" and all kinds of ridiculous things.
First, i never said reasonable point, you did. I don't think its disingenuous to assume that a large group of people protesting have even a single reason to be doing so.
The person I'm responding to seems to believe they have NO REASON to be protesting. I'm simply saying that I don't think a bunch of people went and wasted their AM for no good reason.
The person I'm responding to seems to believe they have NO REASON to be protesting. I'm simply saying that I don't think a bunch of people went and wasted their AM for no good reason.
The person you're replying to never said they had no reason to be protesting, only that the google buses benefit the city, employees, and environment.
This leaves an enormous number of reasons. For example, "Buses are, in reality, evil ghosts" is a reason to protest google buses, even if they are good for the environment, city, and employees.
This leaves an enormous number of reasons. For example, "Buses are, in reality, evil ghosts" is a reason to protest google buses, even if they are good for the environment, city, and employees.
But even protests over ridiculous things tend to have at least some understandable, and sometimes reasonable, argument. Sticking to this scenario, can you not think of a single one for the protesting residents?
There are already several reasons mentioned in the comments here:
- AFAIK currently the companies don't pay to stop at the MUNI stops.
- A working public transportation system for everyone would be greatly preferred to a system that's only working for employees of certain companies.
- By offering these shuttles companies contribute to more people living in SF, driving up rents (I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to offer this, but it's an argument one could reasonably have)
- These shuttles might actually make an improved public transportation system less likely since none of the Google (and other companies') employees would most likely use it, even if something better than Caltrain existed.
BTW: I'm not generally against these shuttles, but you were asking for arguments against them and I think there are several.
- AFAIK currently the companies don't pay to stop at the MUNI stops.
- A working public transportation system for everyone would be greatly preferred to a system that's only working for employees of certain companies.
- By offering these shuttles companies contribute to more people living in SF, driving up rents (I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to offer this, but it's an argument one could reasonably have)
- These shuttles might actually make an improved public transportation system less likely since none of the Google (and other companies') employees would most likely use it, even if something better than Caltrain existed.
BTW: I'm not generally against these shuttles, but you were asking for arguments against them and I think there are several.
[deleted]
Oh yes, I'm aware of several. My comment was strictly targeted towards the person I was responding to, who either has little imagination or was moving the conversation in a different direction.
No. At least the ones I've heard from, they want employees of companies in the South Bay and Peninsula to live outside of San Francisco. They believe that the mass influx of money is driving long time residents out, and that building more housing is the wrong solution. I remember reading one article that suggested there should be a wait list to get to live in the city.
Right, and that simply does not work in a free country. These people moved to SF a while back, but they still displaced the local culture that was before them, and now they are settled in and they think they rightfully own the place. The draconian zoning laws and anti-development sentiment is only gonna hurt these people more, since the cost of living is being driven up artificially and the people they are trying to ward off are gonna move in no matter what.
Reminds me of this story posted by moxie[0] a while back:
There's an old wobbly story: A wobbly was riding a freight train across the midwest one summer, in between jobs. The train sided out in the middle of nowhere, and it was scorching hot, so the wobbly got off the train and started walking down a dirt road.
After a couple of miles, the road passed by an apple orchard. The wobbly hopped over the fence, and sat down to rest under the shade of a big apple tree.
The wobbly sat there enjoying the shade for 20 minutes, until a farmer came across him. "You can't be here!" exclaimed the farmer, "This is my land!"
The wobbly looked up at the farmer and asked "Really? What makes it your land?"
"What are you talking about you dirty tramp, I inherited it from my father!" replied the farmer, almost bewildered at such an indignant question.
"Hmm, and what made it his land?" asked the wobbly.
"Why, he inherited it from his father!" replied the farmer, now really angry. "It's been in my family for three generations!"
"And what made it your grandfather's land?" asked the wobbly.
The farmer, now barely able to contain himself, yelled proudly "Why! My grandpappy fought the indians for it!"
The wobbly nodded, stood up, pulled back his sleeves, and replied "Uh huh. Then I'll fight you for it, right now."
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5222540 (Moxie's original post with comments)
There's an old wobbly story: A wobbly was riding a freight train across the midwest one summer, in between jobs. The train sided out in the middle of nowhere, and it was scorching hot, so the wobbly got off the train and started walking down a dirt road.
After a couple of miles, the road passed by an apple orchard. The wobbly hopped over the fence, and sat down to rest under the shade of a big apple tree.
The wobbly sat there enjoying the shade for 20 minutes, until a farmer came across him. "You can't be here!" exclaimed the farmer, "This is my land!"
The wobbly looked up at the farmer and asked "Really? What makes it your land?"
"What are you talking about you dirty tramp, I inherited it from my father!" replied the farmer, almost bewildered at such an indignant question.
"Hmm, and what made it his land?" asked the wobbly.
"Why, he inherited it from his father!" replied the farmer, now really angry. "It's been in my family for three generations!"
"And what made it your grandfather's land?" asked the wobbly.
The farmer, now barely able to contain himself, yelled proudly "Why! My grandpappy fought the indians for it!"
The wobbly nodded, stood up, pulled back his sleeves, and replied "Uh huh. Then I'll fight you for it, right now."
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5222540 (Moxie's original post with comments)
"and that building more housing is the wrong solution"
People who own housing in an artificially supply constrained environment would think that!
People who own housing in an artificially supply constrained environment would think that!
Exactly, the people who are against building new housing are the people who already own houses, and there is obvious "I've got mine, so fuck you" attitude at work here. It's wonderful for them that the housing price gets artificially inflated and they can then rent out their 2 bedroom small condo for $5k a month.
They deserve the anti-development bed they create.
That sounds painfully familiar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propiska_in_the_Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propiska_in_the_Soviet_Union
Would these people rather the Google employees all drive personal vehicles, increasing wear and tear on the roads, congestion, pollution, etc., costing the city money?
In fact (reasonably sized) private vehicles create very little wear and tear on the roads, where heavy vehicles like trucks and buses create a lot. So much that in many cities the roads at bus stops are specially re-enforced, surely at some not-insignificant cost.
Regardless, as others have pointed out, using the public bus stops is illegal, it can interfere with official transit operations, and it even generates citizen complaints. Which can't be followed up on because the charter bus companies don't identify themselves. Surprise, the companies doing this are not paying permit fees to do their illegal activities.
http://www.metro-magazine.com/channel/motorcoach/article/sto...
I agree that more shuttles and fewer cars would almost certainly be a good thing all around, but should the charter bus companies be allowed to break the law with impunity, just because we all think the end goal is a good idea?
In fact (reasonably sized) private vehicles create very little wear and tear on the roads, where heavy vehicles like trucks and buses create a lot. So much that in many cities the roads at bus stops are specially re-enforced, surely at some not-insignificant cost.
Regardless, as others have pointed out, using the public bus stops is illegal, it can interfere with official transit operations, and it even generates citizen complaints. Which can't be followed up on because the charter bus companies don't identify themselves. Surprise, the companies doing this are not paying permit fees to do their illegal activities.
http://www.metro-magazine.com/channel/motorcoach/article/sto...
I agree that more shuttles and fewer cars would almost certainly be a good thing all around, but should the charter bus companies be allowed to break the law with impunity, just because we all think the end goal is a good idea?
As someone who's tried to get from San Francisco to Silicon Valley without a car, I'd love to see companies like Google advocating and supporting better public transportation as well as just providing a private solution.
Public sector unions and corrupt/incompetent government workers in SF Bay Area is the root cause of the atrocious public transportation in this area, money is not. There are plenty of cities around the world that spends less per capita on infrastructure but still has a way more effective system.
Yes, the muni is not as good as in Tokyo, Hong Kong or London, but so what?
Here's the problem in a nutshell.
Google & co. did not ask anybody before they started using the public Muni stops. I repeat, they did not ask anybody, they just did it.
The problem has become so big that the city is now forced to consider a pilot program where Google & co. pay for use of some of the muni stops.
If you or I started running a private shuttle service which made use of public Muni stops we would have been not only ticketed but prosecuted.
Basically, Google and other large corporations are bullying the city. This is the real issue.
Here's the problem in a nutshell.
Google & co. did not ask anybody before they started using the public Muni stops. I repeat, they did not ask anybody, they just did it.
The problem has become so big that the city is now forced to consider a pilot program where Google & co. pay for use of some of the muni stops.
