Bay Area class tensions relating to tech workers & shuttles

[Nubo]

Keep in mind also that the point of the protests is not to stop buses - it's to highlight the need for social balance.

Andy, how does one extract social balance from a bus? Or from a bus protest? What beneficial paths do these protests pave towards that goal?

 

[Rat]

Thanks for the view, Rat. I'd like to point out a very significant problem with this point, however. This is not something that can be simply 'dumped' on the 'government' - the businesses that moved there played the negotiation game - just as Tesla is now with the mega battery plant. They play one area against the other to get the best incentives. ...[snip]
Keep in mind also that the point of the protests is not to stop buses - it's to highlight the need for social balance. Therefore, this is not something that can be spun in the "aren't buses better than cars?" direction, either.

Your first point is valid, AndyH. Believe me, I know. The big companies and REITs who actually own much of the land and lease to the corporations are cutthroat negotiators and rip off the public something awful in the eminent domain process as well as when they are getting approval to build, with the promise of jobs and taxes. But having dealt with many high-tech companies from the government side, I can also say that there are significant differences in the public-spiritedness (if that's a word) of the companies. Some really are more civic-minded than others, and of course within any big company there are different elements, some pressing for maximizing profits while others temper that for altruistic social betterment reasons. Corporations are not inherently greedy or evil, but they do have to satisfy investors, including nearly everyone with a 401k or pension fund.

As for point two, it is well-recognized that the wealth stratification is increasing and it causes both economic and social problems. I think there are valid arguments to be made both for leveling the playing field and for rewarding those who work hard and create new products and services that make life better. It's the age-old haves vs. have nots, but neither the buses nor the tech workers on them (not all of whom are all that well-paid, either) are to blame. The protesters who are demonstrating are often the same people who must have the latest smart phone or app, thus making those companies so profitable. I see some valid points being made by some of the protesters, but people tend to have strong feelings about all of that and in my experience will believe whatever they want to believe. But I disagree with your final sentence. Protesting the buses, even as part of the larger rich v. poor etc. problem is simply unproductive and misguided. The buses, public or private, are better than cars, for the workers, for the public, including the protesters, and complaining about them or trying to get the companies to pay for the privilege of using the bus stops, even if successful, accomplishes nothing, whether looked at from the standpoint of transportation policy, environmental policy, or the gentrification/wealth distribution issue. If the buses were banned or paid large fees to stop at the bus stops it would change nothing on that last front. The key tech workers are still going to be well-paid and corporate profits will still be high as long as people are buying the tech products - whether Leafs or software or smart phones.

 

[AndyH]

Thanks for the time, Rat. But again it appears you're trying to bring a microscope to the bus while ignoring the big picture.

Of course a bus is better than a bunch of cars. Having driven through the area, I hope never to find myself in a car on 280 or 101 during rush hour again. But doesn't the Bay area already have mass transit? Why do tech companies have to deploy a parallel system? If companies are required to have transit plans and/or link to established transit lines, why aren't they using them? Or who allowed a parallel bus system to be the plan?

Yet - while again zooming in on the buses and criticizing the protesters because they have smart phones - points highlighted earlier in this thread are ignored. When a group carries banners and walks down the center of the street, they're not protesting the street. When they tie themselves to fences around the White House they are not protesting fences. When they line up across a gateway to a port facility they are not trying to have gates removed from the world. It's not about the buses, and therefore isn't about Microsoft's bike paths.

Thanks again.

 

[cwerdna]

http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is a REALLY long article about the underlying issues. I need to finish reading it. I'd only had time to get to point #3 and didn't even realize there were issues like

Even more mind-bogglingly, Mountain View is discussing new office development that would bring as many as 42,550 office workers to the city. But the city’s zoning plan only allows for a maximum of 7,000 new homes by 2030.

(Mountain View is where Google is located + numerous other tech companies including over 1,000 Microsoft employees.)

 

[Rat]

Speaking of Microsoft, my son lives in Seattle and works for them in Redmond. He usually takes one of those big Microsoft buses to work. He hasn't owned a car for over six years. He also rides a bike to work sometimes. The same level of protest has not happened up there, he tells me. Partly, I think, it's that wonderful San Francisco protest-everything spirit. Possibly it's also because the tech workers probably haven't caused much gentrification and rising rents up there. Rents are high, but most of the tech workers he knows live in areas that have long been gentrified (e.g. Queen Anne Hill). I don't know if the other major employers in the area, like Amazon, Boeing, Starbucks have similar buses. He hasn't mentioned them, so I think they don't.

 

[AndyH]

http://hoodline.com/2014/05/what-it-takes-to-rent-these-days
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/08/sf-landlord-income-letter_n_5290159.html

Last month, the tenants of a rent-controlled building in the Lower Haight neighborhood all received letters from their landlord stipulating a minimum annual income of $100,000 and a credit score of at least 725, Hoodline reported after an anonymous resident sent in his copy.

Housing rights advocates say the incident reflects how eager some landlords are to kick out long-time residents in favor of new, wealthier residents moving to San Francisco, where an influx of high-paid tech workers and a subsequent housing shortage has made scandals like this regular news.

Following fierce public outcry, a San Francisco landlord is retracting his demand that rent-controlled tenants prove a six-figure salary or move out.

 

[AndyH]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...orks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html

Memo: From Nick Hanauer
To: My Fellow Zillionaires

But let’s speak frankly to each other. I’m not the smartest guy you've ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I’m not technical at all—I can’t write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?
I see pitchforks.

Many of us think we’re special because “this is America.” We think we’re immune to the same forces that started the Arab Spring—or the French and Russian revolutions, for that matter. I know you fellow .01%ers tend to dismiss this kind of argument; I’ve had many of you tell me to my face I’m completely bonkers. And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced that because you saw a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is a fiction.

Here’s what I say to you: You’re living in a dream world. What everyone wants to believe is that when things reach a tipping point and go from being merely crappy for the masses to dangerous and socially destabilizing, that we’re somehow going to know about that shift ahead of time. Any student of history knows that’s not the way it happens. Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and then suddenly. One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. And then there’s no time for us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and fly to New Zealand. That’s the way it always happens. If inequality keeps rising as it has been, eventually it will happen. We will not be able to predict when, and it will be terrible—for everybody. But especially for us.

It's a great piece - these 'teaser' quotes don't do it justice.

 

[mwalsh]

^ That's a great article. I don't care what party he belongs to, I want that guy for President in 2016!

 

[klapauzius]

+1.
Always refreshing to read stuff that makes sense.

 

[MikeinDenver]

He definitely understands the underlying problem and the fix for it. Unfortunately 99% of people don't. Either through ignorance or brainwashing but the result is the same. Honestly I think he can do more outside politics than from within.

 

[AndyH]

Keep in mind also that the point of the protests is not to stop buses - it's to highlight the need for social balance.

Andy, how does one extract social balance from a bus? Or from a bus protest? What beneficial paths do these protests pave towards that goal?

I've been thinking about this for some time, Nubo, and am not quite sure I fully understand this yet. At this point, I think that status quo/business as usual/peer pressure/group dynamics prefers to be in 'its' comfort zone. Groups/society can do very good things and very bad things from that comfort zone. The point of the protests is to draw attention to a problem and to remind people that the status quo isn't working the same for everyone. That pressure/awareness/discomfort can result in shifting the trajectory of the herd so the new path is better for more people. So...protesting the buses is drawing attention to a symptom of what some see as an illness in hopes that enough people realize that it's more beneficial to cure the disease.