5 ms·

It's not. It's a symbol of what is wrong with its opponents in SF, who are committed to opposing any change that doesn't benefit them directly. Mario, a San Fr

It's not. It's a symbol of what is wrong with its opponents in SF, who are committed to opposing any change that doesn't benefit them directly. Mario, a San Francisco user of the bike-share program, who has a discounted membership because he qualifies for food stamps, said he was perplexed by the backlash. “It’s the cheapest transportation option we have,” said the 29-year-old, who works as an administrative assistant and asked not to use his full name, because he feared backlash from anti-gentrification activists.

FussyZeus 9y ago
> It's not. It's a symbol of what is wrong with its opponents in SF, who are committed to opposing any change that doesn't benefit them directly. Which makes them distinct from exactly no one? This is a conflict of culture not of benefits. This is a result of city planners who do not talk to the communities they plan for/in, and who arbitrarily make changes to public services and facilities without input from the people who actually live in the places they're in. I'm willing to bet money that nobody who decided where these bike stations went ever even spoke to the poor in the areas where they went. I'm also willing to bet that the people in those areas, even if it isn't true, believed that the extra parking spaces and extra traffic lanes benefitted them more than the bikes. If they didn't, they wouldn't be destroying them. I'm not saying vandalizing is the solution here, but with the wealthy tech sector utterly dictating the price of housing and consequently shoving out literally everyone else all over the Bay Area, is it really such a reach of logic to think that a shiny rack of new bicycles, no doubt transacted via some kind of app or spiffy web service, is not going to be a lightning rod for communities that are getting the shit beat out of them by a tech obsessed elite?
- zzalpha 9y ago
  I'm also willing to bet that the people in those areas, even if it isn't true, believed that the extra parking spaces and extra traffic lanes benefitted them more than the bikes. If they didn't, they wouldn't be destroying them. Hah, classic engineering mistake: assuming people are rational. People hate change. People really hate change they didn't choose (irrespective of whether that change is good or bad), because people want to feel in control. On top of that, given the sheer, mindless hostility that cyclists receive from non-cyclists (some deserved, most not at all), when you mix that with rage over gentrification, these bike share programs should've been seen as a target before they ever got rolled out. So I agree with you that I'll bet the roll out of this program was botched. But I very much disagree that the subsequent reaction was rational or thought out based on a cost-benefit analysis.
  - scurvy 9y ago
    I bet that Mission residents would complain if they didn't get any bicycle stations. "Why are these only in rich neighborhoods? Why are the poor excluded? Poor people need these!" It's a classic Bay Area story. Any kind of change is met with backlash from somewhere. No place does self-righteous entitlement quite like the Bay Area.
    - mrgordon 9y ago
      My part of the Mission didn't get a bike station because of NIMBYs who complained it would gentrify the neighborhood and remove parking. In other words, they specifically blocked it from being an option for the poor people while the rich neighborhoods were like sure put some bikes in.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    It's depressing that you point to the animosity of communities that have been traditionally on the sour end of many transit projects and claim their reaction is irrational. Given that total knowledge is costly and time-consuming to acquire and often the window for action is shorter than the time it would take to acquire a total understanding of the situation, it's only natural people take cognitive shortcuts.
    - zzalpha 9y ago
      It's depressing that you point to the animosity of communities that have been traditionally on the sour end of many transit projects and claim their reaction is irrational. All you've done is eloquently explained why their irrationality might be understandable. Humans are, by and large, inherently irrational. That fact isn't depressing. It's simply true.
      - KirinDave 9y ago