If you or I started running a private shuttle service which made use of public Muni stops we would have been not only ticketed but prosecuted.
Basically, Google and other large corporations are bullying the city. This is the real issue.
Thank you. I've skimmed the article a couple of times now, and for some reason, misread it into thinking that they were already paying for use.
I've been wondering what the todo was about, and this explains it, or at least partially helps understand the motivation.
I've been wondering what the todo was about, and this explains it, or at least partially helps understand the motivation.
There's enough blame to go around- city councils and affluent voters in communities in the peninsula and points beyond who can't break out of NIMBY enough to allow BART to expand from the East Bay are a big cause for why the transportation system is so badly Balkanized.
So what kills me in every one of these conversations about shitty old rules and regulations and nimbyism, is that to this day I've never seen one comment by one person on HN explaining exactly what we can do to advocate against the current rules and regulations to allow more housing to be built.
There must be some way for us all to be able to get involved in the right places in the right way to get these arcane regulations changed. Would hosting a daytime bike party during city council meetings with an obligatory stop at city hall help? Are there specific people to write to write to to voice our opinion?
Most people haven't the foggiest clue on how to engage effectively with local city politics.
Anyone have any effective suggestions here?
There must be some way for us all to be able to get involved in the right places in the right way to get these arcane regulations changed. Would hosting a daytime bike party during city council meetings with an obligatory stop at city hall help? Are there specific people to write to write to to voice our opinion?
Most people haven't the foggiest clue on how to engage effectively with local city politics.
Anyone have any effective suggestions here?
With a comparable cost of living? Over a comparable area?
It's perfectly possible that's the case, but "$/capita" doesn't make the case on its own...
It's perfectly possible that's the case, but "$/capita" doesn't make the case on its own...
The very fact that such a a place like SF has such a high cost of living is the problem.
I recently just came back from Tokyo, truly a world class city with multiple times the population density of SF and the highest city GDP in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP
You know what? Cost of living there is actually CHEAPER than here, food, transportation, hell, even housing is cheaper than the joke that is SF.
Arguably, but that doesn't mean you can ignore it, or that the increase in cost of projects due to a higher cost of labor is a sign if mismanagement of those projects.
If you would like to propose an intervention targeted at reducing the cost of living in SF, I'll certainly listen though I won't promise I'll agree.
If you would like to propose an intervention targeted at reducing the cost of living in SF, I'll certainly listen though I won't promise I'll agree.
A large part of cost of living is driven up by cost of housing. That has historical reasons in the case of California.
After the 70s California voters voted against raising property tax, the government had to get most of their revenue from income-tax, thus the highest state income tax in the country. Due to this, California government income fluctuates a lot with the economy (as we saw from 2008-2009), but that's a different topic.
One thing about property tax law in California is that it's calculated based on how much one paid for property, not its current worth.
The problem with low property tax is that when combined with federal tax incentive for housing mortgage and a cheap rate, it makes sense to invest in housing, and having the value going up does not punish the home owners like places with higher property taxes or places that calculate property tax based on the current values of the properties.
The end result is that existing homeowners in California are very much against new development since they've got a "I've gotten mine, so fuck you" mentality since they want to keep their existing properties valuable, and this is ESPECIALLY true for owners that own multiple properties that can use it for rental.
Imagine you bought a few apartment complexes in SF right after the recession back in the 90s, the places would be worth multiple times as much now but your property tax has not gone up, but you can charge $3k for a small one bedroom apartment, then you'd vote with all your power to make sure new development and new supply for housing is stalled.
This is one of the reasons why direct democracy doesn't work, since people are very short sighted when voting for important issues that could have long lasting effects. A suggested solution would be lower income tax, but make property tax to be calculated off existing values of properties, thus thwart artificial inflation of property values. Of course things like this will NEVER get passed since no politicians dare to piss off existing homeowners.
To be honest, I am personally pessimistic about this state's ability to change for the better, a big reason being the state's obsession with direct democracy that resulted in many bad policies in the past.
After the 70s California voters voted against raising property tax, the government had to get most of their revenue from income-tax, thus the highest state income tax in the country. Due to this, California government income fluctuates a lot with the economy (as we saw from 2008-2009), but that's a different topic.
One thing about property tax law in California is that it's calculated based on how much one paid for property, not its current worth.
The problem with low property tax is that when combined with federal tax incentive for housing mortgage and a cheap rate, it makes sense to invest in housing, and having the value going up does not punish the home owners like places with higher property taxes or places that calculate property tax based on the current values of the properties.
The end result is that existing homeowners in California are very much against new development since they've got a "I've gotten mine, so fuck you" mentality since they want to keep their existing properties valuable, and this is ESPECIALLY true for owners that own multiple properties that can use it for rental.
Imagine you bought a few apartment complexes in SF right after the recession back in the 90s, the places would be worth multiple times as much now but your property tax has not gone up, but you can charge $3k for a small one bedroom apartment, then you'd vote with all your power to make sure new development and new supply for housing is stalled.
This is one of the reasons why direct democracy doesn't work, since people are very short sighted when voting for important issues that could have long lasting effects. A suggested solution would be lower income tax, but make property tax to be calculated off existing values of properties, thus thwart artificial inflation of property values. Of course things like this will NEVER get passed since no politicians dare to piss off existing homeowners.
To be honest, I am personally pessimistic about this state's ability to change for the better, a big reason being the state's obsession with direct democracy that resulted in many bad policies in the past.
While I think in many cases the counterarguments are stronger than you present them, I don't think I disagree with either taxing current value of homes, or reducing the impact of direct democracy in CA (at the very least, we should require something stronger than simple majority of votes cast).
between Nimbys and public sector unions and the fact that the Bay Area is essentially under one-party rule...no. It's just not going to happen. Private initiatives are the only hope.
Question 1: Do you think the underlying complaints of the protests, which are presumably about problems like gentrification, are valid?
Question 2: If so, what do you propose the people do?
As to one of your questions:
Presumably, the protesters want the city and those companies to sit together and create a public transport system that works for everybody. It's fine to have lines and stops specifically laid out to be beneficial to the primary users, as long as everybody else can ride along. That's what tends to happen over on this side of the pond, and I find it an exceedingly reasonable suggestion, because everybody would win even more.
Question 2: If so, what do you propose the people do?
As to one of your questions:
Presumably, the protesters want the city and those companies to sit together and create a public transport system that works for everybody. It's fine to have lines and stops specifically laid out to be beneficial to the primary users, as long as everybody else can ride along. That's what tends to happen over on this side of the pond, and I find it an exceedingly reasonable suggestion, because everybody would win even more.
No, the companies and their employees would NOT win more if it were public. Want to have a semi-confidential conversation? Better be on the private bus. Want to have the bus have wifi VPN'd back to the home office? Works better on a private bus. Want more certainty of finding a seat, or having a power outlet to charge your laptop? Works better on a private coach. Want special hours to accommodate a hackathon, or a holiday party or other special event? Works better for a private service. Want to keep protesters from annoying your employees...?
It's not the case that everyone would win more, IMO.
It's not the case that everyone would win more, IMO.
One general objection to two-tier systems is that they are a symptom of people with the ability to effect change saying "we know this is broken, but we've decided to just fix it for ourselves, not for you". The emergence of the new tier shows they have the power to effect change, even as it removes their incentive to cause further change.
For example, if the boss has a reserved parking space it's a sign the other parking sucks and he/she doesn't plan to fix that. If the politician puts their kids in private school it's a sign they think public schools don't work, but they don't plan to fix them. If the affluent community installs gates and hires their own guards. In countries with public healthcare, if upper middle class families buy private medical insurance.
When the powerful eat the same dog food as the rest of us, the theory goes, we get better dog food than otherwise.
A person with this view might think Google should use their evident power fix the public transport system instead of putting in place a parallel private system.
For example, if the boss has a reserved parking space it's a sign the other parking sucks and he/she doesn't plan to fix that. If the politician puts their kids in private school it's a sign they think public schools don't work, but they don't plan to fix them. If the affluent community installs gates and hires their own guards. In countries with public healthcare, if upper middle class families buy private medical insurance.
When the powerful eat the same dog food as the rest of us, the theory goes, we get better dog food than otherwise.
A person with this view might think Google should use their evident power fix the public transport system instead of putting in place a parallel private system.
