> To anchor bike lanes to groups of people like techies and hipsters is absurd. Completely agree. The phrase "this is why we can't have nice things" comes to m

> To anchor bike lanes to groups of people like techies and hipsters is absurd. Completely agree. The phrase "this is why we can't have nice things" comes to mind. I can sort of understand the backlash against corporate shuttles or even Uber, since these roll in and only benefit a certain layer of society. However, that decidedly does not seem to be the case with these bikes. From the article: > “When you look at the transportation privileges that have been provided for these techies, and when you now look at these bikes, it’s not for Juan. It ain’t for Pablo ... The feeling of people in this community is like we don’t exist.” But then: > Supporters [...] claimed it is one of the most accessible in the country, with a $5 annual membership for low-income people and options to sign up without a credit or debit card. This just sounds like complaining about change for the sake of it. Then again, maybe this whole anti-gentrification story is overblown. It could just be bored kids with no larger agenda. After all, the article even mentions it's common for vandals to target bike sharing systems when they first appear.