        > Humans are, by and large, inherently irrational. That fact isn't depressing. It's simply true. That's not the subject. You've suggested that this specific reaction is irrational. As I've pointed out, it's ENTIRELY rational to use available data to make a decision if the stakes are high and the duration of opportunity to counter it may be short. It may be sub-optimal and even self-harming in the total balance of accounting, but that is a distinct condition from rationality. You seem to be confusing these different concepts.
- csydas 9y ago
  Agreed. It's really important to understand that the core of the frustration for those affected by the gentrification is the lack of control and the lack of influence they have over where they live. This piles up fast and even with beneficial changes that likely everyone can participate in, doing it without the input of the people actually living there just adds to the idea that they have no control over their lives. I mean, look at upset people on HN get over user tracking (see recent Firefox analytics uproar) or any other change in software that is forced on users - with software there's a choice to not use and often a choice for another. With Urban development, typically once done it's hard to change or revert changes. The residents want more control and input over their neighborhoods and lives, not corporations deciding for them. I would think this position is not unreasonable, even if it results in unreasonable actions. Understanding where these reactions come from helps move the discussion to a more amicable place. Does that mean scaling back gentrification efforts while trust is built up? Yes, but that's how relationships work; you have to build a trust foundation.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- mrgordon 9y ago
  Well you'd lose the bet. Ford had multiple community meetings near my house and faced strong opposition from the crazy Calle 24 people. The head of Calle 24 literally said they "would not negotiate" like Ford is some kind of terrorist or something.
KirinDave 9y ago
What's unfortunate is that bike sharing directly benefits many communities with lower income in many ways, as is noted in the article (and if you live in the area, you'll almost certainly encounter the discussion). I think it's entirely reasonable to be mad about a lack of community consult, but I think that this is ultimately the City's fault and not the bikeshare programs. It's unlikely that the outcome of the share point placement would have been much different, but the reduction of vandalization would have easily covered the initial cost. Sadly, San Francisco has a history of not treating certain communities fairly. They're obligated to do more to undo this bad work, in the event of a program that can be genuinely shown to help everyone.
- tmh79 9y ago
  > I think it's entirely reasonable to be mad about a lack of community consult There were many, many, many community meetings about the bike share program expansion and ample time for anyone to give feedback. People always cry crocodile tears no matter how much public input is put into the process. Source: I'm an advocate for these things, see it at ALL of the meetings I go to. > They're obligated to do more to undo this bad work, in the event of a program that can be genuinely shown to help everyone. The program doesn't need to help _everone_ it needs to do more good than harm. There will be a ton of people who don't benefit directly by this but that is not a reason to remove or roll them back.
- mrgordon 9y ago
  I think the "lack of community consult" is fictitious to be honest. It is easy to say someone should have reached out to the community more with no facts. https://missionlocal.org/2017/07/neighborhood-group-rejects-bike-share-expansion-to-24th-street/ https://missionlocal.org/2017/07/neighborhood-group-rejects-... ~~~~~ “We really want this to be seen as an asset to all communities around the city,” said Simon. But Arguello said that his group will not negotiate. “We told them no, and there will be opposition,” he said. Simon said that the company has done rigorous community outreach, including more than 30 town hall meetings with residents, to gauge approval and need in the city’s neighborhoods. ~~~~~ Also, hey Dave!
  - 9y ago
olleromam91 9y ago
|Any change that doesn't benefit them directly a.k.a. gentrification
- WalterSear 9y ago
  Gentrification isn't that. Gentrification is other people's gain impinging on a community. However, healthy forms of transit are valued by the out class, and new forms of business are associated with them. Protesting a low-cost, low-impact community transit option is as transparent an announcement of prejudice as you can expect.

