> They'd be more believable if they fixed their own literal and metaphorical neighborhoods first before continuing their personal campaigns of empire. How? I'

> They'd be more believable if they fixed their own literal and metaphorical neighborhoods first before continuing their personal campaigns of empire. How? I'm serious about that - I think most of the tech billionaires who care enough to seriously support UBI are trying to fix their communities. Lots of people think their ideas like deregulation or more technology-focused schooling are counterproductive, but they seem largely well-meant. (The deregulation stuff in particular looks like a matter of principle; we have long-standing examples of what it looks like to push that selfishly.) But all they have is money, really. The push for expanded housing has been choked by zoning boards and courts since Day 1. The tech industry has surprisingly little political influence because California is so large, and so entrenched with old-school Democrats. And "it came from tech" is basically enough to sink any kind of community initiative among anti-gentrification forces: low-cost annual bike shares were designed as a community good accessible to the poor, and the response was still to destroy all of the bikes as gentrification. "Throw money to people" is pretty much what's left to them, and UBI is a more stable approach to that than charity; even tech billionaires can't cover SF's housing costs alone. I'm not even trying to defend tech billionaires here, particularly. I just don't want us to make all other change contingent on fixing San Francisco neighborhoods - because it seems like no one actually has an answer to that.