5 ms·

The reason I'm personally excited by this is because SV corporations often seem to wash their hands about any significant civic output (other than occasional do

The reason I'm personally excited by this is because SV corporations often seem to wash their hands about any significant civic output (other than occasional donations to non-profits) because it should be the responsibility of the government. In the world we inhabit, where companies in some ways can exert much greater power locally (in some specific ways) than a local government can, they should step up and use some of that power to help the general good. Companies like Google can at the drop of hat move tens of thousands of works into a municipality; if they're choosing to exercise that right they should think about other ways they can make that change responsibly.

Kalium 12y ago
Personally, I view this as symptomatic of the NIMBY-ism that pervades SV and SF. Both want all the money that comes from tech and can be relied upon to want the people to go somewhere else. That a company has to pick up the "civic output" slack says a great deal about the failings of Mountain View and its voters.
pyrocat 12y ago
I, for one, welcome our new feudal corporate overlords. But seriously, it's great that Google is doing this. I just wish they didn't have to.
brandonmenc 12y ago
> corporations often seem to wash their hands about any significant civic output because it should be the responsibility of the government Public transit is the responsibility of the government. If you want these companies to contribute more, raise taxes.
- sp332 12y ago
  Raising taxes is inefficient and indirect. By providing buses, Google (et al.) can quickly address a need in the community. And they don't need to use other people's money to do it.
  - username223 12y ago
    > Google (et al.) can quickly address a need in the community. And therein lies the problem. Who are "et al." and "the community"? How much does each of them pay? Where do the buses go? Who's allowed to use them, and how do you keep people who aren't from doing so anyways? It's almost like you need to create a decision-making body with the ability to raise and spend money, and make and enforce rules. An Alþing? Folkmoot? I'm sure we have a word for this.
    - sp332 12y ago
      The buses are already regulated by the city. The city doesn't need to own them.
  - r00fus 12y ago
    This is a 2-year trial with an option for a 3rd. I agree this is, overall, a good thing for the residents of MV, but it's not equivalent to county-wide transpiration services that spans cities and has been around for decades. Interested to see if this improves things. Apple would be wise to fund or provide a similar service for Cupertino/Sunnyvale once their Campus2 goes online - can you imagine the amount of traffic congestion that will cause?
  - brandonmenc 12y ago
    Google has no obligation to address any need. And when - surprise - they don't, people get all bent out of shape and protest for months until Google caves and buys some buses. That's inefficient.

Kalium 12y ago

Personally, I view this as symptomatic of the NIMBY-ism that pervades SV and SF. Both want all the money that comes from tech and can be relied upon to want the people to go somewhere else. That a company has to pick up the "civic output" slack says a great deal about the failings of Mountain View and its voters.

pyrocat 12y ago

I, for one, welcome our new feudal corporate overlords. But seriously, it's great that Google is doing this. I just wish they didn't have to.

brandonmenc 12y ago

> corporations often seem to wash their hands about any significant civic output because it should be the responsibility of the government Public transit is the responsibility of the government. If you want these companies to contribute more, raise taxes.

sp332 12y ago
Raising taxes is inefficient and indirect. By providing buses, Google (et al.) can quickly address a need in the community. And they don't need to use other people's money to do it.
- username223 12y ago
  > Google (et al.) can quickly address a need in the community. And therein lies the problem. Who are "et al." and "the community"? How much does each of them pay? Where do the buses go? Who's allowed to use them, and how do you keep people who aren't from doing so anyways? It's almost like you need to create a decision-making body with the ability to raise and spend money, and make and enforce rules. An Alþing? Folkmoot? I'm sure we have a word for this.
  - sp332 12y ago
    The buses are already regulated by the city. The city doesn't need to own them.
- r00fus 12y ago
  This is a 2-year trial with an option for a 3rd. I agree this is, overall, a good thing for the residents of MV, but it's not equivalent to county-wide transpiration services that spans cities and has been around for decades. Interested to see if this improves things. Apple would be wise to fund or provide a similar service for Cupertino/Sunnyvale once their Campus2 goes online - can you imagine the amount of traffic congestion that will cause?
- brandonmenc 12y ago
  Google has no obligation to address any need. And when - surprise - they don't, people get all bent out of shape and protest for months until Google caves and buys some buses. That's inefficient.