[dkl]

This is the wrong fight. Protester vs. Googler is a distraction. There are other, root causes of the problem that make the protesters angry, and doing this might relieve some frustration for them, but it does no good, and arguably does harm to their cause and gets us no closer to real solutions.

Back in the 70's, Berkeley, a close neighbor, decided that rent control was the answer. It turns out that it helped, but it had too many unintended consequences (people living in $200 nice apartments for decades when they made really good money, thus completely defeating the purpose of rent control).

So, rent control didn't work, at least not in the way it was done in Berkeley. Did it work in SF? Doesn't seem to have. NYC? I hear nightmare stores of their issues.

It's the dialog of the greater problems we need to have, not these stupid little fights.

[sliverstorm]

Abolishing rent control might be the big-picture answer, but in the micro- scheme, the protestors will never rally for that.

They really don't have a winning play that I can think of; the spat is basically just them lashing out at the only thing they can think to lash out at. They are in the unenviable position of living at low cost in low density housing in a locality that is shooting up in value, and all they can do is attempt to forestall the inevitable.

[waps]

Or they can get elected and introduce more rent control.

[sliverstorm]

More rent control doesn't help them. Rent control for everybody means the wealthy pay less on rent too. Rent control for only the poor doesn't work, and Section 8 is too unpopular for them to roll out a widespread program like that for everybody who doesn't work for Google.

[refurb]

It's an issue in SF as well. NY Times article states that 27% of individuals in rent controlled units make more than $107K/yr.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/us/san-francisco-rent-cont...

[fennecfoxen]

> NYC? I hear nightmare stores of their issues.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Bronx is burning.