Politicians putting their kids in private schools is hypocritical because they are in charge of the public education system. Google has no responsibility whatsoever for the public transportation system and would probably prefer one (since they wouldn't have to pay for and deal with their private bus system.)
Your argument applies to anyone who has ever solved any problem for themselves rather than the common good.
Your argument applies to anyone who has ever solved any problem for themselves rather than the common good.
If that's the view, why would this person imagine that Google had any power or obligation to fix the public transit system?
If a politician were doing it, I would understand the inclination towards protest -- a politician who felt that a public transportation system that was inadequate should try to fix it, assuming they had sway over it -- assuming of course that there aren't more pressing matters, like rampant crime, poverty, etc.
Otherwise, I'm having a hard time identifying here. Should I be obligated to fix the train system because I choose to fly? Why not? Am I not rich enough to be held responsible?
There may be some large piece that I'm missing here, I don't know, but there's really very little about this situation that makes sense to me.
Edit: It's been explained elsewhere that Google is using the municipal stops illegally. Somehow or another, that wasn't clear to me from my reading of the article. This at least helps me understand the motivation.
If a politician were doing it, I would understand the inclination towards protest -- a politician who felt that a public transportation system that was inadequate should try to fix it, assuming they had sway over it -- assuming of course that there aren't more pressing matters, like rampant crime, poverty, etc.
Otherwise, I'm having a hard time identifying here. Should I be obligated to fix the train system because I choose to fly? Why not? Am I not rich enough to be held responsible?
There may be some large piece that I'm missing here, I don't know, but there's really very little about this situation that makes sense to me.
Edit: It's been explained elsewhere that Google is using the municipal stops illegally. Somehow or another, that wasn't clear to me from my reading of the article. This at least helps me understand the motivation.
From http://www.sfbg.com/googleshoutdown:
UPDATE 12:32pm: Various tips have streamed in that this shout-out was staged. Protest organizer Leslie Dreyer talked to us on the phone and verified that this person's identity was Max Bell Alper, a union organizer from Oakland. This person was not a Google employee, and Dreyer was not able to verify if Alper was there in the morning with the group of 20-30 protesters. The Guardian is attempting to contact Alper for comment. Dreyer said she, as an organizer, was unaware that the "performance" had been planned. We are following this as it develops.
UPDATE 12:32pm: Various tips have streamed in that this shout-out was staged. Protest organizer Leslie Dreyer talked to us on the phone and verified that this person's identity was Max Bell Alper, a union organizer from Oakland. This person was not a Google employee, and Dreyer was not able to verify if Alper was there in the morning with the group of 20-30 protesters. The Guardian is attempting to contact Alper for comment. Dreyer said she, as an organizer, was unaware that the "performance" had been planned. We are following this as it develops.
The article linked here doesn’t mention the “faux Googler” at all. Not sure why you’re posting this comment on this particular article.
It elaborates on the nature of the protest that was occurring.
It elaborates on the actions of one individual, who may or may not have had anything to do with the rest of the protesters, and distracts from the actual complaints (valid or not) those protesters have.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
This op-ed does a better job at explaining how some non-tech residents of San Francisco feel about the buses.
When your experience of a big city is a seamless parade of hip restaurants
and privately funded transportation, it's easy to overlook the things that
cities need, like filled potholes and a reliable transit system. San Franciscans
feel resentful about the technology industry's lack of civic and community
engagement, and the Google bus is our daily reminder.
That article is down right stupid. It's not the rich people's job to invest in public infrastructure, it's the government's job. Wealthy people contribute to that by paying large amount of tax. All those hip restaurants and fancy parking spots in the city? Those are tax revenues.
Can't help it that the city is so poorly/corruptly run that it has one of the highest budget in the country yet still can't manage to fix a few potholes before the heat death of the universe.
Can't help it that the city is so poorly/corruptly run that it has one of the highest budget in the country yet still can't manage to fix a few potholes before the heat death of the universe.
I don't buy it.
Commuting by company bus rather than private car or public transit doesn't somehow make a person unaware of the world around them. If anything, I'd wager that the average Google Bus passenger is more attuned to the sorry state of public transit in this city than the average city resident, since not driving to work often goes hand-in-hand with not owning a car.
And no one's experience of the city is "a seamless parade of hip restaurants and privately funded transportation." Regardless of where they work, people who live in the city spend time here. We walk around the neighborhoods, shop at the grocery stores, and play with our dogs (or watch people play with theirs) in the park. We're also aware of the less pleasant aspects of the city: we step over the poop on the sidewalk, we hear the gunshots, our stuff gets stolen. The only aspect of urban life that shuttle commuters are relatively immune from is the snarl of rush hour traffic, but on that front, they're part of the solution more than they're part of the problem.
(And regarding the specific incident in the article that set the writer off, I don't doubt that there are people on the Google bus who push past people as they disembark. But stand next to a Muni bus as it's disgorging passengers, and you'll see the same thing. A significant chunk of the SF population, rich and poor alike, has zero regard for anyone else standing near them.)
The resentment isn't about the "technology industry's lack of civic and community engagement." It's about the rich displacing everyone else. There are more people who want to live in the city than there is housing, so no matter what schemes are in place to assist low income residents, incumbent residents, or people in particular fields, someone will be squeezed out. The rich squeeze out everyone else with their wallet, so some people feel it's appropriate to try and squeeze out the rich by making their lives unpleasant.
Commuting by company bus rather than private car or public transit doesn't somehow make a person unaware of the world around them. If anything, I'd wager that the average Google Bus passenger is more attuned to the sorry state of public transit in this city than the average city resident, since not driving to work often goes hand-in-hand with not owning a car.
And no one's experience of the city is "a seamless parade of hip restaurants and privately funded transportation." Regardless of where they work, people who live in the city spend time here. We walk around the neighborhoods, shop at the grocery stores, and play with our dogs (or watch people play with theirs) in the park. We're also aware of the less pleasant aspects of the city: we step over the poop on the sidewalk, we hear the gunshots, our stuff gets stolen. The only aspect of urban life that shuttle commuters are relatively immune from is the snarl of rush hour traffic, but on that front, they're part of the solution more than they're part of the problem.
(And regarding the specific incident in the article that set the writer off, I don't doubt that there are people on the Google bus who push past people as they disembark. But stand next to a Muni bus as it's disgorging passengers, and you'll see the same thing. A significant chunk of the SF population, rich and poor alike, has zero regard for anyone else standing near them.)
The resentment isn't about the "technology industry's lack of civic and community engagement." It's about the rich displacing everyone else. There are more people who want to live in the city than there is housing, so no matter what schemes are in place to assist low income residents, incumbent residents, or people in particular fields, someone will be squeezed out. The rich squeeze out everyone else with their wallet, so some people feel it's appropriate to try and squeeze out the rich by making their lives unpleasant.
The Bay Area tech sector is not to blame, here. It's those opposing densification: Paris is beautiful and has a density of 21,000/km^2. San Francisco can thus clearly remain beautiful and functional while increasing its density from its current paltry 6,600/km^2.
Want an affordable San Francisco? Increase the number of housing units.
- low-density - beautiful - affordable
... pick two.
Want an affordable San Francisco? Increase the number of housing units.
- low-density - beautiful - affordable
... pick two.
I personally think it has to do with wealthier people doing what they want regardless of what the community wants.
Similar outrage flared after the Sean Parker wedding. Regardless of what he actually did at the site, regardless that he paid a fine after the fact, regardless that it created jobs (I know a guy who worked for the lighting company) he pulled the ask-for-forgiveness-rather-than-permission stunt and did what he wanted to do, community & regulations be damned. He got what he wanted: a magical wedding in a beautiful, protected area of Big Sur.
Similar outrage flared after the Sean Parker wedding. Regardless of what he actually did at the site, regardless that he paid a fine after the fact, regardless that it created jobs (I know a guy who worked for the lighting company) he pulled the ask-for-forgiveness-rather-than-permission stunt and did what he wanted to do, community & regulations be damned. He got what he wanted: a magical wedding in a beautiful, protected area of Big Sur.
http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/06/sean-par...
How dare he donate millions of dollars to conserve and restore Big Sur.
How dare he donate millions of dollars to conserve and restore Big Sur.
