4 ms·

I don't understand why people target the shuttle buses. For decades I've been hearing all about those rotten suburban commuters who make money in the city and

by tsotha 13y ago

I don't understand why people target the shuttle buses. For decades I've been hearing all about those rotten suburban commuters who make money in the city and pay taxes somewhere else. Now we have a group of people doing exactly the opposite and somehow they're rotten too.

BlackDeath3 13y ago
Because wealth is clearly a zero-sum game. If I'm poor, it's because you're wealthy, and that's your fault! Right?
robinhoode 13y ago
Having money makes you a target. Period.
Crito 13y ago
It is simple: People just love being jealous of those who have slightly more than them. Neighbor Jim buys a car every 4 years, and you buy a car every 6 years? Obviously Jim is an asshole scumbag. Neighbor Sam has a swimming pool, but your kids just have some squirt guns? Don't even get me started on that guy!
waterlesscloud 13y ago
They could both make money and live in the city, which would make the city a better place. Turning the city into a bedroom community is bad for the city. It works in suburbs because suburbs are designed that way. Sprawl, low density, distribution of goods and services. Cities are not designed that way. High density produces higher rents, for homes and for businesses. Businesses with high rents can't survive when the neighborhood is only occupied at night and on weekends. What you have here are people who want the advantages of this city, but aren't around enough to make it worth providing those advantages. The medium term outcome of this is pretty clear- many businesses in SF are going to go under. Most of what makes SF unique is going to be driven out by cost. What you'll be left with is some sort of bizarre bedroom city that no one really enjoys any more. And then what?
- tptacek 13y ago
  What advantages are they supposed to be providing to the city? They pay taxes in the city. They are customers for the city's businesses. The eat in the city's restaurants. They have a stake in the upkeep of the city's properties.
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    You mis-read that. The point is that they don't make it worthwhile to businesses to provide those advantages. They aren't there 12+ hours a day, only at night, when people spend less money anyway, so how could they? They aren't sufficient customers for the city's businesses and restaurants. Later at night, a bit. On weekends, some. During the work week? Not at all. And that works in bedroom communities where rents and other costs are lower. It doesn't work in cities.
- prostoalex 13y ago
  Wait, wasn't it a few months ago that San Francisco was battling with too many people working in the city, but not enough people living in the city, which prompted the tax hikes on tech companies, which Twitter then has been able to avoid by agreeing to locate an office in an undesirable neighborhood? Couple thousand commuters to the Valley are not going to turn a million-resident city into sleepy bedroom community with only soccer Moms driving occasional minivans.
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    Let's check back in 7-8 years. By then it's too late, of course, but the situation will at least be obvious.

by tsotha 13y ago

BlackDeath3 13y ago

Because wealth is clearly a zero-sum game. If I'm poor, it's because you're wealthy, and that's your fault! Right?

robinhoode 13y ago

Having money makes you a target. Period.

Crito 13y ago

It is simple: People just love being jealous of those who have slightly more than them. Neighbor Jim buys a car every 4 years, and you buy a car every 6 years? Obviously Jim is an asshole scumbag. Neighbor Sam has a swimming pool, but your kids just have some squirt guns? Don't even get me started on that guy!

waterlesscloud 13y ago

They could both make money and live in the city, which would make the city a better place. Turning the city into a bedroom community is bad for the city. It works in suburbs because suburbs are designed that way. Sprawl, low density, distribution of goods and services. Cities are not designed that way. High density produces higher rents, for homes and for businesses. Businesses with high rents can't survive when the neighborhood is only occupied at night and on weekends. What you have here are people who want the advantages of this city, but aren't around enough to make it worth providing those advantages. The medium term outcome of this is pretty clear- many businesses in SF are going to go under. Most of what makes SF unique is going to be driven out by cost. What you'll be left with is some sort of bizarre bedroom city that no one really enjoys any more. And then what?

tptacek 13y ago
What advantages are they supposed to be providing to the city? They pay taxes in the city. They are customers for the city's businesses. The eat in the city's restaurants. They have a stake in the upkeep of the city's properties.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  You mis-read that. The point is that they don't make it worthwhile to businesses to provide those advantages. They aren't there 12+ hours a day, only at night, when people spend less money anyway, so how could they? They aren't sufficient customers for the city's businesses and restaurants. Later at night, a bit. On weekends, some. During the work week? Not at all. And that works in bedroom communities where rents and other costs are lower. It doesn't work in cities.
prostoalex 13y ago
Wait, wasn't it a few months ago that San Francisco was battling with too many people working in the city, but not enough people living in the city, which prompted the tax hikes on tech companies, which Twitter then has been able to avoid by agreeing to locate an office in an undesirable neighborhood? Couple thousand commuters to the Valley are not going to turn a million-resident city into sleepy bedroom community with only soccer Moms driving occasional minivans.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  Let's check back in 7-8 years. By then it's too late, of course, but the situation will at least be obvious.