81–90 of 188 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 worr…
According to a comment below they have a permit for it which they pay the city for.
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…
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 i…
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…
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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?
- 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.
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…
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.
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)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And are they aren't preventing anyone from doing that.
They are, if they're occupying their spots.
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.