42 ms·

The Tech Industry vs. San Francisco

41 points by sizzle 12y ago

zachrose 12y ago
> “The shuttle buses are nothing but a symbol of the issue,” [Ron Conway] told me, gazing out at a thin swell of mist over the water. “The buses serve a real useful purpose, and help the environment by not putting people in cars.” Another way to think about it is that tech buses compete with public transportation. If you want to reduce traffic and help non-employee citizens, invest in the existing public system.
- nerfhammer 12y ago
  The buses don't compete with public transit as they cover cross-county routes for which there basically is no feasible public alternative vs driving. And the constituent counties have historically often resisted cooperating with each other to expand public transit agencies.
  - jarek 12y ago
    > The buses don't compete with public transit as they cover cross-county routes for which there basically is no feasible public alternative vs driving. So try to fix that. The distance is hardly unbridgeable with public transport and express point-to-point public services are hardly a novel idea. > And the constituent counties have historically often resisted cooperating with each other to expand public transit agencies. So try to fix that. Ah but that's more difficult than putting a private system on public assets.
    - davidw 12y ago
      It's not their job to fix all of the problems and politics of the bay area. If they wanted, they'd be well withing their rights to just say "fuck it, you lot can drive". Long term, it'd be nice if the public transportation improved, but you know what? The haters would find something else to whine about, like public dollars going to transport workers at a huge company like Google, because they had "meddled in the political process with their fat wallet", or some such thing.
      - jarek 12y ago
        > It's not their job to fix all of the problems and politics of the bay area. No. But currently they're hardly solving any problems, creating more, and wondering why they're not popular.
        davidw 12y ago
        > they're hardly solving any problems They got a bunch of people off the roads by providing a bus. That's good for the environment, traffic, and their workers, who don't have to deal with a stressful drive. Seems like a pretty good solution to me, even if it's not perfect. To me it looks like people just want excuses to hate on successful companies in the tech industry.
        jarek 12y ago
        > _hardly_ I can't make it 36 pt unfortunately...
      - supersystem 12y ago
        "The haters would find something else to whine about" Because people who don't agree with you are "haters that whine"? It's not exactly hard to find out what they want and that it's not primarily about the buses. There's also plenty of reasons why the buses aren't good for people in the tech industry. Especially for entrepreneurs that want to compete with these companies.
        davidw 12y ago
        I thought this article did a pretty good job of explaining things: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ Yeah, there are plenty of people with legitimate gripes, but having grown up in a place with its fair share of them.... it seems there is a category of people who are just out there looking for something to get riled up about. And it seems quite wrong to target the people and companies when they're just doing what they do and happening to make money at it. If there's a housing problem, address that, no? They might as well shake their fists at the internet itself, because that is what's helping the companies make the money, with which they pay the people, who drive up the prices.
    - furyg3 12y ago
      I sometimes barbecue on my sidewalk where I live. I assume it's legal (I'm taking a risk), or at least it's tolerated by my neighbors and police officers walking by. This is probably because it's only me, I'm not causing any trouble, I share, and clean up. I assume if everyone started BBQing (or someone started complaining about me) the local government would need to look into it and figure something out: Is he breaking a law? Do we need a law? A guideline? A public BBQ? Etc. At this point common sense and public debate can start. It'd be silly for me to run for mayor or start a statewide proposition for sidewalk BBQing when I just want some hot dogs. Tech workers needed to get from their houses to their office, but there was no existing convenient way of doing this. So they bought a bus. Then more. Others followed. Now there are some questions arising and society (read: government) needs to get involved. How many busses are allowed? Can they use bus stops? Should we charge them? A little for usage or a lot for subsidizing other's transport? Should Muni buy new comfy buses with wifi and run new routes to mountain view? Can they do that or does the other transit authority have rules against that? Would people ride this, or would it be a waste of money? Perfectly reasonable questions, which should be debated and negotiated. But not from day one. But let's be honest: it's not about the busses. It's about inequality.
      - jarek 12y ago
        > I share, and clean up You're doing more than Google :)
- seanflyon 12y ago
  > Another way to think about it is that tech buses compete with public transportation. This is a nonsensical way of looking at it. If the city opened up new bus lines going straight to and from Google and Facebook all the same people would be complaining about tax dollars being misappropriated by the rich. And they would be right. Why should everyone else pay for a bus straight to Google when only Googlers benefit?
optimusclimb 12y ago
I'm so tired of reading this stuff. I really feel like I'm taking crazy pills. If anything, it sounds to me like staunch creationists arguing that "both sides" of the "debate" need to be heard. At this point I attribute most of it to basic human envy, or perhaps even just not liking the "nerds" getting ahead. Most of us here work in tech. We know our co-workers. We know where we came from. For many of us, years growing up spent reading, tinkering, being maybe a little anti-social. A lot of us probably found a computer at a young age, and just felt a compulsion to learn how it worked. Now we're getting paid for it. I guess I just don't see this greedy group of evil doers out to ruin a city when I look at the people I've encountered in the industry. I see people who got a bit lucky that their passion became profitable. I mean, bashing Google busses? Yes, Google created a perk, but they created it because a lot of their workers wanted to live in the city, and it beat having them all bring cars into SF and clog the 101. But I guess if you're a tech nerd, you're not supposed to live in the city, because that's for OTHER people, not you. Do doctors, lawyers, and people in finance get harangued constantly in other cities? (substitute anyone with a well paying job) Do they have to take surveys about their donation habits to charities, and if they didn't, answer why not? Why do we collectively put up with this? It really all seems to boil down to a class of people deciding that "techies" aren't worthy of living in THEIR city, and that's that.
- jarek 12y ago
  > Do doctors, lawyers, and people in finance get harangued constantly in other cities? (substitute anyone with a well paying job) Do they have to take surveys about their donation habits to charities, and if they didn't, answer why not? Well, yes. Go around New York saying you're an investment banker and see what people think of you. > Why do we collectively put up with this? Why indeed?
- schrijver 12y ago
  Crazy pills? Hardly. Demand for living in a certain area grows, prices get higher, people who used be able to afford living in that area can’t afford to live there any more. I’d be angry and envious too with the people moving in. Even if they might not have evil intentions, they are indirectly responsible for driving me out—just by wanting to live there and being willing to pay a premium.
CalRobert 12y ago
It doesn't help that cities (Mountain View comes to mind) have made it illegal to build the high-density mixed-use development that are part of the reason people want to live in SF and not, say, Fremont. Who wants to live in a big house in the middle of nowhere and have to drive everywhere?
- jarek 12y ago
  Suburbs have a huge role here. The City & County is small geographically. Parts of it could definitely be densified and improved (not the parts where your prototypical 20s tech worker currently wants to live, but that's part of the challenge), but improving the suburbs and creating connections will have a much better payoff.
- w1ntermute 12y ago
  > Who wants to live in a big house in the middle of nowhere and have to drive everywhere? The people who already live in those areas?
- paul_f 12y ago
  "Who wants to live in a big house in the middle of nowhere and have to drive everywhere?" I do. Keep in mind, not everyone shares the same idea of nirvana.
  - davidw 12y ago
    There's plenty of space for both, but in the US, regulation is entirely - or nearly so - in favor of one kind of system: http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO?tag=dedasys-20 http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078X... Less regulation would likely lead to diverse kinds of housing being available, and I'm sure there would still be plenty of suburbs.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  It boggles my mind that people think the solution to a housing shortage is something other than more housing.

