| >leave the downtown-core decrepit and crime-ridden The companies aren't in downtown, they're out 40 miles away instead, so not paying local taxes or helping the local economy. Instead you just have the workers who basically just sleep in SF, paying property taxes but not even opting to using the public transportation to make it better. > San Fran is powered by a real 21st century economy, which many other cities and countries are trying to recreate, and you still find something to complain about? Based off of complaints from the tech community, it also seems to be a city with a lot of homelessness, really shitty public transportation, and dysfunctional regulations that end up causing rent to be even higher. If you told anybody of a city where most of the world's innovation happen, you'd at least imagine a city with a functional system of mass transportation, but we can't seem to even get that right. San Fran should be the best city in the world. The problem isn't that workers are living in the city, it's that they're not working there. People spend a lot of money where they end up working. |
The employees live in the city.
>Based off of complaints from the tech community, it also seems to be a city with a lot of homelessness
None of that is caused by having Google in the area. This is a cultural and a government regulatory problem (municipal, and state and federal to lesser extent).
>The problem isn't that workers are living in the city, it's that they're not working there.
If you're an employee you spend money where you live, not where you work. It would be nice for San Fran if all engineers worked in San Fran as well, but you can't have everything. Plus it wouldn't be so nice for Mountain View, Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, etc. In fact, those municipalities have more to complain about since they can argue they are nothing more than commuter cities.
San Fran should count their blessings.