FussyZeus 9y ago

> It's not. It's a symbol of what is wrong with its opponents in SF, who are committed to opposing any change that doesn't benefit them directly. Which makes them distinct from exactly no one? This is a conflict of culture not of benefits. This is a result of city planners who do not talk to the communities they plan for/in, and who arbitrarily make changes to public services and facilities without input from the people who actually live in the places they're in. I'm willing to bet money that nobody who decided where these bike stations went ever even spoke to the poor in the areas where they went. I'm also willing to bet that the people in those areas, even if it isn't true, believed that the extra parking spaces and extra traffic lanes benefitted them more than the bikes. If they didn't, they wouldn't be destroying them. I'm not saying vandalizing is the solution here, but with the wealthy tech sector utterly dictating the price of housing and consequently shoving out literally everyone else all over the Bay Area, is it really such a reach of logic to think that a shiny rack of new bicycles, no doubt transacted via some kind of app or spiffy web service, is not going to be a lightning rod for communities that are getting the shit beat out of them by a tech obsessed elite?

zzalpha 9y ago
I'm also willing to bet that the people in those areas, even if it isn't true, believed that the extra parking spaces and extra traffic lanes benefitted them more than the bikes. If they didn't, they wouldn't be destroying them. Hah, classic engineering mistake: assuming people are rational. People hate change. People really hate change they didn't choose (irrespective of whether that change is good or bad), because people want to feel in control. On top of that, given the sheer, mindless hostility that cyclists receive from non-cyclists (some deserved, most not at all), when you mix that with rage over gentrification, these bike share programs should've been seen as a target before they ever got rolled out. So I agree with you that I'll bet the roll out of this program was botched. But I very much disagree that the subsequent reaction was rational or thought out based on a cost-benefit analysis.
- scurvy 9y ago
  I bet that Mission residents would complain if they didn't get any bicycle stations. "Why are these only in rich neighborhoods? Why are the poor excluded? Poor people need these!" It's a classic Bay Area story. Any kind of change is met with backlash from somewhere. No place does self-righteous entitlement quite like the Bay Area.
  - mrgordon 9y ago
    My part of the Mission didn't get a bike station because of NIMBYs who complained it would gentrify the neighborhood and remove parking. In other words, they specifically blocked it from being an option for the poor people while the rich neighborhoods were like sure put some bikes in.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  It's depressing that you point to the animosity of communities that have been traditionally on the sour end of many transit projects and claim their reaction is irrational. Given that total knowledge is costly and time-consuming to acquire and often the window for action is shorter than the time it would take to acquire a total understanding of the situation, it's only natural people take cognitive shortcuts.
  - zzalpha 9y ago
    It's depressing that you point to the animosity of communities that have been traditionally on the sour end of many transit projects and claim their reaction is irrational. All you've done is eloquently explained why their irrationality might be understandable. Humans are, by and large, inherently irrational. That fact isn't depressing. It's simply true.
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      > Humans are, by and large, inherently irrational. That fact isn't depressing. It's simply true. That's not the subject. You've suggested that this specific reaction is irrational. As I've pointed out, it's ENTIRELY rational to use available data to make a decision if the stakes are high and the duration of opportunity to counter it may be short. It may be sub-optimal and even self-harming in the total balance of accounting, but that is a distinct condition from rationality. You seem to be confusing these different concepts.
csydas 9y ago
Agreed. It's really important to understand that the core of the frustration for those affected by the gentrification is the lack of control and the lack of influence they have over where they live. This piles up fast and even with beneficial changes that likely everyone can participate in, doing it without the input of the people actually living there just adds to the idea that they have no control over their lives. I mean, look at upset people on HN get over user tracking (see recent Firefox analytics uproar) or any other change in software that is forced on users - with software there's a choice to not use and often a choice for another. With Urban development, typically once done it's hard to change or revert changes. The residents want more control and input over their neighborhoods and lives, not corporations deciding for them. I would think this position is not unreasonable, even if it results in unreasonable actions. Understanding where these reactions come from helps move the discussion to a more amicable place. Does that mean scaling back gentrification efforts while trust is built up? Yes, but that's how relationships work; you have to build a trust foundation.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
mrgordon 9y ago
Well you'd lose the bet. Ford had multiple community meetings near my house and faced strong opposition from the crazy Calle 24 people. The head of Calle 24 literally said they "would not negotiate" like Ford is some kind of terrorist or something.

KirinDave 9y ago

What's unfortunate is that bike sharing directly benefits many communities with lower income in many ways, as is noted in the article (and if you live in the area, you'll almost certainly encounter the discussion). I think it's entirely reasonable to be mad about a lack of community consult, but I think that this is ultimately the City's fault and not the bikeshare programs. It's unlikely that the outcome of the share point placement would have been much different, but the reduction of vandalization would have easily covered the initial cost. Sadly, San Francisco has a history of not treating certain communities fairly. They're obligated to do more to undo this bad work, in the event of a program that can be genuinely shown to help everyone.

tmh79 9y ago
> I think it's entirely reasonable to be mad about a lack of community consult There were many, many, many community meetings about the bike share program expansion and ample time for anyone to give feedback. People always cry crocodile tears no matter how much public input is put into the process. Source: I'm an advocate for these things, see it at ALL of the meetings I go to. > They're obligated to do more to undo this bad work, in the event of a program that can be genuinely shown to help everyone. The program doesn't need to help _everone_ it needs to do more good than harm. There will be a ton of people who don't benefit directly by this but that is not a reason to remove or roll them back.
mrgordon 9y ago
I think the "lack of community consult" is fictitious to be honest. It is easy to say someone should have reached out to the community more with no facts. https://missionlocal.org/2017/07/neighborhood-group-rejects-bike-share-expansion-to-24th-street/ https://missionlocal.org/2017/07/neighborhood-group-rejects-... ~~~~~ “We really want this to be seen as an asset to all communities around the city,” said Simon. But Arguello said that his group will not negotiate. “We told them no, and there will be opposition,” he said. Simon said that the company has done rigorous community outreach, including more than 30 town hall meetings with residents, to gauge approval and need in the city’s neighborhoods. ~~~~~ Also, hey Dave!
- 9y ago

olleromam91 9y ago

|Any change that doesn't benefit them directly a.k.a. gentrification

WalterSear 9y ago
Gentrification isn't that. Gentrification is other people's gain impinging on a community. However, healthy forms of transit are valued by the out class, and new forms of business are associated with them. Protesting a low-cost, low-impact community transit option is as transparent an announcement of prejudice as you can expect.