41 points by sizzle 12y ago

> “The shuttle buses are nothing but a symbol of the issue,” [Ron Conway] told me, gazing out at a thin swell of mist over the water. “The buses serve a real useful purpose, and help the environment by not putting people in cars.” Another way to think about it is that tech buses compete with public transportation. If you want to reduce traffic and help non-employee citizens, invest in the existing public system.

nerfhammer 12y ago
The buses don't compete with public transit as they cover cross-county routes for which there basically is no feasible public alternative vs driving. And the constituent counties have historically often resisted cooperating with each other to expand public transit agencies.
- jarek 12y ago
  > The buses don't compete with public transit as they cover cross-county routes for which there basically is no feasible public alternative vs driving. So try to fix that. The distance is hardly unbridgeable with public transport and express point-to-point public services are hardly a novel idea. > And the constituent counties have historically often resisted cooperating with each other to expand public transit agencies. So try to fix that. Ah but that's more difficult than putting a private system on public assets.
  - davidw 12y ago
    It's not their job to fix all of the problems and politics of the bay area. If they wanted, they'd be well withing their rights to just say "fuck it, you lot can drive". Long term, it'd be nice if the public transportation improved, but you know what? The haters would find something else to whine about, like public dollars going to transport workers at a huge company like Google, because they had "meddled in the political process with their fat wallet", or some such thing.
    - jarek 12y ago
      > It's not their job to fix all of the problems and politics of the bay area. No. But currently they're hardly solving any problems, creating more, and wondering why they're not popular.
      - davidw 12y ago
        > they're hardly solving any problems They got a bunch of people off the roads by providing a bus. That's good for the environment, traffic, and their workers, who don't have to deal with a stressful drive. Seems like a pretty good solution to me, even if it's not perfect. To me it looks like people just want excuses to hate on successful companies in the tech industry.
        jarek 12y ago
        > _hardly_ I can't make it 36 pt unfortunately...
    - supersystem 12y ago
      "The haters would find something else to whine about" Because people who don't agree with you are "haters that whine"? It's not exactly hard to find out what they want and that it's not primarily about the buses. There's also plenty of reasons why the buses aren't good for people in the tech industry. Especially for entrepreneurs that want to compete with these companies.
      - davidw 12y ago
        I thought this article did a pretty good job of explaining things: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ Yeah, there are plenty of people with legitimate gripes, but having grown up in a place with its fair share of them.... it seems there is a category of people who are just out there looking for something to get riled up about. And it seems quite wrong to target the people and companies when they're just doing what they do and happening to make money at it. If there's a housing problem, address that, no? They might as well shake their fists at the internet itself, because that is what's helping the companies make the money, with which they pay the people, who drive up the prices.
  - furyg3 12y ago
    I sometimes barbecue on my sidewalk where I live. I assume it's legal (I'm taking a risk), or at least it's tolerated by my neighbors and police officers walking by. This is probably because it's only me, I'm not causing any trouble, I share, and clean up. I assume if everyone started BBQing (or someone started complaining about me) the local government would need to look into it and figure something out: Is he breaking a law? Do we need a law? A guideline? A public BBQ? Etc. At this point common sense and public debate can start. It'd be silly for me to run for mayor or start a statewide proposition for sidewalk BBQing when I just want some hot dogs. Tech workers needed to get from their houses to their office, but there was no existing convenient way of doing this. So they bought a bus. Then more. Others followed. Now there are some questions arising and society (read: government) needs to get involved. How many busses are allowed? Can they use bus stops? Should we charge them? A little for usage or a lot for subsidizing other's transport? Should Muni buy new comfy buses with wifi and run new routes to mountain view? Can they do that or does the other transit authority have rules against that? Would people ride this, or would it be a waste of money? Perfectly reasonable questions, which should be debated and negotiated. But not from day one. But let's be honest: it's not about the busses. It's about inequality.
    - jarek 12y ago
      > I share, and clean up You're doing more than Google :)
seanflyon 12y ago
> Another way to think about it is that tech buses compete with public transportation. This is a nonsensical way of looking at it. If the city opened up new bus lines going straight to and from Google and Facebook all the same people would be complaining about tax dollars being misappropriated by the rich. And they would be right. Why should everyone else pay for a bus straight to Google when only Googlers benefit?

