[tomkarlo]

I'm not sure it's right to call this "journalism." It's an individual opinion that doesn't seem to be supported by much actual investigation, or reporting. It's how she sees the world through her eyes and imagines things to be, based on her experience and anecdote, much of which is grossly inaccurate.

Would she be happier if Google didn't offer buses, folks were forced to either drive individual cars or live outside of SF, and SF couldn't collect all those tax dollars it needs to fund its immense city budget?

If SF didn't have the tech industry and adjacent biotech industry, it would be another Detroit - a post-industrial city without a new source of external income. Instead, the Bay Area benefits from rising real estate values, tax revenues and an international profile.

[angersock]

Instead, the Bay Area benefits from rising real estate values, tax revenues and an international profile.

I think that's sort of the central point of the article, though--as this gentrification and displacement of established community members continues, what exactly is "The Bay Area" that is benefiting?

Is it the real estate holding companies (many of them likely international)? Is the current batch of fresh faces for the tech grinder, until they make enough money and burn out enough to move elsewhere? Is it the visiting people who want to see what SF is like?

The author seems to suggest--rightly or wrongly--that the true Bay Area is the established communities, the hobos, the homeless, the old, the artists, and that none of these groups are actually getting anything out of this deal.

(disclaimer: I live in Houston, so I have no idea what the day-to-day of the Bay Area is like. We've got very low cost of living here, terrible public transit, poor bikability, and no zoning...and I don't think I'd trade it for anywhere else in the States.)

[tomkarlo]

"Real estate holding companies?"

The broad majority of SF housing is one or two family dwellings. (I'd guess as much as 90% of the city.) They're mostly occupied by owners, not rented, so the folks who benefit are the existing residents of the city who own their homes.

[taligent]

You seem to be getting oddly defensive and completely missing her point.

It isn't that IT/Biotech doesn't have a role to play in San Francisco. It does. But rather it should be more mindful about its impact on the broader community. The large number of well paid IT workers do badly distort pricing e.g. housing and IT companies should apply more pressure on governments to improve infrastructure wherever possible. It's always a legitimate point to consider the gap between the "haves" and "have nots".

And the Google bus was meant to be symbolic. I doubt she has an actual problem with it.

[tomkarlo]

I'd have to take issue with the idea that an influx of well-paid workers "distorts" the housing market. Do they drive housing prices up? Yes. Is that really a "distortion"? It seems like the normal process of supply and demand to me.

What I'm taking issue with is the underlying hypocrisy of folks who want the benefits of this influx (higher taxes, more city services, young people moving to town and spending their money) while complaining about what they perceive to be the negative effects like higher rents and Google Buses. They fail to note how many negatives would come from _not_ having a robust industry locally - fewer city services due to less tax revenue, more crime and an aging population that earns less and leans on city services more.

SF spends more per-capita on social services and non-profits than just about any other major US city. That budget comes in large part from the paychecks of these single young people who are choosing to pay some of the highest total federal/state/city taxes in the nation. That's why I find these kind of pieces hugely objectionable. Their underlying message is "we'll take your money, but you're an outsider that's not really welcome here."