<i>West Oakland is a traditionally black neighborhood that surrounds the Port of Oakland. It has been heavily gentrified, developed, and restructured over the past three decades. Now there is an upper class enclave that has been established near the West Oakland BART station, in Jack London, and in the city of Emeryville.</i><p>Oh fuck you and your dreadlocks.<p>There are only two photos on that page, so I don't definitively <i>know</i> who these protesters were (although there are no "traditional" blacks in those photos) -- but I know (I have a strong suspicion, I don't factually know) that the protesters were not drawn from the group mentioned above. These are Burning Man hippies, self-styled artists, people who graduated from great schools with useless majors, and the usual constituent of the Bay Area's overprivileged poverty tourists: 20-30 y/o white kids from middle class families.<p>The actual, <i>working</i>, poor people in West Oakland were at their first of the two or three jobs they hold. Or they were spending a few rare moments resting, or with their kids. Or they were lining up to get a meal at community kitchen. Actual <i>black</i> people were not part of this protest, because a mob of black people attacking a bus would be getting wall-to-wall coverage on every channel. It would have been responded to with a swift and overwhelming police presence.<p>The same thing happened a few years ago when these same non-workers shut down the Port of Oakland in the name of workers. The people who actually work the port asked that they not disrupt the port, but in the end these dreadlocked, shiftless complainers cost those longshoremen a day in wages -- <i>Viva El Proletariado!</i><p>What we have today is a group of young, electively poor white kids who are upset that the price of unheated lofts and dingy Victorians are being driven up by people who have the means and motivation to actually own and improve them. That they wrap themselves up in the image of the poor (and yes, mostly black) -- whom they <i>themselves</i> displaced by rushing in to bid up rents with mom and dad's money -- makes this appeal all the more ludicrous. At least the tech gentrifiers will actually improve the fucking place, unlike these leeches!<p>(Source: I live and own property in Oakland)<p>Edited as suggested below by bonemachine.
<i>The bus remained where it was, the thought of driving to Mountain View with a broken window and flooded with cold air an unthinkable horror they could not endure.</i><p>Or maybe because it was a crime scene?
Gotta love <i>“TECHIES: Your World Is Not Welcome Here”</i><p>I find it hard to sympathize with a bunch of lazy thugs who do nothing to improve their situation. Engineering and white collar jobs in general have always paid well. Industries who are in demand even more so, and for just reason. Did similar protests happen in Detroit 50 years ago during the auto boom? Did unskilled rubes that do nothing all day put up banners saying <i>"Auto boys not welcome"</i>?<p>This is absurd. Take control of your own damn life. Educate yourself and learn relevant skills. The resources are out there and more accessible than ever. Spend a few good hours in your public library every day for a year and walk out of there a changed person with valuable skills to offer.
As if the real problem with Oakland is that there are too many Google employees living there. Let's be honest - the only reason they do this is that Google employees sitting in a bus are a "soft" target. There is essentially zero chance of reprisal or consequence, at least if it's done as a one-off thing. You get to feel self-righteous for fighting "the man" without any risk.<p>Let's say they win this quixotic crusade and actually manage to force everyone with an income above $N to flee the area. What is the next step toward a better Oakland?
Is it just me, or does the psuedo-intellectual/conspiratorial rhetoric used in this post make anybody else uncomfortable? I feel like class warfare tends to start with misplaced high-mindedness, as if there is an element of being "in the know" for those who take part in the violence. Obviously the author thought writing this way would help further his cause, so what does that say about the participants? Too uninformed to know the difference? Too angry to care?
I take that bus routinely (though not this morning), and I can assure you that its occupants are a diverse group of East Bay residents of many races and ethnicities (black, white, asian, hispanic, etc), and though I haven't done a survey, I doubt any of us are 1%s.<p>Many of us, myself included, support strongly progressive economic policies, but there is no real conversation to be had with people who will resort to violence like this. Sadly, use of violent and illegal methods to convey a message seems to be somewhat common in these parts.<p>I suspect that these "protesting" groups are acting out some sort of imagined war between rich and poor, and since the real 1% don't take a bus of any kind to work, we're their next best target.
As a resident of Oakland who is sick to death of professional protesters slapping agit-prop posters on any available surface (not least community-financed public artwork), fuck these people and everything they stand for. And no, I don't work for some billion $ startup or even a million $ one, I'm the sort of starving artist that they claim to be fighting for, but aren't.
<p><pre><code> “Bus driver, what are you gonna do, man? What are you gonna do?”
“Don’t worry. It’s freedom of speech, freedom of speech.”
The kind young man then walked to the rear of the bus, saying,
“Oh my god! What’s gonna happen next?”
The same female passenger took out her phone and began filming the blockade.
“At least we’re warm in here and they’re cold out there,” she said.
</code></pre>
The nice thing about 'journalism' like this is that when you just make shit up to improve your 'story', there's nobody to hold you accountable.