I get the rationale of targeting Google's private bus fleet. There's nothing like a giant bus billboard rolling through your neighborhood to remind you of gentrification and the exorbitant rent prices. I do, however, find it pretty difficult to sympathize with the protesters. Would these people have preferred everyone on the bus to have driven their cars instead?
I suppose you could argue that the buses themselves are enabling gentrification, because if they weren't there, more people might stay in the valley instead of living in the city. That's a pretty tenuous connection though because you could argue that it would have happened anyway (I did the commute over ten years ago between Potrero and Palo Alto).
If Google wanted to alleviate some of the vitriol, they could offer to allow non-Googlers to use the bus (like Stanford's Marguerite system) either for free or some kind of nominal charge. I realize that's a headache, but instead of getting bad publicity, they turn it on its head and the "two tier" comments ring pretty hollow.
I suppose you could argue that the buses themselves are enabling gentrification, because if they weren't there, more people might stay in the valley instead of living in the city. That's a pretty tenuous connection though because you could argue that it would have happened anyway (I did the commute over ten years ago between Potrero and Palo Alto).
If Google wanted to alleviate some of the vitriol, they could offer to allow non-Googlers to use the bus (like Stanford's Marguerite system) either for free or some kind of nominal charge. I realize that's a headache, but instead of getting bad publicity, they turn it on its head and the "two tier" comments ring pretty hollow.
SFans don't want to ride the buses. The protestors complaint is that SF should be for people who work in SF.
Auslander raus!
It's a fake. The guy is an activist and is named Max Bell Alper.
http://www.makingchangemedia.org/about-the-team/
http://www.gettyimages.no/detail/news-photo/occupy-wall-stre...
http://www.makingchangemedia.org/about-the-team/
http://www.gettyimages.no/detail/news-photo/occupy-wall-stre...
And unfortunately is an example of the "hobby" activists that bedevil the (for want of a better word) the progressive movement in the USA.
Instead of dealing with the hard issues they love to play act.
Instead of dealing with the hard issues they love to play act.
As my sibling poster pointed out, this article doesn’t mention “the guy” at all.
[deleted]
Which guy?
The guy not mentioned at all in the article?
The guy not mentioned at all in the article?
Yes, that guy was fake, but the protestors blocking the bus and preventing it from leaving were real.
[deleted]
It is entirely unclear what they are protesting, other than 'not working at Google.'
The alleged trespass of using 'public infrastructure for private profit' is unsupported. People pick up and drop off people at the sidewalk (required, no stopping in the middle of the street).
The staged appearance of a guy who is a union organizer (reported elsewhere) added a bit of melodrama.
Looking at the action critically, what is to be gained by calling attention to Google, Facebook, and others providing their own bus fleets?
The alleged trespass of using 'public infrastructure for private profit' is unsupported. People pick up and drop off people at the sidewalk (required, no stopping in the middle of the street).
The staged appearance of a guy who is a union organizer (reported elsewhere) added a bit of melodrama.
Looking at the action critically, what is to be gained by calling attention to Google, Facebook, and others providing their own bus fleets?
"The alleged trespass of using 'public infrastructure for private profit' is unsupported. People pick up and drop off people at the sidewalk (required, no stopping in the middle of the street)."
I'm sorry but this is simply wrong. If you tried to pick up and drop off someone in a bus stop everyday, you would get ticketed for it. These buses do not. If you need to make things up to support these people it kind of worries me, especially when you seem to be mocking their opponents. I'm all for criticizing these protestors for certain things, but not so much for made up things.
I'm sorry but this is simply wrong. If you tried to pick up and drop off someone in a bus stop everyday, you would get ticketed for it. These buses do not. If you need to make things up to support these people it kind of worries me, especially when you seem to be mocking their opponents. I'm all for criticizing these protestors for certain things, but not so much for made up things.
I dropped off and picked up my wife at the bus stop by 24th Street BART every workday for over a year and never had anyone challenge me about it.
[deleted]
Ton of people are downloading music and movies without paying, and no one challenge them. Does that mean it's legal ?
The parent comment didn't make a claim about legality; it made a claim about enforcement:
> If you tried to pick up and drop off someone in a bus stop everyday, you would get ticketed for it.
And I can say, from direct personal experience, that the claim is wrong.
> If you tried to pick up and drop off someone in a bus stop everyday, you would get ticketed for it.
And I can say, from direct personal experience, that the claim is wrong.
Muni buses now have cameras and there is a team which looks through all the footage spotting violations, even parking violations, and then they issue tickets.
The city should have enforced the traffic laws right from the start and not allowed these corporate shuttles to fester and develop into a now much bigger problem.
The city should have enforced the traffic laws right from the start and not allowed these corporate shuttles to fester and develop into a now much bigger problem.
[deleted]
According to a comment below they have a permit for it which they pay the city for.
The article says that the city is working on a permitting system, and that one does not currently exist. Which means that these buses are parking illegally everyday and instead of fining them, the city is coming up with a plan to accommodate them. Think they would do that for your parking tickets?
I don't get the objection. It seems to me that while the buses may cause disturbances to transit, they're better than the alternative of having a bunch of private cars on the road.
Think they would do that for your parking tickets?
If those tickets were for behaviors that are actually socially beneficial, shouldn't they? And if they wouldn't anyway, how is it Google's fault?
Think they would do that for your parking tickets?
If those tickets were for behaviors that are actually socially beneficial, shouldn't they? And if they wouldn't anyway, how is it Google's fault?
I mean, how much do you supporters of the google buses want to grasp at straws? It just becomes a series of:
-make argument.
-have someone explain why your argument is wrong.
-make up new argument, disregard whether it is remotely related to the original point you made. Just grasp at straws to seem "right".
I mean, we start with "its not like the buses are doing something illegal" to which the answer is "yes, they certainly are" and then it turns to this assumption that every google employee would drive otherwise, ignoring that many employees moved to these bus stop locations specifically for the buses, or the fact that there is a train that runs from SF to Mountain view. But yeah, these buses should be able to do whatever illegal behavior they want because of the next strawman i've yet to anticipate you all making up...
-make argument.
-have someone explain why your argument is wrong.
-make up new argument, disregard whether it is remotely related to the original point you made. Just grasp at straws to seem "right".
I mean, we start with "its not like the buses are doing something illegal" to which the answer is "yes, they certainly are" and then it turns to this assumption that every google employee would drive otherwise, ignoring that many employees moved to these bus stop locations specifically for the buses, or the fact that there is a train that runs from SF to Mountain view. But yeah, these buses should be able to do whatever illegal behavior they want because of the next strawman i've yet to anticipate you all making up...
I didn't say they weren't doing something illegal. You must have me confused with someone else.
every google employee would drive
The strawman is on your part.
every google employee would drive
The strawman is on your part.
Because it's such a minor issue and it's obviously a net benefit. It's not worth getting upset over, let alone protesting.
It's Google's fault because they did not get permission first before using public Muni stops to pick up and drop off passengers. Anybody else doing it would be ticketed and prosecuted for repeat violations.
To anybody who wants to defend Google, think about this - what next? Maybe Google should buy up whole city blocks, demolish them, and build residential apartments for their employees? To hell with eviction laws, zoning laws, right?
To anybody who wants to defend Google, think about this - what next? Maybe Google should buy up whole city blocks, demolish them, and build residential apartments for their employees? To hell with eviction laws, zoning laws, right?
Did anyone else try setting up their own bus system and get fined? Did Google actually bribe anyone?
Probably because the city realises that having companies bus their employees around is a shitload better than having 20 extra individual cars on the roads?
20 extra individual cars on the roads
Those double decker buses hold about 80 people. Assuming a handful of people would carpool, we're still looking at 60+ more cars on the road, per bus.
Those double decker buses hold about 80 people. Assuming a handful of people would carpool, we're still looking at 60+ more cars on the road, per bus.
The buses likely aren't loaded to maximum capacity are they? They also have to drive slightly extra. A car driver would go in a straight line to work, whereas the bus has to travel to all the different bus stops first.
Seems scalable. If we can come up with a hypothetical where companies are actually taking some cars off the road, just let them do illegal stuff in return.
Hmm perhaps. Still seems like such a minor issue to protest over.
That's because they're not really protesting about the buses using public stops. What they're really protesting is gentrification -- a decreasing amount of affordable housing in the city. Which is another way of saying they are protesting their own collective refusal to add higher density housing in the city.
