One of the interesting side-effects of Sen. Fienstien's quest to keep high-rises out of San Francisco is that _all_ real estate is more expensive. There are many people here with similarly narrow ideas about how to protect what is "theirs."
A great example would be the people who throw rocks at Google busses. Everyone on that buss can afford a car and would drive to work alone (maybe carpool) if they didn't have the busses to reduce congestion.
FWIW: A lot of those rock throwers were probably not in bad shape. That is because the real people being hurt were probably working their first or second job at the time that was happening, and didn't have time to throw rocks at buses because they'd get fired for not showing up to work.
The city can't support the 30k cars that would be needed for the people taking tech busses (no room to park that many cars).. so if we stopped the tech busses some of those people would move closer to work without busses; others would take Caltrain. Both of those things would reduce congestion, and pollution more than tech busses.
We don't know the exact number that this would reduce because the tech bus legislation passed without the environmental study that is required (hence why there is a lawsuit right now).
When I lived in SF, the categorical hate towards tech workers (I was not a tech worker back then) was nothing like "mainstream". It was just a few extremists, a few protesters I might see in the news. I didn't actually know anyone like that. Journalists made it sound like a bigger thing than it was.
It's been over 3 years though. Has the anti-tech-worker hate really gone mainstream or are journalists continuing to inflate it?
I actually gave an interview to a reporter for NPR recently. I work for a major tech company. Here's what I told him:
I don't feel the hatred, and I think reports of it are either from areas where I haven't been in (so single events that I missed) or it's not actually a problem.
All of his questions were leading questions into people hating on tech workers. I hang out with people of middle class, both upper and lower, go work occasionally with poorer people, and have rubbed my shoulders with a couple richer tech elite. I feel like the chances are I would've experienced the hatred.
So either I'm missing out on a lot (I don't think I am..) or they're overblown.
Journalists continue to inflate it. I actually think folks are coming around more and more to work with tech vs. categorically fighting against it. I think people have begun to see the systemic problems and work together on those.
Then again I did encounter a guy riding his bike around Market St. the other day screaming "Kill the Techies." But that's once in 5 years.
Tech workers are not to blame, but tech workers shouldn't blame those angry at getting priced out, either. Instead, both groups should work together to lobby for more housing.
Absolutely. Housing prices are like wages: very "sticky." Nobody wants to ever sell a house at a loss or drop their rent, so housing will sit idle on the market rather than take a write-down.
The only way housing could conceivably fall (without intense depression-level pain) is if the entire rest of the economy inflated such that housing was reasonable. Everyone would be making six figures, a gallon of gas would be $6, a loaf of bread over $10, but housing would be reasonable again.
I question the author's fact-checking abilities when the article starts with the statement "the city officially gave the shuttles free rein to use public bus stops". Actually, the shuttles can only use 200 out of 2500+ muni stops and have a plethora of other restrictions. That doesn't seem like "free rein" to me.
The overall gist of this article to me seems like a similar SF argument: let's keep the city the way it was. Let's not build more housing, let's not build up, let's not move forward into the future.
Obviously, this isn't how a city moves forward and grows.
Peskin is not necessarily a bad guy.. I agree with him on some things, but neighborhood preservation is not one. It's easy to single out tech in all of this, but the prior non-tech landlords have a lot of blame on this. Sure, market dictates pricing and the large tech community has been willing to let the prices go up. (Mind you, this isn't just real estate, but also food.) But, I feel like, as someone in tech not able to afford buying _today_, I'd rather have the city moving forward vs. stagnant just so another group of people can live here.
I appreciate diversity and my wife and I have talked for a few years of where else we should move to. Portland? Seattle? Austin? But, SF seems to have the right mix of diversity (more or less), compact city-ness (like NYC), close to a lot of great outdoors, and a lot of other things. We just keep coming back to SF has pretty much all the boxes checked off for us, even if it's in this crazy inflated market right now.
Nothing lasts forever and we will probably get some kind of housing correction. But look a look back historically will show that you can't buy a house anywhere (at least in the bay area) for $20k, like our parents did. To think that things should stand still and stay fixed is just ignoring how reality works for cities that keep growing..
Maybe this will all go away once we have no need for money like in Star Trek. But today, this isn't the case.
The idea that "the future" is a megapolis that needs to be built up really needs to be defended a bit more. Historically, the dense megapolis has been the future, but that might have just be an accident of technology's evolution. Why can't Earth be densely covered with smallish cities like current Berkeley and San Francisco?
Very few people who are being remotely rational disagree that techs relationship with San Francisco couldn't be improved. That said, relying on rental prices to justify an argument that tech is the root cause of the issues and ignoring that the only adequate solution - building more housing - is primarily opposed by exactly the same people is the height of hypocrisy.
I can't stand obstructionist politicians, but I also don't buy the argument that SF is not 'moving forward'. It's also building a significant amount of housing and getting over its fear of heights. There are 3 districts in SF getting significant up zoning. This is what SF's downtown will look like in 3 years:
Agree with a lot of this, but it seems odd that parents are worried about children getting hit by a bus. Are there not school bus stops in front of every school?
i think a viable solution would be to look at internal structures of companies and really find out teams and departments that could function from a remote location. It could be tech or product or even HR. And move them to different office locations distributed at a wider spread to avoid one epicenter for influx of population.. Not sure if some company tried thinking in this way..
