I don't get it. The buses are cutting down on personal driving (a universally acknowledged evil), and paying for permits to use the stops (generating revenue for the city). Would these people rather the Google employees all drive personal vehicles, increasing wear and tear on the roads, congestion, pollution, etc., costing the city money?<p>Also, is it really the companies fault that the value of housing in the area is going up because they exist? Can you really expect them to get up and leave?<p>I don't really see what the companies are getting out of this in the first place. They don't have to shuttle their employees in to work, could save a whole lot of money by not renting/buying buses, but they do and it does nothing but positive things for the employees, the city, and the environment.
From <a href="http://www.sfbg.com/googleshoutdown" rel="nofollow">http://www.sfbg.com/googleshoutdown</a>:<p>UPDATE 12:32pm: Various tips have streamed in that this shout-out was staged. Protest organizer Leslie Dreyer talked to us on the phone and verified that this person's identity was Max Bell Alper, a union organizer from Oakland. This person was not a Google employee, and Dreyer was not able to verify if Alper was there in the morning with the group of 20-30 protesters. The Guardian is attempting to contact Alper for comment. Dreyer said she, as an organizer, was unaware that the "performance" had been planned. We are following this as it develops.
This op-ed does a better job at explaining how some non-tech residents of San Francisco feel about the buses.<p><pre><code> When your experience of a big city is a seamless parade of hip restaurants
and privately funded transportation, it's easy to overlook the things that
cities need, like filled potholes and a reliable transit system. San Franciscans
feel resentful about the technology industry's lack of civic and community
engagement, and the Google bus is our daily reminder.
</code></pre>
<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/Why-we-re-invisible-to-Google-bus-riders-4467574.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/Why-we-re-invisible-to-...</a>
I get the rationale of targeting Google's private bus fleet. There's nothing like a giant bus billboard rolling through your neighborhood to remind you of gentrification and the exorbitant rent prices. I do, however, find it pretty difficult to sympathize with the protesters. Would these people have preferred everyone on the bus to have driven their cars instead?<p>I suppose you could argue that the buses themselves are enabling gentrification, because if they weren't there, more people might stay in the valley instead of living in the city. That's a pretty tenuous connection though because you could argue that it would have happened anyway (I did the commute over ten years ago between Potrero and Palo Alto).<p>If Google wanted to alleviate some of the vitriol, they could offer to allow non-Googlers to use the bus (like Stanford's Marguerite system) either for free or some kind of nominal charge. I realize that's a headache, but instead of getting bad publicity, they turn it on its head and the "two tier" comments ring pretty hollow.
It's a fake. The guy is an activist and is named Max Bell Alper.<p><a href="http://www.makingchangemedia.org/about-the-team/" rel="nofollow">http://www.makingchangemedia.org/about-the-team/</a><p><a href="http://www.gettyimages.no/detail/news-photo/occupy-wall-street-west-protestor-max-bell-alper-of-news-photo/137422522" rel="nofollow">http://www.gettyimages.no/detail/news-photo/occupy-wall-stre...</a>
It is entirely unclear what they are protesting, other than 'not working at Google.'<p>The alleged trespass of using 'public infrastructure for private profit' is unsupported. People pick up and drop off people at the sidewalk (required, no stopping in the middle of the street).<p>The staged appearance of a guy who is a union organizer (reported elsewhere) added a bit of melodrama.<p>Looking at the action critically, what is to be gained by calling attention to Google, Facebook, and others providing their own bus fleets?
Hopefully, people can work together to what I think could be 2-3 good outcomes that help alleviate some of these very real problems:<p>1. Public Transportation: both inter & intra-city transportation is very poor. It's extremely hard to travel between neighborhoods in San Francisco, and it's a huge reason people rely so much on Lyft and other providers in the city. Also, it's really difficult to travel between SF and Oakland (as well as other cities). Creating better / more infrastructure that connects these two should help ease supply constraints that cause these price spikes in the first place. Not sure how feasible this is...especially looking at other cities experience in public transportation (example: bay bridge).<p>2. More supply. One of the effects of previous legislation to keep the SF "neighborhood feel" was that it constrained new supply coming into the market. Unfortunately, it takes a few years for new units to come into the market, and it's obvious it's not keeping pace with demand. There of course needs to be a balance vs. keeping SF's historic appeal, but maybe the previous compromise leaned too heavily against putting up new units.<p>3. Government subsidies / rent control to help ease rapid price hikes. I'm not as big of a fan of these, but largely because I don't quite understand all the economic/social effects.
I just moved to the area and have little context, wondering what solution are the local residents fighting for? I'd imagine going back to an idyllic agrarian past is probably not viable. Is the proposal for companies to pay a special municipal tax for zoning special loading curb areas (which I'd imagine UPS and taxis and the likes will have to pay as well for using public infrastructure)? Is it for higher income or newer residents to pay a special tax to give to lower income or older residents which can be used to fund affordable housing projects? What is the proposed solution that can be put into a legislation?
Anyone find it lame how people are tweeting about an incident instead of communicating with each other when they're like 10 feet away?<p>Don't expect to reason with protesters if you're not even willing to talk to them. Way to be the uptight sheltered techies you're being made out to be. That being said, I don't think it's legal to block a vehicle, and protesters would probably be better served doing something productive rather than complaining immaturely in this matter.<p>Shame on everyone!
> “Public $$$$, Private Gains,”<p>That's true, and the right solution is to remove public funding from transportation. Then there's no downside to private gains.
Does anyone know what the sign "Fine $271; Total Fine (2011-2013) $1 Billion" refers to? <a href="https://twitter.com/maxbatt/status/410097083081695233/photo/1/large" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/maxbatt/status/410097083081695233/photo/...</a>
I applaud them for creating a mini-Twitter firestorm in the process. It's a shame the local media misidentified one of the actors (one of them playing an angry Googler)