Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Protesters block Google bus in S.F. Mission

blog.sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 188 posts

Re: Protesters block Google bus in S.F. Mission

#41

Post by tedivm »

WalterBright wrote: post #34
tedivm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Protesters block Google bus in S.F. Mission

#42

Post by baddox »

tedivm wrote: post #27
cynicalkane wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 instea…

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?

Re: Protesters block Google bus in S.F. Mission

#43

Post by Patrick_Devine »

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.

Re: Protesters block Google bus in S.F. Mission

#44

Post by erichurkman »

InvisibleCities wrote: post #33
theorique wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

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...

Re: Protesters block Google bus in S.F. Mission

#45

Post by ryguytilidie »

xanderstrike wrote: post #38

I don't get it. The buses are cutting down on personal driving (a universally acknowledged evil), and paying for permits to use the stops (generating revenue for the city). 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? Also, is it really the companies fault that the value of housing in the area is…

"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.

Re: Protesters block Google bus in S.F. Mission

#46

Post by chaz »

tedivm wrote: post #41
WalterBright wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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?

Re: Protesters block Google bus in S.F. Mission

#47

Post by baddox »

InvisibleCities wrote: post #33
theorique wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

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.

Re: Protesters block Google bus in S.F. Mission

#48

Post by ChuckMcM »

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?

Re: Protesters block Google bus in S.F. Mission

#49

Post by ryguytilidie »

cynicalkane wrote: post #35
tedivm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 instea…

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.

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...

Re: Protesters block Google bus in S.F. Mission

#50

Post by cia_plant »

ryguytilidie wrote: post #45
xanderstrike wrote: post #38

I don't get it. The buses are cutting down on personal driving (a universally acknowledged evil), and paying for permits to use the stops (generating revenue for the city). 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? Also, is it really the companies fault that the value of housing in the area is…

"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.

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.
Post reply on HN