"driven up the property values and rent prices, creating animosity, evictions, and poverty"
I'm sorry but I can't imagine the gentrification has caused poverty. It's probably made it more inconvenient and pushed out people in poverty though.
If "Gentrification is a dynamic and nuanced problem", perhaps throwing bricks through windows is not the best approach to finding a solution.<p>I'm not convinced that "gentrification" is always a problem. Must prices always remain the same? Am I entitled to be protected from competing as a buyer with other buyers who can put scarce housing resources to more valuable alternative uses, for example allowing someone else to commute to a job at Google, rather than allowing me to work a pizza place? This is not condescending, I have, and I wasn't surprised that I couldn't afford housing near the private university, or fancy corporate campuses at that time.<p>Furthermore, if we think housing prices are a problem, perhaps we should look at zoning and density. If entrenched interests prevent a majority consensus from altering zoning laws, then try throwing some bricks.<p>Has that happened in SF and I just don't know about it?
As usual, the irony is at an all time high.<p>> "While they took their seats, several people unfurled two giant banners reading “TECHIES: Your World Is Not Welcome Here” and “FUCK OFF GOOGLE.”<p>People holding banners that were laser printed with materials synthesized by complex machines. People with cell phones tucked away in their pockets. People who have used Google a million times.
Ultimately, the issue comes down to housing supply - a problem created both by long-time locals and municipal governments. It's the same exact story in other places, particularly here in Manhattan. Would this problem exist if the number of apartments/houses kept up with the number of people who wanted them? There are answers to this dilemma, but they are politically unpalatable to many. See a previous comment of mine for more:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6549063" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6549063</a><p>Short version: build a lot more, and put a regulation in place to keep the "look" of the new buildings similar/the same to the current neighborhood/buildings being replaced.<p>People want to live in these places. People need to be near jobs. People will avoid commuting if they can. People want to be near cultural institutions. Many people want to be near lots of other people. Look at the housing shortage in North Dakota - before the energy boom, no shortage. People move in because of jobs - shortage, and very high prices. In that case, building, rather than policies did not keep up (there are answers here as well, particularly prefab / modular housing.)<p>The number of people in cities (particularly large ones, but smaller ones as well) continues to grow (again, see link.) Our policies (in particular) need to adjust.
<i>"While this is taking place, the City of Oakland and Federal law enforcement are attempting to spread a surveillance network called the Domain Awareness Center throughout Oakland. Intended to secure the Port of Oakland against terrorist attacks and labor struggle, this surveillance network will actually monitor the entirety of Oakland through over 800 cameras. The authorities want to monitor the crazy and uncontrollable city that is pressed right up against the Port of Oakland."</i><p>Would be interesting to get the coords of the cameras when they go up on iSee[0], so people can take the necessary action to avoid them. It would be interesting in general if someone made a mobile app where people can stand where cameras are (and take a photo of it for some spacial awareness) and submit the coords to a public database where people can take the data and plot their own paths away from a central server.<p>[0]: <a href="http://66.93.183.118:8080/isee/s1" rel="nofollow">http://66.93.183.118:8080/isee/s1</a>
Better article describing 2 more bus incidents from this morning - <a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/12/20/eviction-protesters-oakland-san-francisco-target-silicon-valley-buses" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/12/20/eviction-protesters...</a>
I'm seeing a lot of vitriol and generalizations in this thread. It's understandable to be upset about this, but automatically assuming that the protesters are "lazy trustafarians" leeching off of the tech community is not a mindset that is helpful to anybody. If anything, it just escalates the situation. The approach we should be taking is: what is the problem, why are people upset, how do we solve it. Of course smashing the Google bus is not a productive way to protest. But the tech community needs to take the high road, not the low road. Making sweeping generalizations only creates more anger and thus makes the situation worse.
First against the wall, it would appear. All of us doing tech work should be paying very, very close attention to this sentiment.<p>That said, why can't these folks find more constructive ways of trying to change the system and address their grievances?
Has this actually happened? I can't find any other news source confirming this.<p>Edit: Yeah, this actually did happen. Picture of the broken window: <a href="https://twitter.com/craigsfrost/status/414121201754468352/photo/1" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/craigsfrost/status/414121201754468352/ph...</a>
"Someone threw fliers with a smiley face logo and the message disrupt google into the air."<p>Hilarious! Disrupt Google!<p>Lots of posts here "there's more constructive ways to deal with this". How constructive is a bunch of pigs evicting a family because their landlord is jacking up the rent because a bunch of Google hipster yuppies want to slum it in Oakland?<p>Then there's the usual "these people weren't the poorest people in Oakland" posts. The police shoot people like Oscar Grant dead over nothing in Oakland, I could imagine if a swarm of young black men started throwing rocks at Google buses. The whiners here win either way - either they would get a Fox News story about how apolitical young black thugs are harrassing Google workers, or we get the comments here complaining that this is not what they were confronted with.<p>It's not like the moneyed classes aren't pulling the political strings in the Bay Area now, like Ron Conman getting his boy Ed Lee in as San Francisco mayor. Which goes to other inane comments of the "why don't they do this outside the mansions in Altadena, instead of to us poor six-figure Google employees?" Well the Altadena people aren't the ones gentrifying Oakland and driving rents up. Some people here claim that Oakland residents like that gentrifiers are coming in and driving up rents, which shows how out of touch they are.<p>People here are so out of touch they forget (perhaps excepting people like Ben Horowitz) that the Black Panthers were born in Oakland. I suppose almost all don't remember the 1934 waterfront strike. These actions are harbingers of these things coming about again.