I disagree. Our police force having BLATANT double standards which favor corporations over people is EXACTLY what people should be protesting.
The picture they took is of the MUNI stop where my 48 bus used to stop, and yes, the Google bus would actually block out the MUNI busses.
I haven't experienced it anywhere else though. I think this is basically just a highly visible spot for these buses, and they do interrupt MUNI service during morning traffic. Though I'm not sure they interrupt service any more than any other piece of traffic..
I haven't experienced it anywhere else though. I think this is basically just a highly visible spot for these buses, and they do interrupt MUNI service during morning traffic. Though I'm not sure they interrupt service any more than any other piece of traffic..
My guess is that the protests are targeted more generally at gentrification. People of privilege moving to the Mission, mostly ignoring the culture of the neighborhood and it's long-time residents, fueling out of control rent increases, slowly destroying a cultural landmark.
I suspect the damage has more to do with CA property tax and SF's NIMBy zoning laws than silicon valley bussing, but they do have a point that it's a real problem. Not sure what the solution is. This protest doesn't seem to be it, but I applaud them for taking a MVP stab at it. Time to iterate now, protesters!
I suspect the damage has more to do with CA property tax and SF's NIMBy zoning laws than silicon valley bussing, but they do have a point that it's a real problem. Not sure what the solution is. This protest doesn't seem to be it, but I applaud them for taking a MVP stab at it. Time to iterate now, protesters!
There is no solution to it, all big cities that I am aware of have a cycle of gentrification of urban renewal. To think SF is some special snowflake where it wouldn't happen is naive, to think that it wouldn't happen in SF when housing is so constrained and the economy is booming is just crazy.
>People of privilege moving to the Mission, mostly ignoring the culture of the neighborhood and it's long-time residents, fueling out of control rent increases, slowly destroying a cultural landmark.
I dunno, just peering at the crime maps for the Mission[1]...Gentrification isn't the worst thing that could happen to the place. Not gentrifying probably is.
[1] https://spotcrime.com/ca/san+francisco/mission
I dunno, just peering at the crime maps for the Mission[1]...Gentrification isn't the worst thing that could happen to the place. Not gentrifying probably is.
[1] https://spotcrime.com/ca/san+francisco/mission
But then again, to push the conservatism to the extreme, not much of the actual original SF Ohlone native culture is still remaining.
This. The Mission is a giant game of musical chairs, and it's weird how anyone thinks the people who have only been there since the 1950s deserve to have it forever.
[deleted]
Looking at the action critically, what is to be gained by calling attention to Google, Facebook, and others providing their own bus fleets?
A bus fleet that works for everybody? You know, the kind of public transportation that is common in industrialized countries that have their act together when it comes to the provision of public services.
A bus fleet that works for everybody? You know, the kind of public transportation that is common in industrialized countries that have their act together when it comes to the provision of public services.
As with government-run education, SF's problems with government-run transportation aren't a lack of funding. I imagine you'd find we spend just as much per capita on our mass transit systems as other industrialized countries. Our government institutions just aren't very well-run.
Doesn't that pre-suppose that there would exist a 'public' bus fleet that went between San Francisco and Mountain View (or Menlo Park, or Palo Alto, etc). There are at least three different transit districts covering that region.
Now if you want to argue that we should combine all of the bus transport services, from San Rafael to Morgan Hill, and from Morgan Hill to Livermore into a single huge transportation system (all of those places are served by Gbus and presumably the other guys as well). That is a different conversation (and probably worth having)
Now if you want to argue that we should combine all of the bus transport services, from San Rafael to Morgan Hill, and from Morgan Hill to Livermore into a single huge transportation system (all of those places are served by Gbus and presumably the other guys as well). That is a different conversation (and probably worth having)
And are they aren't preventing anyone from doing that.
by papering over the problem with a short-term fix for their employees only, they remove public demand for a long-term, public solution
Good. There was a problem and they decreased the amount of people affected by it. Since when is that a bad thing? Let alone worth protesting.
It's a problem when only a very privileged minority have access to a vital service.
That's a zero-sum fallacy. One person being better off doesn't make everyone else worse off. In any case you can make the same argument against any other private service ever.
[deleted](1)
They are, if they're occupying their spots.
Hah, so the woeful state of the Bay Area's public transport system is the result of private buses being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Surely the issue is a bit deeper than that.
Had similar reflex. The SF way seemed very strange to me as an outsider and it would almost appear like the primary 'benefactor' of these confrontations are the city governance who are paid by tax payers to make sure the housing supplies are sufficient and public transportation are efficient.
If Gmail can't keep up with demand and the SF city council just opened 1000 new account, one for each city employee, and Gmail speed slowed to a crawl, would Google and the public say "aha! they're using all the resources, let's protest"?
If Gmail can't keep up with demand and the SF city council just opened 1000 new account, one for each city employee, and Gmail speed slowed to a crawl, would Google and the public say "aha! they're using all the resources, let's protest"?
You want it spelled out?
FB and Google have a lot of money.
Somebody wants a piece of the political action. So there will be lots of hoopla, then a big check gets written to a pet PAC, then it all goes away -- until it's time to pay up again.
FB and Google have a lot of money.
Somebody wants a piece of the political action. So there will be lots of hoopla, then a big check gets written to a pet PAC, then it all goes away -- until it's time to pay up again.
Not to mention those Google employees pay a lot in taxes. They fund that public infrastructure, more so than just about anyone else in fact.
Where is the data that proves that Google employees pay more taxes than what is proper for their individual incomes.
That was not implied. Google employees generally have high salaries, and therefore pay a higher net dollar amount than the average taxpayer.
What I believe is implied is that since Google employees pay more in taxes than the average bloke, they are due more of that public infrastructure (privileged access to bus lanes, in this situation) — which is not how things work.
Nobody implied that, he was simply saying that it's good we have high income residents in the area, since they contribute significantly to the local tax revenue.
The corporate buses often stop at public bus stops, sometimes blocking MUNI buses from the stop.
As the article states, gentrification and "income inequality" (lol?) were the main reasons for these protestors surrounding the Google bus. I'm sure Google bus is an inconvenience for other busses but that wasn't why these people were protesting.
Just curious, why the "lol" for income inequality?
"Your poverty makes us sick"
I recognize it's a real thing I just can't stand the mindset that such a word creates. If income/money is an issue for you, go out and do something to change that, don't sit around and be toxic against people that aren't having income issues.
What do you mean by "be toxic"? And how do you expect people to work against income inequality without calling it what it is?
Your comment ("lol income inequality") is dripping in upper-class privilege, as if you're the one suffering when poor people bring up things like the disappearing middle class & tax breaks for the wealthy -- because they're being "toxic".
Your comment ("lol income inequality") is dripping in upper-class privilege, as if you're the one suffering when poor people bring up things like the disappearing middle class & tax breaks for the wealthy -- because they're being "toxic".
>>aren't having income issues.
It's ok, you can call them poor.
It's ok, you can call them poor.
One of the problems people face is that those with weaker employment prospects in the first place often have other issues which screw them out of reasonable employment and leave them worse off in terms of pursuing anything better. Anyone who has been subject to factory life (or equivalent employment) knows that no sane person could work a job like that for their entire life.
You're not completely wrong: many of these people have made mistakes, but the nature of how those mistakes get compounded can pretty thoroughly screw someone who was born with a bit of a handicap and who got off to a bad start.
So while it is possible to overcome these setbacks (and people should be encouraged to do so), it's not something one should be glib about.
You're not completely wrong: many of these people have made mistakes, but the nature of how those mistakes get compounded can pretty thoroughly screw someone who was born with a bit of a handicap and who got off to a bad start.
So while it is possible to overcome these setbacks (and people should be encouraged to do so), it's not something one should be glib about.
[deleted]
The problem is not that Google, Facebook, and others are "solving a problem" by providing these bus fleets. They are offering jobs on the peninsula paying more than jobs tend to pay in SF [because SF companies have to pay more for rent and ACTUALLY PAY THEIR FUCKING PAYROLL TAXES TO PAY TO MAINTAIN THE BUS STOPS], with a greater likelihood of becoming filthy rich, to people largely moving from other parts of the country and/or world, with the promise that they can work in one community and live in another.
