4 ms·
> And what tech ceo is showing up at city council meetings up and down the peninsula demanding more housing, or in any fucking way using the platform their job
by Kalium 12y ago
> And what tech ceo is showing up at city council meetings up and down the peninsula demanding more housing, or in any fucking way using the platform their job gives them to help even their own employees, let alone other people in their communities?
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/18/technology/google_zoning/ http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/18/technology/google_zoning/
Care to guess how that went? Tech CEOs are doing the jobs you proclaim them to not be.
> Yup. Fuck grannie -- why didn't she anticipate rental prices doubling in 5 years?
She didn't need to. She just needed to know that since she didn't own the property, she was at risk. That's the risk you take when you rent - you don't get the safety of owning.
This has been true for centuries. Don't treat it like a novelty.
> Piss on off out of your community, family, job, network, etc etc etc.
I don't know about you, but I've done this. Multiple times. It hasn't killed me. It's not always fun, but that's life.
Since you're here, I'll ask you - what do you think the correct and acceptable way for someone to move to and live in SF is?
- x0x0 12y agoOne letter from google -- um, golf clap? Contrast that with what a company does when they actually want something. eg Twitter and their tax break [1]. They threaten to leave sf, testimony at the council, meetings with councilpeople, lobbying, etc. But no no -- one letter means google is actively working for more housing.
- Kalium 12y agoMy point is that they do try. It just doesn't get results. What would you have them do? Pick up, move, and crash the regional economy? EDIT: If you look, you'll find that it comes up quite often. It's far from just one letter.
- x0x0 12y agoum, they don't actually try, and nothing you've found disproves that. But one letter was sent!
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- Kalium 12y agoThere's actually quite a lot of material out there about Google wanting to build more housing. http://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2012/07/13/google-housing-axed-in-citys-general-plan http://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2012/07/13/google-housin... http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2010/02/16/google-pressures-city-over-n-bayshore-plan http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2010/02/16/google-pressures-cit... http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2008/06/18/google-hotel-falls-through http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2008/06/18/google-hotel-falls-t... And that's just one website. There's lots out there. It hasn't happened, but not because Google hasn't tried. What do you expect them to do?
- x0x0 12y agoThe same amount of effort as when lobbying for something they actually want. As I said above. See eg twitter for tax breaks, or the $16m google spent lobbying the US alone in 2013 [1]. Or the ceo going to council meetings and being actively involved. Or any of a dozen things you could think of yourself that would demonstrate google actually investing some effort into housing. Or transport. But no -- your links show they sent a letter. You even found a second article mentioning what appears to be the same letter from David Radcliffe. You've searched the local mountain view papers and there's three whole mentions of google "working" for more housing dating all the way back to 2008... but they sent a letter. (Note they couldn't even be bothered to send someone representing the company to show up to testify at the meeting regarding their letter.) They're working overtime on this. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000022008 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00002200...
- Kalium 12y agoJust to be clear, your position is that Google should invest many millions into things that aren't business concerns at all for them. At a time when they get massive amounts of blowback for any attempt to be involved in local politics. Is that right?