Tech Rides Are Focus of Hostility in Bay Area

[stopcrazypp]

The reason I ask is because, IMO, if that's the root issue then it's somewhat (I want to say pathetic but instead I'll say...) troubling that no proposals have been made at actually addressing the problem. Is it more fun to protest than to actually address the problem?

That's not really the "root" issue, and the solution to that bus issue is simply to collect money from the private companies ($1 per stop according to the articles). The "root" issue is the displacement of people living in the communities and the drastic increase in market rent (summarized under the term "gentrification"). The bus protests were just a way for those people to vent.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

It's ironic that one of the more "progressive" parts of the country has such a poor public transportation system. There's a fair bit of NIMBY opposition to mass transit projects around here; BART expansion from Fremont to San Jose is one of them. The geography of the peninsula prevents further expansion of the highway system. Of course, the seismic risks make underground tunnel solutions prohibitively expensive.

 

[stopcrazypp]

There's a fair bit of NIMBY opposition to mass transit projects around here; BART expansion from Fremont to San Jose is one of them.

The problem is that kind of mass transit project spans many communities and even just one community opposing can stop it dead in its tracks. Here in San Francisco however, local mass transit projects usually pass with close to no opposition.

 

[brianman]

The "root" issue is the displacement of people living in the communities and the drastic increase in market rent (summarized under the term "gentrification").

And what's the proposed solution to this issue? Stop improving the city?

 

[stopcrazypp]

And what's the proposed solution to this issue? Stop improving the city?

The proposed solution recently is to make it harder to do Ellis Act evictions (the primary way around San Francisco's rent control law). I think the effect would be that techies would then be forced to the newer apartments being developed in downtown (rather than increasing rental costs in neighborhoods with traditionally low rent).

And I think your assumption that gentrification = improving the city does not naturally follow. This is especially true when talking about the rental market and a population that does not work in the city. Gentrification mainly brings economic improvement when the homes are owned rather than rented.

 

[lorih]

The proposed solution recently is to make it harder to do Ellis Act evictions (the primary way around San Francisco's rent control law). I think the effect would be that techies would then be forced to the newer apartments being developed in downtown (rather than increasing rental costs in neighborhoods with traditionally low rent).

And I think your assumption that gentrification = improving the city does not naturally follow. This is especially true when talking about the rental market and a population that does not work in the city. Gentrification mainly brings economic improvement when the homes are owned rather than rented.

+1

on point!

 

[rolosrevenge]

I'd hope that they just build more and bigger apartment complexes.

 

[lorih]

Zoning limits size and location. Permits, etc limits time acceleration. Tech growth curve steeper than development curve.

 

[jerry33]

And what's the proposed solution to this issue? Stop improving the city?

It seems--only from my reading of this thread--that they aren't actually doing any improvements, just raising the prices on existing buildings. I think it would be a different matter if they were building new housing because new buildings would be an improvement (at least in some people's eyes).

 

[lorih]

It seems--only from my reading of this thread--that they aren't actually doing any improvements, just raising the prices on existing buildings. I think it would be a different matter if they were building new housing because new buildings would be an improvement (at least in some people's eyes).

Yes, they are building new housing in the immediate SV area, but still can't keep up with company expansion like I said before. We just have so many high tech firms that are growing exponentially, and SV has limits on how hgh buildings can be 2-3 floors, so they can't expand quick enough. Ok, I am repeating myself because this thread is repeating itself...I will stop now.

Happy Valentines Day to all the TMC folks, and for the geeks:


Short Term TSLA Investor Social Chat


Wow...weird cut and paste error...try again. Happy Valentine's Day

Happy Valentine's Day

 

[bobw]

It's an old story.

Geography + land use restrictions + rent control lead to housing shortages.

Housing shortages + growing population lead to higher prices any way landlords can manage it. I should point out that landlord costs aren't controlled by rent control.

Round and round it goes. Once you get on it's tough to get off.

Geography in the Bay Area makes some of it inevitable even without political shenanigans.

In 1988 tech workers in Silicon Valley were living with eight roommates per two bedroom apartments. I can't imagine things have gotten better. A friend is moving there from DFW. He thinks he knows what he's getting into.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

A friend is moving there from DFW. He thinks he knows what he's getting into.

We've incidentally had some drain (including a few friends and ex-coworkers) the other way - to DFW and Austin. Real estate prices and schools were the oft-quoted reasons.

 

[bobw]

We're getting quite a lot of that. In n Out has opened stores in DFW. A number of California companies have followed the migration.

 

[brianman]

And I think your assumption that gentrification = improving the city does not naturally follow. This is especially true when talking about the rental market and a population that does not work in the city. Gentrification mainly brings economic improvement when the homes are owned rather than rented.

I think you're misunderstanding me, or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

I'm not saying that wealthier residents improve the cities. I'm saying that improving cities attract wealthier residents. Consequently, the only way to avoid attracting wealthier residents is to stop improving the city -- i.e., make it less attractive.