When such employees are not being recruited from other places, they are being recruited from SF. Google and Facebook have a problem that their offices are in FUCKING BORING monoculture suburbs which young, smart, energetic people do not typically want to live in. And their big, monolithic companies aren't a great match for the culture of SF, though companies like Twitter have been trying to make it work by insisting that SF is doomed without them.
One has to ask, why do people want to live in SF rather than Mountain View or Palo Alto? Is it because those places are FUCKING BORING?
Yes. And they are not FUCKING BORING because they lack craft cocktail places, they have a monoculture that is unattractive to people accustomed to diversity.
That is why these buses are gross, and that is why it is gross that people who just recently moved to SF after rents roughly doubled think that people should just get a better job if they want to live here, because who ever lived in SF except rich people?
How can someone who moved here as a student and began trying to build a life for themselves in the bay area ever fit without basically letting Larry, Sergei, and Zuck declare the sort of job that people who live in SF can have?
How can people ever own a home in this city if the only way is by being [un]lucky and boring enough to be at a behemoth company or a random startup that couldn't easily be predicted to hit, and take a bunch of stock away?
Also, if SF becomes a place where most people who can afford to live here have to work in another city, it will be largely devoid of employed people during the day. There will be jobs serving coffee in the morning, dinner in the evening, mostly stocked by people who live in the east bay, and we're likely to see some of the crime problems that Oakland has which I believe directly have to do with this, specifically that lots of people who pay rent and mortages in Oakland have to go to another city to do so, on woefully overloaded transit systems that are struggling for funding, leaving the city largely full of unemployed people and violent police officers during the day.
SF is an amazing place and I can't imagine why anyone would only want to work here during the first and last hours of the day, when I do my best to be here as many hours of the day as possible, though I can't afford to live here.
Plus a lot of these assholes don't even like SF. It's like a fancy fucking pair of shoes for them to brag about.
When such employees are not being recruited from other places, they are being recruited from SF. Google and Facebook have a problem that their offices are in FUCKING BORING monoculture suburbs which young, smart, energetic people do not typically want to live in. And their big, monolithic companies aren't a great match for the culture of SF, though companies like Twitter have been trying to make it work by insisting that SF is doomed without them.
One has to ask, why do people want to live in SF rather than Mountain View or Palo Alto? Is it because those places are FUCKING BORING?
Yes. And they are not FUCKING BORING because they lack craft cocktail places, they have a monoculture that is unattractive to people accustomed to diversity.
That is why these buses are gross, and that is why it is gross that people who just recently moved to SF after rents roughly doubled think that people should just get a better job if they want to live here, because who ever lived in SF except rich people?
How can someone who moved here as a student and began trying to build a life for themselves in the bay area ever fit without basically letting Larry, Sergei, and Zuck declare the sort of job that people who live in SF can have?
How can people ever own a home in this city if the only way is by being [un]lucky and boring enough to be at a behemoth company or a random startup that couldn't easily be predicted to hit, and take a bunch of stock away?
Also, if SF becomes a place where most people who can afford to live here have to work in another city, it will be largely devoid of employed people during the day. There will be jobs serving coffee in the morning, dinner in the evening, mostly stocked by people who live in the east bay, and we're likely to see some of the crime problems that Oakland has which I believe directly have to do with this, specifically that lots of people who pay rent and mortages in Oakland have to go to another city to do so, on woefully overloaded transit systems that are struggling for funding, leaving the city largely full of unemployed people and violent police officers during the day.
SF is an amazing place and I can't imagine why anyone would only want to work here during the first and last hours of the day, when I do my best to be here as many hours of the day as possible, though I can't afford to live here.
Plus a lot of these assholes don't even like SF. It's like a fancy fucking pair of shoes for them to brag about.
Think about some of the things you've said in the emotion of the moment:
"How can someone who moved here as a student and began trying to build a life for themselves in the bay area ever fit without basically letting Larry, Sergei, and Zuck declare the sort of job that people who live in SF can have?"
When I moved here, those guys were in Jr High probably telling poor taste jokes. So 10 - 15 years from now they may have no say at all in what job you want.
"How can people ever own a home in this city if the only way is by being [un]lucky and boring enough to be at a behemoth company or a random startup that couldn't easily be predicted to hit, and take a bunch of stock away?"
My wife and I bought a home in 1985. We were leveraged to the hilt (loans from the seller, the bank, her parents, and our savings). It wasn't "easy", I didn't see any current run movies, I rarely went out to lunch, but we were focused on getting into the housing market as soon as we could. Over the years I've watched all of my friends buy houses.
They were able to do that because they both saved when they needed too and they benefited from the success of the companies they worked for. Few were made 'rich' by startups, most by putting in their hours at HP or Sun or Oracle, saving money, buying their own company's stock with the employee stock program. Most were married or in committed relationships (it really correlates strongly with house ownership if you can split your living expenses with another person).
The theme in your comment is "I want what I want RIGHT NOW!" but life isn't like that. It plays out over weeks and months and years. Trust me when I tell you that if you did get what everything you wanted without effort, without time, without failure. You would hate it, worse you might despise yourself for having it.
If you evaluate your life based on the lives of others, you won't ever be happy.
"How can someone who moved here as a student and began trying to build a life for themselves in the bay area ever fit without basically letting Larry, Sergei, and Zuck declare the sort of job that people who live in SF can have?"
When I moved here, those guys were in Jr High probably telling poor taste jokes. So 10 - 15 years from now they may have no say at all in what job you want.
"How can people ever own a home in this city if the only way is by being [un]lucky and boring enough to be at a behemoth company or a random startup that couldn't easily be predicted to hit, and take a bunch of stock away?"
My wife and I bought a home in 1985. We were leveraged to the hilt (loans from the seller, the bank, her parents, and our savings). It wasn't "easy", I didn't see any current run movies, I rarely went out to lunch, but we were focused on getting into the housing market as soon as we could. Over the years I've watched all of my friends buy houses.
They were able to do that because they both saved when they needed too and they benefited from the success of the companies they worked for. Few were made 'rich' by startups, most by putting in their hours at HP or Sun or Oracle, saving money, buying their own company's stock with the employee stock program. Most were married or in committed relationships (it really correlates strongly with house ownership if you can split your living expenses with another person).
The theme in your comment is "I want what I want RIGHT NOW!" but life isn't like that. It plays out over weeks and months and years. Trust me when I tell you that if you did get what everything you wanted without effort, without time, without failure. You would hate it, worse you might despise yourself for having it.
If you evaluate your life based on the lives of others, you won't ever be happy.
There seems to be a lot of anger in your comment, but it all seems to boil down to "my reasons for living in San Francisco are more valid than others'".
The anger is that I'm ashamed to be associated with most people in the tech community lately, wherever I can live, and that so many people who just moved to the bay area think they know so much about how they are obviously not impacting it negatively.
People are becoming bigoted against tech folks and it's not a healthy change for this community, but I can't blame them, and frankly most of the time lately I don't want anything to do with people on either side of the polarized debate.
But the discussion is about how Google and whoever are "solving problems" that would be created by people driving private vehicles when in fact they are commonly recruiting people to work in Mountain View by dangling the ability to live in SF in front of them, which is damaging to the entire community as a whole, from Mountain View to SF to Oakland to Berkeley to wherever.
Also I do not live in SF, FYI, I used to, until my own fucking industry priced me out, simultaneously making it impossible to run a small business here providing tech services as I did for many years.
I came to SF to have it change me, but so many people are intent upon changing it, with complete disregard for how the tech industry left the city a husk after the dot-bomb.
I learned a lot of tough lessons about what makes SF SF and how to play harmoniously with that and most people are just spewing entitlement about how it doesn't matter that they are PERMANENTLY driving the cost of living up due to their TEMPORARY ability to make more money.
The truth is that real estate speculators are profiting off people on both sides of the debate.
People are paying twice the rent that would have been paid a few years ago and in many cases not getting better services.
I just don't feel sorry for a few people who got stuck on a bus. Protests are about showing that you can't change business as usual without interfering in it.
People are becoming bigoted against tech folks and it's not a healthy change for this community, but I can't blame them, and frankly most of the time lately I don't want anything to do with people on either side of the polarized debate.
But the discussion is about how Google and whoever are "solving problems" that would be created by people driving private vehicles when in fact they are commonly recruiting people to work in Mountain View by dangling the ability to live in SF in front of them, which is damaging to the entire community as a whole, from Mountain View to SF to Oakland to Berkeley to wherever.