All the folks working in a service industry that exists only to service tech workers are going to have a very, very hard time.
Q: How many sandwiches and burritos must one deliver to pay rent in the Bay Area? How many of those people that have been requesting said sandwiches and burritos will be laid off, move away or reduce discretionary spending?
For the love of God, move your company somewhere else. You don't have "easy access to capital" as an excuse anymore. You could locate literally anywhere. Stop coming here. Thank you.
Terrible public transit. A lifeless housing policy that's out of touch with local needs. Police rousting people out of one homeless encampment and then the same people just setting up a new camp a few blocks away. Racially charged police shootings.
San Francisco is one massive "tech slowdown" (although I suppose more like a tech collapse, given the baseline level of employment further down in Silicon Valley) from turning into Detroit-on-the-Bay.
That's some very wishful thinking. You have rich people like Robin Williams or Michelle Pfeiffer living here unlike Detroit, not to name countless CEOs and retired VCs who wont disappear.
As for the rest of us plebs, SF has survived many boom and bust cycles [0], unlike Detroit.
[+] [-] spinlock|10 years ago|reply
A great example would be the people who throw rocks at Google busses. Everyone on that buss can afford a car and would drive to work alone (maybe carpool) if they didn't have the busses to reduce congestion.
[+] [-] DannyBee|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] software_radio|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rootedbox|10 years ago|reply
We don't know the exact number that this would reduce because the tech bus legislation passed without the environmental study that is required (hence why there is a lawsuit right now).
[+] [-] thedevil|10 years ago|reply
It's been over 3 years though. Has the anti-tech-worker hate really gone mainstream or are journalists continuing to inflate it?
[+] [-] wsinks|10 years ago|reply
I don't feel the hatred, and I think reports of it are either from areas where I haven't been in (so single events that I missed) or it's not actually a problem.
All of his questions were leading questions into people hating on tech workers. I hang out with people of middle class, both upper and lower, go work occasionally with poorer people, and have rubbed my shoulders with a couple richer tech elite. I feel like the chances are I would've experienced the hatred.
So either I'm missing out on a lot (I don't think I am..) or they're overblown.
[+] [-] econner|10 years ago|reply
Then again I did encounter a guy riding his bike around Market St. the other day screaming "Kill the Techies." But that's once in 5 years.
[+] [-] rco8786|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Apocryphon|10 years ago|reply
So the question is, how can a hacker help?
[+] [-] dublinben|10 years ago|reply
Help make remote work more possible and acceptable.
[+] [-] bishnu|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|10 years ago|reply
The only way housing could conceivably fall (without intense depression-level pain) is if the entire rest of the economy inflated such that housing was reasonable. Everyone would be making six figures, a gallon of gas would be $6, a loaf of bread over $10, but housing would be reasonable again.
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bonniemuffin|10 years ago|reply
See https://www.sfmta.com/projects-planning/projects/commuter-sh... for full program details, and http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San-Francisco-Muni-Appr... for a reference on the "200 out of 2500" statistic.
[+] [-] Cyclone_|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] equalarrow|10 years ago|reply
Obviously, this isn't how a city moves forward and grows.
Peskin is not necessarily a bad guy.. I agree with him on some things, but neighborhood preservation is not one. It's easy to single out tech in all of this, but the prior non-tech landlords have a lot of blame on this. Sure, market dictates pricing and the large tech community has been willing to let the prices go up. (Mind you, this isn't just real estate, but also food.) But, I feel like, as someone in tech not able to afford buying _today_, I'd rather have the city moving forward vs. stagnant just so another group of people can live here.
I appreciate diversity and my wife and I have talked for a few years of where else we should move to. Portland? Seattle? Austin? But, SF seems to have the right mix of diversity (more or less), compact city-ness (like NYC), close to a lot of great outdoors, and a lot of other things. We just keep coming back to SF has pretty much all the boxes checked off for us, even if it's in this crazy inflated market right now.
Nothing lasts forever and we will probably get some kind of housing correction. But look a look back historically will show that you can't buy a house anywhere (at least in the bay area) for $20k, like our parents did. To think that things should stand still and stay fixed is just ignoring how reality works for cities that keep growing..
Maybe this will all go away once we have no need for money like in Star Trek. But today, this isn't the case.
[+] [-] YuriNiyazov|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] the_watcher|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chvid|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] capkutay|10 years ago|reply
http://i.imgur.com/mcJf5zK.jpg
[+] [-] rco8786|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vishalzone2002|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WalterSear|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonknee|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] e40|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whatnotests|10 years ago|reply
Q: How many sandwiches and burritos must one deliver to pay rent in the Bay Area? How many of those people that have been requesting said sandwiches and burritos will be laid off, move away or reduce discretionary spending?
A: many.
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|10 years ago|reply
Don't overestimate your importance. The world will move on without you.
[+] [-] beatpanda|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guyzero|10 years ago|reply
And the problem is workers at tech companies.
[+] [-] fiatmoney|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emcq|10 years ago|reply
As for the rest of us plebs, SF has survived many boom and bust cycles [0], unlike Detroit.
[0] http://sfist.com/2015/10/07/san_francisco_has_always_been_a_...
[+] [-] maxxxxx|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dreamdu5t|10 years ago|reply