Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco's guerrilla protest at Google buses swells into revolt

theguardian.com

51–60 of 74 posts

Re: San Francisco's guerrilla protest at Google buses swells into revolt

#51
Christ, it's painful to read about these people with such stupid, lazy attitudes and opinions - yet somehow still able to muster the energy to go out and throw a huge tantrum and make a huge mess for other people. Instead of thinking constructively about how to make themselves genuinely more valuable to other humans, they just bitch and moan about what they believe themselves entitled to - conditions which were never contractually promised to them. Yeesh. Admirable in a way, I suppose, but still.

Still, this is a really interesting clash of interests - between the infrastructural needs of potentially the great city of the 21st century, and its cultural roots. You need a mix of both - you can't just turn SF into a grid of mega-skyscrapers, although that'd open the gates for great companies, and real progress - you need something of the old sense of city and style - but you can't just pretend the city can still function and thrive as a museum of genteel Victorians and arts and craft co-ops, while the future brews down in San Jose... You need capacity and character to build the launchpad of the future.

Re: San Francisco's guerrilla protest at Google buses swells into revolt

#52
post #4
post #2

Is this really happening? If it is, it brings up an interesting issue. Private public transport can out compete public transport. But then school buses already do this as well (compared to Europe). Though I did commute using SF buses, and I fully understand why one would not prefer ones kids to travel on them, and even why one would prefer company buses. As for rents, true, but can that not mostly be blamed on restri…

Let's get terms straight. Google is providing private mass transport. It's no more public transport than a charter liquor and gambling bus to Atlantic City. If it was public transport non-Googlers would ride for similar tariffs - ok that's probably inaccurate since poor riders would have their transport subsidized rather than Google's subsidy to those more affluent. Google's buses are solving more traffic problems in…

It isn't necessarily the case that Google would shut down their bus service if it had to meet the requirements of public transportation. It looks like Google already funds a free shuttle from the Mountain View Caltrain station to Google HQ and the surrounding area, which actually is public transit.

http://www.caltrain.com/schedules/Shuttles/Shoreline_Shuttle... (See the fine print at the bottom for details.)

It's potentially possible that a similar approach could be done for the SF to Mountain View commute, where Google subsidizes the creation of specific public bus lines in exchange for Google employees riding for free, or something like that. That would probably make the community happier about the bus issue, although it wouldn't fix the rent/displacement issue at all.

Re: San Francisco's guerrilla protest at Google buses swells into revolt

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If gentrification helps driving people out of town who display such obnoxious behaviour then we can't have enough of it." Yes, let's remove every current resident of SF by charging outrageous rent rates and only have rich Google engineers there. Because, that's why. There's no other place they can live, of course, right? But don't complain then when they don't have anywhere to go for laundry, or the only coffee plac…

Its supposed to be a free country. Sad when your rent goes up, but a free market allows that. I'm a little offended each time the self-styled old-guard want to 'protect the neighborhood' by which they mean 'keep my cheap rent'. How about you live where you can afford, like everybody else?

" want to 'protect the neighborhood' by which they mean 'keep my cheap rent'. How about you live where you can afford, like everybody else?"

So, there are no rent-controlled places in the USA? How about NYC?

Sure, let's raise your rent disproportionately and drive you to a bigger commute, how about that. What if everything near - let's say a 1h30 commute - is expensive?

Of course there are two sides to raising rents, but usually what happens is that it drives away the people that made the place in high demand in the first place.

There's no lack of space in the USA, or even in SF, but apparently people decide to go for the already dense areas.

Google could build their Google Dorm in a cheaper area and have buses come and go from there, how about it?

Not everybody is a high-payed SW engineer, so sure, their rent can be raised and people that can't afford it move away, causing more traffic (either the Google people moving there - MV is far from SF) and the people that moves out and now have to commute), more social issues, etc

Re: San Francisco's guerrilla protest at Google buses swells into revolt

#54
post #4
post #2

Is this really happening? If it is, it brings up an interesting issue. Private public transport can out compete public transport. But then school buses already do this as well (compared to Europe). Though I did commute using SF buses, and I fully understand why one would not prefer ones kids to travel on them, and even why one would prefer company buses. As for rents, true, but can that not mostly be blamed on restri…

Let's get terms straight. Google is providing private mass transport. It's no more public transport than a charter liquor and gambling bus to Atlantic City. If it was public transport non-Googlers would ride for similar tariffs - ok that's probably inaccurate since poor riders would have their transport subsidized rather than Google's subsidy to those more affluent. Google's buses are solving more traffic problems in…

>If it was public transport non-Googlers would ride for similar tariffs

...and be subsidized by tax-payers (because public transit systems in big cities don't break-even on fares - and forget about capital projects, those always need government funds). So this is still a net-win for the city. Googlers subsidize a system they don't use to get to work.

Re: San Francisco's guerrilla protest at Google buses swells into revolt

#55
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If offices were built closer to the city, they could be smaller but I'm fairly convinced most people would consider it an upgrade to quality of life in general. What is this 'solution' solving exactly? These protests are targeting tech workers and tech companies because tech workers want to live in San Fran and thereby drive up the price of housing. How would that change if Google had offices in San Fran?!

Because then things like restaurants downtown would have more foot traffic during lunch time to help make sure local businesses don't shut down. Also, it could help make downtown "bigger", so even if the end result is the same (higher rent), there'd be more apartments available (instead of the suburbs that take a lot of space for not many families).

I'm pretty sure the San Fran downtown is already in-demand, and as I said before, you can't have everything.

Re: San Francisco's guerrilla protest at Google buses swells into revolt

#56
post #10
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me fix that for you: protesters are misguided.