Part of improving is compelling companies that pay the salaries of those wealthier residents. So, either they find a way to find a happy middle ground, or the companies just turn a corner -- and move somewhere else that is not hostile to the (IMO) natural course of events.

 

[cwerdna]

Thanks for posting that. And I agree, the guy on the video is being silly. Public transportation works in SF if you are traveling WITHIN SF. Trying to get to Google in Mountain View from SF, Berkley or Oakland via public transportation would be ridiculously difficult.

And within Silicon Valley, public transportation is very poor.

I once plotted out how to go 5 miles from home to work in San Jose. Driving took 10 minutes on all local roads, no traffic, piece of cake. If I wanted to use public transportation I had to walk, take a bus, walk to a different bus line, get connection, walk again take another bus, and walk last 1/2 mile to work. All told it would take 3 buses, 45 minutes to an hour, with 1.5 miles of the total 5 miles walking!

Yep... except that SF to Mountain View might be ok if you lived near the SF Caltrain station and had a shuttle between Caltrain in Mountain View and Google. For Berkeley and Oakland, it would suck. I guess you could take BART down to Fremont but then you'd need a shuttle from Fremont BART to Mountain View. It adds quite a bit of time.

Yeah, re: within Silicon Valley, public transportation being VERY poor. When I worked in Mountain View. The public transportation choices were horrible. By car, from my part of San Jose, it was ~24 miles, one way and took me 28-32 minutes, if I went outside rush hour (which I did).

I just tried now tried Transit.511.org
to arrive by 10:30 am. I'm given 2 choices: a 2 hour 17 mile journey or a 2 hour 51 minute journey. This is one WAY! If I change the start point to a light rail park & ride station that's about a 10 min drive away, the shortest journey is 1 hour 47 minutes! No thanks!

Even if I drive in the peak of rush hour, it wouldn't be that bad. And, back then, my yellow carpool lane stickers on my Prius were still valid, letting me blow by lots of folks if I went during rush hour (and restricted HOV lane hours).

 

[stopcrazypp]

I think you're misunderstanding me, or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

I'm not saying that wealthier residents improve the cities. I'm saying that improving cities attract wealthier residents. Consequently, the only way to avoid attracting wealthier residents is to stop improving the city -- i.e., make it less attractive.

Part of improving is compelling companies that pay the salaries of those wealthier residents. So, either they find a way to find a happy middle ground, or the companies just turn a corner -- and move somewhere else that is not hostile to the (IMO) natural course of events.

I see, we flipped cause and effect. I'm talking about wealthier residents improving the city.

The thing is San Francisco does not need improvements to attract wealthier residents, they naturally come (hard to explain exactly why, but people just like to live here)! A lot of these techies are rooming with other people (as pointed out above) in old houses (that are basically just repainted). They aren't really being attracted by the new apartment buildings (which are more expensive to rent and are typically the last option). There's not really much the city can do to stop techies from wanting to move in. The only thing they can do is reduce the amount of people displaced.

 

[brianman]

There's not really much the city can do to stop techies from wanting to move in. The only thing they can do is reduce the amount of people displaced.

And here I think we disagree. I don't see the latter as a goal for government effort and attention.

Some would say "none of us own the land", but many of us feel entitled to stay on it for our entire lives.

I understand that it tugs at heartstrings to hear about people having to move that don't want to, but I think this is just mismatched expectations. I don't see city hubs as being "guaranteed permanent occupancy locations" for the entire lives of its current residents.

 

[stopcrazypp]

And here I think we disagree. I don't see the latter as a goal for government effort and attention.

Some would say "none of us own the land", but many of us feel entitled to stay on it for our entire lives.

I understand that it tugs at heartstrings to hear about people having to move that don't want to, but I think this is just mismatched expectations. I don't see city hubs as being "guaranteed permanent occupancy locations" for the entire lives of its current residents.

Actually I agree on this point, assuming that the people moving in brings in significant new tax revenue (which is what the government cares about) that existing residents can't supply.

However, when the potential tax revenue is roughly the same (as it seems to be in this case), keeping people who intend to live here for their entire lives makes more sense than people who are only here until they can buy a house elsewhere.

Another way to look at it is the people being displaced will suffer, but the techies won't really suffer even if they don't live in the city or live in more expensive parts of the city. And when people suffer, they actively protest and organize, which is something the government has to respond to.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

Google's giving back to SF:

Google donates $6.8 million to fund free transit rides for San Francisco youth | The Verge

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

I think you're misunderstanding me, or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

I'm not saying that wealthier residents improve the cities. I'm saying that improving cities attract wealthier residents. Consequently, the only way to avoid attracting wealthier residents is to stop improving the city -- i.e., make it less attractive.

Part of improving is compelling companies that pay the salaries of those wealthier residents. So, either they find a way to find a happy middle ground, or the companies just turn a corner -- and move somewhere else that is not hostile to the (IMO) natural course of events.

Or increase local tax rates. Something like a city income tax could both improve the city and attract fewer wealthy residents.