[wybo]

Is this really happening? If it is, it brings up an interesting issue.

Private public transport can out compete public transport. But then school buses already do this as well (compared to Europe). Though I did commute using SF buses, and I fully understand why one would not prefer ones kids to travel on them, and even why one would prefer company buses.

As for rents, true, but can that not mostly be blamed on restrictive building regulations? Not so much with regards to standards as well with regards to limits to flats and highrise buildings. As there is an undisputed market demand for more housing in the bay-area.

Imho protesters are a tad misguided in who they are targeting.

[brudgers]

Let's get terms straight. Google is providing private mass transport. It's no more public transport than a charter liquor and gambling bus to Atlantic City. If it was public transport non-Googlers would ride for similar tariffs - ok that's probably inaccurate since poor riders would have their transport subsidized rather than Google's subsidy to those more affluent.

Google's buses are solving more traffic problems in MountainView than San Francisco and relieving the congestion that most impacts commuters from San Francisco to their campus. If the service had to meet the requirements for public transportation i.e. meeting public needs, Google would shut it down.

[macspoofing]

>If it was public transport non-Googlers would ride for similar tariffs

...and be subsidized by tax-payers (because public transit systems in big cities don't break-even on fares - and forget about capital projects, those always need government funds). So this is still a net-win for the city. Googlers subsidize a system they don't use to get to work.

[brudgers]

A company in Mountain View is using San Francisco's public infrastructure for private purposes and not paying for the costs associated with that infrastructure. Furthermore a plausible case has been made that Google's use of San Francisco's public infrastructure is having a negative impact on some of San Francisco's citizens. The impacted citizens are paying for the public infrastructure in their city.

In essence the citizens of San Francisco are subsidizing the tax payers of Mountain View because of their unwillingness to create affordable housing and provide public transit that serves the needs of its workforce. Google's buses are the means by which that subsidy occurs.

There is nothing preventing Google from routes that pickup and deliver exclusively upon private property. Nor is there anything preventing Google from opening access to its bus service to the public.

There is not even anything to prevent them from operating their bus service at a profit...except the impossibility of doing so.

[macspoofing]

Are you for real?

>A company in Mountain View is using San Francisco's public infrastructure for private purposes and not paying for the costs associated with that infrastructure.

You mean roads? Public roads, built to serve San Francisco citizens? Those roads?

And that theft that the despicable Mountain View company is committing involves providing a service for San Fran employees who would otherwise drive into work and congest the roads and pollute the air, or worse, not live in San Fran? It seems like the implication is that it's better that these engineering yuppies not live in San Fran. That's the subtext here.

>In essence the citizens of San Francisco are subsidizing the tax payers of Mountain View because of their unwillingness to create affordable housing and provide public transit that serves the needs of its workforce.

I really don't understand your mental gymnastics. How, under any reasonable interpretation, is it a negative for an upper-middle class young engineer-types, to choose to live in San Fran - pay San Fran property taxes, support local business by living and spending money in the area, as opposed to not. Your interpretation is insanity. Furthermore, you've got it all backwards as I've said. Those commuting San Fran engineers are paying municipal taxes. They are contributing to that city. They aren't contributing to Mountain View. They are a drag on that city. Every San Fran engineer is a drag on Mountain View, if anything. But that's why cities exist. To provide services like that because you're all part of the same fuckin country and the same fuckin state and the same fuckin region, and you're treating it like some sort of fuckin theft is happening from those foreigners 40 minutes away. Insanity.

San Franciscans really doesn't know how good they've got it.

//

I know there's an ideological reason why you're focusing on big evil Google. But it's actually San Francisco citizens that want to live in San Fran, and work at Google. Google doesn't care where they live. They would probably prefer their employees to live in Mountain View. It's San Francisco citizens that are choosing this.

[alangpierce]

It isn't necessarily the case that Google would shut down their bus service if it had to meet the requirements of public transportation. It looks like Google already funds a free shuttle from the Mountain View Caltrain station to Google HQ and the surrounding area, which actually is public transit.

http://www.caltrain.com/schedules/Shuttles/Shoreline_Shuttle... (See the fine print at the bottom for details.)

It's potentially possible that a similar approach could be done for the SF to Mountain View commute, where Google subsidizes the creation of specific public bus lines in exchange for Google employees riding for free, or something like that. That would probably make the community happier about the bus issue, although it wouldn't fix the rent/displacement issue at all.

[wybo]

If you take the terms technically, it is private mass-transit. However, considering its function, it does cut directly into the market for public transport (that already is difficult in many US cities due to lower density and more car-use). The terms don't matter that much (except for politically perhaps).

As for solving traffic problems, they don't necessarily do this more so than public transport would, if Googlers took that.

