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

151–160 of 188 posts

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

#151

Post by dllthomas »

Cookingboy wrote: post #118
mellis wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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...

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

#152

Post by yapcguy »

jpwright wrote: post #76
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…

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…

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.

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

#153

Post by Lagged2Death »

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…

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?

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

#154

Post by cpucycling »

hencq wrote: post #132
cpucycling wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 coun…

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.

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

#155

Post by yapcguy »

raldi wrote: post #126
negrit wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#156

Post by yapcguy »

icebraining wrote: post #99
ryguytilidie wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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?

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

#157

Post by ahomescu1 »

tedivm wrote: post #40
yid wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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 tra…

Protesting against the government is completely different from protesting against private individuals in a private bus.

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

#158

Post by [deleted] »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #67
ChuckMcM wrote: post #48

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…

[deleted]

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

#159

Post by jpwright »

xster wrote: post #148
jpwright wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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?
Post reply on HN