3 ms·

They can certainly try to impact policy, but are they able to? Immigration reform is stymied, net neutrality is lost. In California, major issues include Prop

by erehweb 13y ago

They can certainly try to impact policy, but are they able to? Immigration reform is stymied, net neutrality is lost. In California, major issues include Prop 13 limiting property tax increases, resistance to development in SF, and arguably rent control in SF. See no evidence that FB or Goog would be able to make any difference to these - big blocks of voters like things how they are.

rdl 13y ago
Tech companies do have power on the Peninsula itself. The best thing they could do is try to fix the building height restrictions along the Caltrain corridor, and licensing rules for food/bar/entertainment, to make the Peninsula a more attractive place for 30something (if not 20something) employees. Mountain View and Cupertino, at least, seem to behave relatively sanely. Santa Clara almost goes too far as an industry town.
- Crito 13y ago
  I'm not sure anything could piss off SF tech company protesters more than Facebook/Google attempting to fix building height restrictions. At the core of it, these people have a xenophobic fear of change. They might be making noise about rent prices now, but if these companies tried to address this concern, the concerns would shift.
  - argumentum 13y ago
    rdl was talking about buildings in the peninsula & south bay, not in SF.
  - rdl 13y ago
    I think one of their explicit goals is "techies get out" -- if everyone moved to San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and SF tax base dropped, it'd be self-correcting. The problem is the Peninsula actually is boring, at least for single people who don't drive. I'd rather see SFBA tech contribute $10-20b on making the Peninsula an awesome place to live, rather than trying to fix SF's infrastructure and politics. Plus, there's money to be made doing it.
kunle 13y ago
A lot of this stuff takes longer than you'd liked and is more difficult/intractable (but that's politics). The bigger question is - without knowing what they could/can't achieve going in, can they afford NOT to try to make changes? Imagine what the SF housing/policy landscape would look like if these companies double headcount over the next 5 years. What's happening with the buses will pale in comparison (and the worst part is the buses aren't even the issue, they're just visible).
- rdl 13y ago
  I wonder how many of the employees themselves are not eligible to vote (H1B/etc.). A lot of the political power of a big employer comes from two things: 1) Large voting bloc of employees 2) BATNA to getting their way: credible threat to move. Google can't credibly threaten to move out of SFBA, sadly, and Twitter couldn't credibly threaten to move to Brisbane (because, Brisbane is crap). If Twitter hadn't had crazy political connections, mid-market wouldn't have happened. You don't get large amounts of power just by paying a lot of taxes or employing a lot of people; if there are big voting groups who dislike you, you're still screwed.

by erehweb 13y ago

rdl 13y ago

Tech companies do have power on the Peninsula itself. The best thing they could do is try to fix the building height restrictions along the Caltrain corridor, and licensing rules for food/bar/entertainment, to make the Peninsula a more attractive place for 30something (if not 20something) employees. Mountain View and Cupertino, at least, seem to behave relatively sanely. Santa Clara almost goes too far as an industry town.

Crito 13y ago
I'm not sure anything could piss off SF tech company protesters more than Facebook/Google attempting to fix building height restrictions. At the core of it, these people have a xenophobic fear of change. They might be making noise about rent prices now, but if these companies tried to address this concern, the concerns would shift.
- argumentum 13y ago
  rdl was talking about buildings in the peninsula & south bay, not in SF.
- rdl 13y ago
  I think one of their explicit goals is "techies get out" -- if everyone moved to San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and SF tax base dropped, it'd be self-correcting. The problem is the Peninsula actually is boring, at least for single people who don't drive. I'd rather see SFBA tech contribute $10-20b on making the Peninsula an awesome place to live, rather than trying to fix SF's infrastructure and politics. Plus, there's money to be made doing it.

kunle 13y ago

A lot of this stuff takes longer than you'd liked and is more difficult/intractable (but that's politics). The bigger question is - without knowing what they could/can't achieve going in, can they afford NOT to try to make changes? Imagine what the SF housing/policy landscape would look like if these companies double headcount over the next 5 years. What's happening with the buses will pale in comparison (and the worst part is the buses aren't even the issue, they're just visible).

rdl 13y ago
I wonder how many of the employees themselves are not eligible to vote (H1B/etc.). A lot of the political power of a big employer comes from two things: 1) Large voting bloc of employees 2) BATNA to getting their way: credible threat to move. Google can't credibly threaten to move out of SFBA, sadly, and Twitter couldn't credibly threaten to move to Brisbane (because, Brisbane is crap). If Twitter hadn't had crazy political connections, mid-market wouldn't have happened. You don't get large amounts of power just by paying a lot of taxes or employing a lot of people; if there are big voting groups who dislike you, you're still screwed.