Also I do not live in SF, FYI, I used to, until my own fucking industry priced me out, simultaneously making it impossible to run a small business here providing tech services as I did for many years.
I came to SF to have it change me, but so many people are intent upon changing it, with complete disregard for how the tech industry left the city a husk after the dot-bomb.
I learned a lot of tough lessons about what makes SF SF and how to play harmoniously with that and most people are just spewing entitlement about how it doesn't matter that they are PERMANENTLY driving the cost of living up due to their TEMPORARY ability to make more money.
The truth is that real estate speculators are profiting off people on both sides of the debate.
People are paying twice the rent that would have been paid a few years ago and in many cases not getting better services.
I just don't feel sorry for a few people who got stuck on a bus. Protests are about showing that you can't change business as usual without interfering in it.
I thoroughly enjoy living in Mountain View, which is preposterously diverse compared to 99.9% of the country. Anyway, like many other things in life, it's all about what you do with it. Someone living in Antarctica might have some cause to blame their boredom on their surroundings, but generally if someone claims their life is boring because the city they live in is boring, the problem is with them and not the city.
The tone of this comment should be unacceptable in this community.
Relax. You're going to have much bigger problems if you're that fragile.
I disagree with the content and the tone of the parent comment, but I like to see the debate and it's an interesting perspective.
I disagree with the content and the tone of the parent comment, but I like to see the debate and it's an interesting perspective.
It's not fragility which leads to my offense. I embrace disagreement and figure we would all be better off if there was more of it… but I do not embrace vitriol. There's a toxin in modern culture that leads too many towards this type of emotional nonsense which drives people apart. 'FUCKING BORING' is not a phrase you use when you respect the parties you disagree with, and without that respect moving forward is damn near impossible.
It is a bad thing when such disrespect becomes acceptable in a community.
It is a bad thing when such disrespect becomes acceptable in a community.
The content of most of these comments should be unacceptable in any community.
Passion should be important to hackers.
Hopefully, people can work together to what I think could be 2-3 good outcomes that help alleviate some of these very real problems:
1. Public Transportation: both inter & intra-city transportation is very poor. It's extremely hard to travel between neighborhoods in San Francisco, and it's a huge reason people rely so much on Lyft and other providers in the city. Also, it's really difficult to travel between SF and Oakland (as well as other cities). Creating better / more infrastructure that connects these two should help ease supply constraints that cause these price spikes in the first place. Not sure how feasible this is...especially looking at other cities experience in public transportation (example: bay bridge).
2. More supply. One of the effects of previous legislation to keep the SF "neighborhood feel" was that it constrained new supply coming into the market. Unfortunately, it takes a few years for new units to come into the market, and it's obvious it's not keeping pace with demand. There of course needs to be a balance vs. keeping SF's historic appeal, but maybe the previous compromise leaned too heavily against putting up new units.
3. Government subsidies / rent control to help ease rapid price hikes. I'm not as big of a fan of these, but largely because I don't quite understand all the economic/social effects.
1. Public Transportation: both inter & intra-city transportation is very poor. It's extremely hard to travel between neighborhoods in San Francisco, and it's a huge reason people rely so much on Lyft and other providers in the city. Also, it's really difficult to travel between SF and Oakland (as well as other cities). Creating better / more infrastructure that connects these two should help ease supply constraints that cause these price spikes in the first place. Not sure how feasible this is...especially looking at other cities experience in public transportation (example: bay bridge).
2. More supply. One of the effects of previous legislation to keep the SF "neighborhood feel" was that it constrained new supply coming into the market. Unfortunately, it takes a few years for new units to come into the market, and it's obvious it's not keeping pace with demand. There of course needs to be a balance vs. keeping SF's historic appeal, but maybe the previous compromise leaned too heavily against putting up new units.
3. Government subsidies / rent control to help ease rapid price hikes. I'm not as big of a fan of these, but largely because I don't quite understand all the economic/social effects.
I just moved to the area and have little context, wondering what solution are the local residents fighting for? I'd imagine going back to an idyllic agrarian past is probably not viable. Is the proposal for companies to pay a special municipal tax for zoning special loading curb areas (which I'd imagine UPS and taxis and the likes will have to pay as well for using public infrastructure)? Is it for higher income or newer residents to pay a special tax to give to lower income or older residents which can be used to fund affordable housing projects? What is the proposed solution that can be put into a legislation?
Anyone find it lame how people are tweeting about an incident instead of communicating with each other when they're like 10 feet away?
Don't expect to reason with protesters if you're not even willing to talk to them. Way to be the uptight sheltered techies you're being made out to be. That being said, I don't think it's legal to block a vehicle, and protesters would probably be better served doing something productive rather than complaining immaturely in this matter.
Shame on everyone!
Don't expect to reason with protesters if you're not even willing to talk to them. Way to be the uptight sheltered techies you're being made out to be. That being said, I don't think it's legal to block a vehicle, and protesters would probably be better served doing something productive rather than complaining immaturely in this matter.
Shame on everyone!
I am not obligated to "reason" with anyone who stops me, illegally, and demands my attention. I don't see why it's different for the average Google employee.
They blocked in a bus that was illegally parked. No one forced you to get on the bus that was violating city codes.
What these people are complaining about is a two tiered system, where one set of laws apply to the people who live in the city and another set apply to corporations like Google. Why should that bus get to do something that common citizens are not allowed to, simply because it's owned by a company instead of a person?
What these people are complaining about is a two tiered system, where one set of laws apply to the people who live in the city and another set apply to corporations like Google. Why should that bus get to do something that common citizens are not allowed to, simply because it's owned by a company instead of a person?
That's not what I said.
What I said is that I'm not obligated to "reason" with someone that illegally demands my attention. Maybe abortion doctors should be obligated to "reason" with pro-life protestors, to open a conversation? Hey, a lot of time those guys aren't even breaking the law.
What the OP calls being an "uptight techie" I call being an ordinary human being in an allegedly civilized country.
What I said is that I'm not obligated to "reason" with someone that illegally demands my attention. Maybe abortion doctors should be obligated to "reason" with pro-life protestors, to open a conversation? Hey, a lot of time those guys aren't even breaking the law.
What the OP calls being an "uptight techie" I call being an ordinary human being in an allegedly civilized country.
You seemed to miss the guys point. If you park somewhere illegally and someone blocks you in, getting upset that they are doing something illegal while ignoring the fact that you are doing something similarly illegal everyday is pretty weird imo...
Not to not-pick, but just riding the bus that is illegally stopped probably isn't itself illegal (although the bus driver would likely be breaking some law or other).
Sure, but to say "wow this is totally ridiculous! what those people are doing is illegal" while never caring the least bit about the illegal thing they're taking part in is just so ridiculously self absorbed, which is kind of the root of the thing people are upset about.
It's a pretty generic 'taking the law in your own hand' argument though. If you illegally double park and as consequence, I illegally shoot you and your whole family, debating what I did is besides the point since the real debate should be about why you double parked.
That analogy is just a tiny bit more extreme then what actually happened.
Ya, it's a ridiculous example but I'm just pointing out the difficulty of codifying vigilantism into law. If illegally killing people who double park is not appropriate, is stealing their TV appropriate? Is hacking their email account appropriate? Who can appropriately be a vigilante? Is it appropriate for a victim who suffered physical injuries? Is it appropriate for a victim who felt offended? Is it appropriate for an eye witness? Is it appropriate for someone who saw it online?
This was a peaceful protest, not vigilante justice. Some people were unable to get to work on time. Where's the outrage about union workers not being able to get to work during a picketed protest?
...are you being serious?
> Why should that bus get to do something that common citizens are not allowed to, simply because it's owned by a company instead of a person?
It shouldn't, but that's not an issue for a mob to take up. Call the police, or go talk to your local legislators if tech companies are being given unfair perks, but taking justice into your own hands is illegal for a very good reason.
It shouldn't, but that's not an issue for a mob to take up. Call the police, or go talk to your local legislators if tech companies are being given unfair perks, but taking justice into your own hands is illegal for a very good reason.
If this was an issue about net neutrality, trade treaties, bitcoin, or any other number of issues then we'd have a thread full of people celebrating those protesters who were making their voices heard.
Instead we're rally behind some people who had to sit in a bus for an extra thirty minutes than they normally would. It's a miracle those poor souls managed to last as long as they did- can you imagine what kind of tragedy it would have been if the bus's wifi had broke down?