I'm not sure I agree with that. There is a legion of people making six figures, who together have a lot of power if they were to try to do something. I know disruption or even violence won't help at first, but it raises awareness. Maybe then people can start talking about intelligent measures to help those who need it. I know if I was making 200k I'd be glad to be taxed an extra %, if that money was going towards hel…

people who've seen the place they lived their whole life slowly push them out, even though they're still needed there.

But they're clearly not still needed there - otherwise demand for their services would be high enough that they would be able to fetch a market price high enough to allow them to compete in the housing markets.

The big fishes need the small ones to survive

Let me ask a tough question: why do these big fishes need the small ones? What exactly makes the small ones so essential? To make coffee? To staff checkouts? If demand for these arguably location-limited services is so high, then a shortage of suitably qualified labourers will result in a price increase until demand and supply equilibrate. But I haven't heard of any protests by high-wage SF residents at their inability to procure the services they desire, so things seem to be ticking over. No ham-fisted government intervention necessary.

Your only problem here is if you think that successful people have some sort of obligation or self-interest to continually devolve income to support the less successful. But that's a new conversation.

Re: San Francisco's guerrilla protest at Google buses swells into revolt

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its supposed to be a free country. Sad when your rent goes up, but a free market allows that. I'm a little offended each time the self-styled old-guard want to 'protect the neighborhood' by which they mean 'keep my cheap rent'. How about you live where you can afford, like everybody else?

" want to 'protect the neighborhood' by which they mean 'keep my cheap rent'. How about you live where you can afford, like everybody else?" So, there are no rent-controlled places in the USA? How about NYC? Sure, let's raise your rent disproportionately and drive you to a bigger commute, how about that. What if everything near - let's say a 1h30 commute - is expensive? Of course there are two sides to raising rents,…

You're a free economic actor and you get to decide for what price you want to offer your goods and services. So are the people who own the particular good in question - property. And so are the people who are also free to desire this good. So far so good. So you have no right, though you might question the wisdom, to demand that the rights of any of these free actors be curtailed just because, for instance, a seller might wish to ask for a price higher than you can afford, or that many other buyers in the market might be willing to pay it.

Well, you can ask for their rights to be restricted, but then they'll ask for yours to be as well - maybe they don't think it's fair that you sell a great software service, with no real competitors, so you can sell it for a $100 a month, and people will buy it - even though they wish they could pay you $5, or nothing.

There's a whole literature of the toxic effects of imposing price restrictions in any of these instances. If you want to educate yourself, just pick up any basic economics textbook and follow the breadcrumbs.

In the meantime, if you're really so angry about this, why not turn your focus to the real roots of the issue? Why not work for better virtualisation technologies to help erode the tyranny of distance? Why not push for more optimal land-use policy to help ease supply restrictions in the property market? (though please try not to complain when your neighbours turn their bungalow into a high-yielding apartment block)

There are many good, valuable ways to approach the putative "issues" generated by an uneven topography of housing demand. Arguing for price restrictions is easily the worst.

Re: San Francisco's guerrilla protest at Google buses swells into revolt

#58
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" want to 'protect the neighborhood' by which they mean 'keep my cheap rent'. How about you live where you can afford, like everybody else?" So, there are no rent-controlled places in the USA? How about NYC? Sure, let's raise your rent disproportionately and drive you to a bigger commute, how about that. What if everything near - let's say a 1h30 commute - is expensive? Of course there are two sides to raising rents,…

You're a free economic actor and you get to decide for what price you want to offer your goods and services. So are the people who own the particular good in question - property. And so are the people who are also free to desire this good. So far so good. So you have no right, though you might question the wisdom, to demand that the rights of any of these free actors be curtailed just because, for instance, a seller…

Thanks for your post, it's informative

What I find it funny is how people complain a lot about Net Neutrality but then on the housing issue it's "free market for all and let's bulldoze SF and build high rise buildings everywhere".

They are similar issues. There's no "perfect competition" (though it can be argued that there's no perfect competition anywhere, they're examples of restrictive competitions)

Re: San Francisco's guerrilla protest at Google buses swells into revolt

#59
post #13

That is what you get if you're going to San Francisco . The city has been a left/liberal activist stronghold since long before Google even existed. And yeah, things like gentrification and private luxury buses do tend to provoke that crowd. Maybe Google should consider relocating to a military town in Texas. It seems there is a great convergence between Google's massive (and permanently growing) data collection and t…

I'm sure Texas would be more than happy to have Google offices in any of the major cities, and there's plenty of space.

Re: San Francisco's guerrilla protest at Google buses swells into revolt

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

leave the downtown-core decrepit and crime-ridden? In the case of San Francisco, this is most definitely not the case. Downtown office space (especially in fashionable areas) is in high demand, rents are high, vacancies low. Of course, the city is small enough that once you get outside the relatively small historic downtown (the Financial District) and the new downtown (SOMA), there is older and less-featured office…

>n the case of San Francisco, this is most definitely not the case. Downtown office space (especially in fashionable areas) is in high demand, rents are high, vacancies low. That's not what I meant. In the last twenty years, "the downtown" has been rediscovered in most North American cities as a place that people want to work AND live in. Contrast this to the 1950-1990 period in which the thing to do was to live in s…

Sure, I'll agree with you there.

The 1950-1990 period also corresponded with cheap oil (actually, that persisted through the late 1990s), abundant suburban real estate (prices started climbing earlier), freeway and highway construction (which congestion clawed back at beginning in the 1960s and progressively over the years).

The back-to-the-city movement actually had its roots in the yuppie trend of the 1980s, though it's been gathering steam with time. Downtowns in many major US cities (Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, as well as San Francisco) have have seen significant revivals over this period.

Post reply on HN