I don't care about the legitimacy of their cause - violent thugs like the author and his fellow protestors being in jail.<p>Call me a libertarian, but I believe I have the right to be safe and not be attacked. In the twisted mindset of the author, I imagine that the impact that tech employees have on house prices is morally equivalent to violence. However people who believe in rule of law rather than mob rule should be able to see through this.
It seems obvious this is the same group that obstructed a Google bus in SF earlier this month. Protesting Google from the vantage point of a privileged SF resident wasn't sufficiently sympthetic, so they're cloaking themselves in the very real oppression and problems still crushing West Oakland. Shameful.<p>People bringing their protests to Oakland is nothing new (like the black bloc protests during Occupy). I've been living in my Oakland neighborhood for about 9 years. On my block, that makes me the newcomer. I don't speak for Oakland and neither do these protestors or whoever contributed that article.
The tech community in the bay area is keenly aware of the issues. The idea of protests aren't the issue; the destruction of property is the issue. That said...<p>We have plenty of ideas on how to solve it, but they involve the buyin of people entrenched in power who have other power bases. The solution is more housing, more dense housing, and more cultural activities closer to the places of employment. However, nobody's digging up Mountain view for skyscrapers anytime soon. Subways aren't being built in San Mateo county that link to BART anytime soon, outside of Milbrae.<p>I've said that if Colma would just move the cemetaries and and build skyscrapers, a few museums, another symphony hall, and an entertainment district, our problems would be solved. (We'd probably also have to give the residents there a good deal, all 1700 of them. The big shopping center might need a buyout too, we could rebuild that union square-style.)<p>It's quick to SF, well connected by car, we could probably bring a bunch of industry in with mixed-use, we could do it well. Of course, it would probably hasten the gentrification of Daly City, but a 2 square mile city could be done, and the land would be a fraction of the cost of almost anywhere else.
A bus in San Francisco, too. Claims of it being an Apple bus. <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/protesters-an-apple-bus-2013-12" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessinsider.com/protesters-an-apple-bus-2013-...</a>
Things change. Neighborhoods get gentrified. Neighborhoods get bombed. You adapt, or you die. Protesting progressive change is futile.<p>You're not homeless because rents went up in your little neighborhood in Oakland. You're homeless because you chose not to move when rents went up.<p>People need to take responsibility for their actions. I would like to protest the protests of today.
There is a real issue with these buses. In New York City, gentrification tends to be correlated with subway commute time to Manhattan and distances to subway stations.<p>When you introduce private busing, you plop gentrification down in strange places that may lack public transportation and you're giving the gentry exclusive access to an incredible convenience.<p>This convenience is conspicuously not shared by their neighbors who have long walks, bike rides, buses to other buses to trains, to take them to their often much less remunerative work.<p>The convenience also allows a certain economic class to enjoy more geographic options while not forcing the city to have appropriate taxation to build real infrastructure that can be shared by everyone.<p>It does kinda suck.<p>Someone very dear to me takes a Google bus daily and I fear for their happiness.
> The bus remained where it was, the thought of driving to Mountain View with a broken window and flooded with cold air an unthinkable horror they could not endure.<p>Yeah, a neutral article for sure. The employees actually took the effort of collecting the fliers off the street, but after a violent attack, would you feel like going to work, or are they to blame if they didn't?
Wow, there is some hate in this thread. I always think it's interesting when a piece like this comes along that seems to spark a personal insult style reaction from a community.<p>You can draw your own conclusions. I don't feel either way about this but it's been fun reading the comments here.
I would love to see Google hire some muscle to provide security for their buses. Just let the protesters choose what level of violence to bring to the table.
Time for Google, et. al to switch to Uber / Lyft / etc? Not as eco or commute friendly, but a lot less noticeable. Or maybe time to subsidize publicly accessible commuter bus lines?
Man, I'm worried we're going to get some Milagro Beanfield War style shit going down soon. Maybe Betabrand should sell their hoodies in kevlar.
If Google would pay their fare share of taxes instead of sheltering them offshore then the bay area could have awesome public transit for everybody.<p>For all of you bitching about the "burning man" types. The bay area is full of runaways that look just like those kids and are easily radicalized. San Francisco is a "libro-cryt" city. Its very liberal, but they treat the poor like shit.<p>Apple and Goolge should stop sheltering their taxes.