Instead we're rally behind some people who had to sit in a bus for an extra thirty minutes than they normally would. It's a miracle those poor souls managed to last as long as they did- can you imagine what kind of tragedy it would have been if the bus's wifi had broke down?
Protesting against the government is completely different from protesting against private individuals in a private bus.
Is it legal for a civilian to physically block a vehicle that is illegally parked and trying to leave? Or is that another two-tier system, where it's okay to block corporate vehicles but not individual vehicles?
If it was illegally parked, couldn't they just call the police to ticket the bus? If the city has chosen to allow the buses to use the Muni stops then the fight should be with the regulators/city not with Google. For example, in the Mission, you're allowed to park in the middle of the street on Sundays because of the need to accommodate churchgoers. This seems like another application of special rules that "common citizens" cannot normally do.
At the end of the day though, the bus protest is not really about the bus but about the overall situation with housing, power, and inequality.
At the end of the day though, the bus protest is not really about the bus but about the overall situation with housing, power, and inequality.
You're not legally obligated, no. It would be a pretty damn good idea though if you wanted to be a positive force for society and mutual understanding.
> Anyone find it lame how people are tweeting about an incident instead of communicating with each other when they're like 10 feet away?
no, it's like the "open letter"s you see floating about the internet - they don't care one way or another about the protesters, they are actually addressing the people whose opinions on the matter they do care about (in this case, their twitter followers)
no, it's like the "open letter"s you see floating about the internet - they don't care one way or another about the protesters, they are actually addressing the people whose opinions on the matter they do care about (in this case, their twitter followers)
Who says they're not communicating with each other, as well as dozens of people on twitter?
Edit: as to why they didn't talk to the protesters, it's because they were busy yelling and there's a bus in between them.
Edit: as to why they didn't talk to the protesters, it's because they were busy yelling and there's a bus in between them.
>That being said, I don't think it's legal to block a vehicle, and protesters would probably be better served doing something productive rather than complaining immaturely in this matter.
Would you have said the same thing about the Greensboro sit-ins? Not trying to be snarky, curious as to where the line is drawn for being productive or being a nuisance in your opinion.
Would you have said the same thing about the Greensboro sit-ins? Not trying to be snarky, curious as to where the line is drawn for being productive or being a nuisance in your opinion.
I don't think they care about it being legal. All they want is media attention and people talking about it. It works.
> “Public $$$$, Private Gains,”
That's true, and the right solution is to remove public funding from transportation. Then there's no downside to private gains.
That's true, and the right solution is to remove public funding from transportation. Then there's no downside to private gains.
private highways?
sure, why not?
You know, we actually tried that for a while (search for Turnpike System or Turnpike Trusts on wikipedia), and it was an unmitigated disaster. Because turnpike operators had what were effectively local monopolies, they collected absurdly high fees and often spent as little as possible on routine maintenance, resulting in high cost / low quality roads. This was a major impediment to free trade, as it drove shipping costs to prohibitively high levels. The socialization of roads that took place during the Victorian era, along with the growth of the railroad industry, helped usher in the period of great economic and industrial expansion that lead to the Gilded Age.
The Turnpike trusts were just government organizations that attempted to fund government roads with a per-use toll. They were a far cry from private road systems.
It was tried in New York City as well, with a mix of private and public rail/subway systems leading into the 30s and 40s [1]. It's an interesting read.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_City_Su...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_City_Su...
PA still has a fully functional turnpike system today. It is government owned, but our current governor was trying to sell it off a while back.
They should be protesting city hall and public unions for their anti-development behavior.
Agreed. San Francisco has an artificial cap on supply as demand continues to rise.
It doesn't take more than the first 40 seconds of an economics class to figure out what's going to happen to the price.
You can either decrease demand or increase supply. And good luck kicking people out of San Francisco.
(As a side note, if I worked for google I'd live as close as possible in Mountain View. But I'm not the nightlife type.)
It doesn't take more than the first 40 seconds of an economics class to figure out what's going to happen to the price.
You can either decrease demand or increase supply. And good luck kicking people out of San Francisco.
(As a side note, if I worked for google I'd live as close as possible in Mountain View. But I'm not the nightlife type.)
Does anyone know what the sign "Fine $271; Total Fine (2011-2013) $1 Billion" refers to? https://twitter.com/maxbatt/status/410097083081695233/photo/...
I'm not sure about the $1billion, but the $271 fine is what we as regular citizens would get if we tried to pick people up from the bus stop. The complaint is that the two tiered system- one where normal citizens have to follow the rules, while corporations can do whatever they please- and the fine is simply one example of that.
> The bus operators — private companies like Google, Facebook, Apple and Genentech — would pay for permits to use the Muni stops
Looks like that issue is being taken care of.
Looks like that issue is being taken care of.
Yeah, it's nice to know that if I break the rules I can get the city to retroactively change them for me, assuming I have enough money.
Curious: if you disagree with a permitting process for the private buses, what would you prefer the outcome to be?
That seems like a mighty straw man. He never said he disagreed with the permit process. He simply disagrees with the idea that these companies have been able to park illegally with no consequence for years and instead of just writing them tickets, as the city would do for a normal person, they decide to give them permits to prevent them from having to break the law hundreds of times a day.
I expect there to be a fee associated with these permits.
What if the permits are issued with a retroactive start date (and proportionately large initial issuance fee)? Perhaps one that extends back to when each company started stopping in city bus stops? How would you feel about that?
What if the permits are issued with a retroactive start date (and proportionately large initial issuance fee)? Perhaps one that extends back to when each company started stopping in city bus stops? How would you feel about that?
Wait, wait, isn't that how politics in general work?
Would be, are not currently.
> the $271 fine is what we as regular citizens would get if we tried to pick people up from the bus stop
Kind of. It's not very well enforced by the police for regular citizens either. Lax enforcement all around really...
Kind of. It's not very well enforced by the police for regular citizens either. Lax enforcement all around really...
I assume the number of shuttle bus stops * fine for stopping in a bus zone ($271) ~= $1 Bn
Their math seems suspect. $1B / $271 = 3.7 million stops. Assuming 39 bus stops in the Bay Area [1], a 7d/wk schedule (i.e., no separate holiday/weekend schedule), and that every bus stop gets an equal number of stops, that's 86 stops per day per bus stop. Or once every 17 minutes, around the clock. I'd believe that frequency for peak hours at the busiest/largest stops, but not as the all-day average across every stop.
[1] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000087239639044398290...
Edit: From their website & flyer: http://www.heart-of-the-city.org/
[1] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000087239639044398290...
Edit: From their website & flyer: http://www.heart-of-the-city.org/
Tech Industry private shuttles use over 200 SF MUNI stops approximately
7,100 times in total each day (M-F) without permission or contributing
funds to support this public infrastructure. No vehicles other than
MUNI are allowed to use these stops. If the tech industry was fined for
each illegal use for the past 2 years, they would owe an estimated $1
billion to the city.
>Google declined to comment on the map, but said it has over 100 buses that shuttle 4,500-plus people per day from more than 30 stops across seven Bay Area counties.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000087239639044398290...
So Google alone could make up that number. Toss in the other tech companies that are doing this as well and I can see how there are far more than 86 stops a day.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000087239639044398290...
So Google alone could make up that number. Toss in the other tech companies that are doing this as well and I can see how there are far more than 86 stops a day.
I think you missed the part of the post you're replying to where he said his calculations amount to 86 stops per day per stop. That's at least 2580 stops per day total. 2580 stops for 4500 employees? They're clearly off by more than an order of magnitude.
It makes "more than 30 stops", but it wouldn't be physically possible to make that number of stops with 100 buses (even ignoring that they then have to make the hour+ trip down to Mountain View after that). The math doesn't make sense.
I applaud them for creating a mini-Twitter firestorm in the process. It's a shame the local media misidentified one of the actors (one of them playing an angry Googler)
Xenophobia is a natural reaction to competition for scarce resources.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Also, is it really the companies fault that the value of housing in the area is going up because they exist? Can you really expect them to get up and leave?
I don't really see what the companies are getting out of this in the first place. They don't have to shuttle their employees in to work, could save a whole lot of money by not renting/buying buses, but they do and it does nothing but positive things for the employees, the city, and the environment.