I think the issue is more that MUNI might have to think about introducing first-class busses, or first-class sections, or something like that. Because many people don't like sharing a bus bench with smelly (homeless) people.

[paul_f]

Let me fix that for you:

protesters are misguided.

[datphp]

I'm not sure I agree with that.

There is a legion of people making six figures, who together have a lot of power if they were to try to do something. I know disruption or even violence won't help at first, but it raises awareness. Maybe then people can start talking about intelligent measures to help those who need it.

I know if I was making 200k I'd be glad to be taxed an extra %, if that money was going towards help for people who've seen the place they lived their whole life slowly push them out, even though they're still needed there.

That's an important point. The big fishes need the small ones to survive, so there's demand, demand for people to do lesser paid activities and being in a constant struggle.

Then again I'm Swiss, and we have a history of voting ourselves tax raises, most of which goes to to the lower classes in some way. We live in a pretty happy and safe society though, infrastructures are great and affordable (mostly free if you don't make much). Seems to me like a good tradeoff for passing on a new TV or some designer clothes once a year.

[bermanoid]

Unfortunately this is mostly a zero-sum game: there's a very limited supply of housing in San Francisco, and it's always going to go to the highest bidder, which is the eternal gentrification struggle. Rich people deciding they're willing to pay more taxes won't help here, because it won't create more housing supply.

Even a direct redistribution scheme wouldn't do much, because the rich will still be able to outbid the poor for the scarce apartments. Short of rich people deciding they don't want to take that job in the Bay Area or government straight up banning them from moving there, I don't think there's much anyone can do to help prevent the poor from being displaced.

Getting SF to allow new construction would help a lot (there are probably thousands of developers that would love to build 100+ unit luxury complexes in the Mission), but at this point it seems that's something of a losing battle. Weirdly, it's the very people that are protesting the current influx of tech workers and rising rents that most viciously oppose new high-occupancy construction in the "true" SF neighborhoods because it would destroy their character, so it's a tough nut to crack.

[datphp]

I understand the supply limitations, but we have the same problem, because we have a ton of traction towards higher-up professionals. The big difference lies within the political system. The housing/real estate market is completely free (and cutthroat) here too, but our more socialist oriented government interacts with it to help people in need.

Examples of that are "sponsored" apartments, that cities rent to their owners for regular price, and subside to people but with an adaptive price (much lower for lower income people, and a little higher for people who make more than average)

In more urgent cases, social services cooperate with people who own unused buildings, hotels during low season, etc, and pay a big price to keep people under a roof.

There's also a lot of work from associations to communicate with landlords and agencies, trying to help giving a fair chance and renting affordable places to people with regular income, students, etc, as many wealthy people are interested in cheap places too.

I feel like the people who control most of the market have a lot of political power, and they don't want a bunch of buildings popping out and lowering market pressure, making prices and their revenue drop. Money is not a definitive solution, but in the right hands it can help a lot. In turn it creates a nicer social climate, and things work out better for everyone.

A nicer social climate isn't in everyone's interest though, and a lot of people work very hard to make sure there is tension, because they profit from it, a lot.

[rtpg]

>Weirdly, it's the very people that are protesting the current influx of tech workers and rising rents that most viciously oppose new high-occupancy construction in the "true" SF neighborhoods because it would destroy their character, so it's a tough nut to crack.

That's really unfortunate, I'd hope that people would realize that you can have good-quality high-occupancy construction(see loads of places in Europe, Japan).

I don't necessarily know if it's a zero-sum game though. If higher quality mass transit were in place, the cost of living out of the city would be lessened (both in cost and stress).

I think it would be really cool if San Francisco built a subway line that went down south. It would convince people to not live exactly in the city center (because you'd have relatively easy access by subway), so could ease real estate preasures downtown, and would generally encourage a better spread of the population. It's not that people want to live downtown, but that they want to easily get downtown.

[alimoeeny]

Any Swiss company hiring? :)

[datphp]

Can you write neutral Java? :P

[nirnira]

people who've seen the place they lived their whole life slowly push them out, even though they're still needed there.

But they're clearly not still needed there - otherwise demand for their services would be high enough that they would be able to fetch a market price high enough to allow them to compete in the housing markets.

The big fishes need the small ones to survive

Let me ask a tough question: why do these big fishes need the small ones? What exactly makes the small ones so essential? To make coffee? To staff checkouts? If demand for these arguably location-limited services is so high, then a shortage of suitably qualified labourers will result in a price increase until demand and supply equilibrate. But I haven't heard of any protests by high-wage SF residents at their inability to procure the services they desire, so things seem to be ticking over. No ham-fisted government intervention necessary.

Your only problem here is if you think that successful people have some sort of obligation or self-interest to continually devolve income to support the less successful. But that's a new conversation.