optimusclimb 12y ago

I'm so tired of reading this stuff. I really feel like I'm taking crazy pills. If anything, it sounds to me like staunch creationists arguing that "both sides" of the "debate" need to be heard. At this point I attribute most of it to basic human envy, or perhaps even just not liking the "nerds" getting ahead. Most of us here work in tech. We know our co-workers. We know where we came from. For many of us, years growing up spent reading, tinkering, being maybe a little anti-social. A lot of us probably found a computer at a young age, and just felt a compulsion to learn how it worked. Now we're getting paid for it. I guess I just don't see this greedy group of evil doers out to ruin a city when I look at the people I've encountered in the industry. I see people who got a bit lucky that their passion became profitable. I mean, bashing Google busses? Yes, Google created a perk, but they created it because a lot of their workers wanted to live in the city, and it beat having them all bring cars into SF and clog the 101. But I guess if you're a tech nerd, you're not supposed to live in the city, because that's for OTHER people, not you. Do doctors, lawyers, and people in finance get harangued constantly in other cities? (substitute anyone with a well paying job) Do they have to take surveys about their donation habits to charities, and if they didn't, answer why not? Why do we collectively put up with this? It really all seems to boil down to a class of people deciding that "techies" aren't worthy of living in THEIR city, and that's that.

jarek 12y ago
> Do doctors, lawyers, and people in finance get harangued constantly in other cities? (substitute anyone with a well paying job) Do they have to take surveys about their donation habits to charities, and if they didn't, answer why not? Well, yes. Go around New York saying you're an investment banker and see what people think of you. > Why do we collectively put up with this? Why indeed?
schrijver 12y ago
Crazy pills? Hardly. Demand for living in a certain area grows, prices get higher, people who used be able to afford living in that area can’t afford to live there any more. I’d be angry and envious too with the people moving in. Even if they might not have evil intentions, they are indirectly responsible for driving me out—just by wanting to live there and being willing to pay a premium.

CalRobert 12y ago

It doesn't help that cities (Mountain View comes to mind) have made it illegal to build the high-density mixed-use development that are part of the reason people want to live in SF and not, say, Fremont. Who wants to live in a big house in the middle of nowhere and have to drive everywhere?

jarek 12y ago
Suburbs have a huge role here. The City & County is small geographically. Parts of it could definitely be densified and improved (not the parts where your prototypical 20s tech worker currently wants to live, but that's part of the challenge), but improving the suburbs and creating connections will have a much better payoff.
w1ntermute 12y ago
> Who wants to live in a big house in the middle of nowhere and have to drive everywhere? The people who already live in those areas?
paul_f 12y ago
"Who wants to live in a big house in the middle of nowhere and have to drive everywhere?" I do. Keep in mind, not everyone shares the same idea of nirvana.
- davidw 12y ago
  There's plenty of space for both, but in the US, regulation is entirely - or nearly so - in favor of one kind of system: http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO?tag=dedasys-20 http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078X... Less regulation would likely lead to diverse kinds of housing being available, and I'm sure there would still be plenty of suburbs.
seanflyon 12y ago
It boggles my mind that people think the solution to a housing shortage is something other than more housing.