Slashdot Mirror


Protesters Block Apple and Google Buses In California

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Business Insider reports that protesters have stopped a bus filled with Apple employees in San Francisco and a Google bus in Oakland. Tech companies like Google, Apple, and Facebook provide free buses that take their employees from San Francisco to their headquarters in the suburbs. Protesters are mad at the tech companies because the wealthy tech employees have driven up the price of housing in San Francisco, which is pricing out some people. The buses also use public transit stops, and some protesters think that's wrong. Between 70 and 100 protesters gathered for the blockade of Apple private tech shuttle to protest evictions in the city of San Francisco. The activists in San Francisco were from Eviction Free San Francisco, Our Mission No Eviction, Causa Justa /Just Cause. Protesters stood in front of a white shuttle bus holding banners and signs. Some peeked through cardboard signs fashioned in the shape of place markers on Google maps, with "Evicted" written across the front. Meanwhile violence occurred in Oakland, according to reports from IndyBay, as protesters unfurled two giant banners reading "TECHIES: Your World Is Not Welcome Here" and "Fuck off Google" and "a person appeared from behind the bus and quickly smashed the whole of the rear window, making glass rain down on the street. Cold air blew inside the bus and the blockaders with their banners departed." Two weeks ago, protesters stopped a Google bus."

37 of 653 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm. by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This just in: The homeless and unemployed mobbed a bus full of people perceived to be rich, perhaps unaware of the 60-80 hour work weeks endured by software engineers, that once you take that into consideration, many in the industry make at, or less, than minimum wage.

    -_- Guys... if you're gonna have a protest against the rich, go pitch a tent on the CEO's lawn, not in the middle of the street where a bunch of people only doing slightly better than you are take the bus to work every day. Not only will you win an Irony award from me, but you'll get arrested for obstructing traffic too -- and rightfully so. Time and place. First two things you learn in activism. Time. Place. Learn it.

     

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's easily to afford a small apartment in Nowhere, Montana. These protesters specifically insist on the luxury of living in San Francisco.

    2. Re:Hmm. by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She makes a valid point but I'd say it's not really relevant. People are protesting about their conditions and are going after a soft target because

      ... Because they're cowards. When Martin Luther King marched, he marched in the deep south, in the open streets. When Ghandi protested, he sat in plain public view, risking death, to champion non-violent revolution. In fact, you look back at the major protests and civil rights battles in this country and you'll find that "soft targets" weren't on the menu. That's what we call biting the hand that feeds you.

      If you got a problem with The Man, go camp on The Man's front lawn, and make sure the whole world, and especially him, knows it. Don't instead decide to double park The Man's janitor so he can't get to work in the morning. There's nothing noble about that... it's the move of a coward raging in his own impotence.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Hmm. by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the 99% syndrome where you believe that because you are a member of a larger group means you're automatically more important.

      Careful there, Sir Social Darwinist. Everybody is equally important. They have every right to protest. Peacefully. On the sidewalk. Just like the KKK, neo-nazis, and people who want Sarah Palin for President in 2016. Anyone who interferes with that's getting my American Free Speech Boot up their self-entitled ass.

      But they didn't do that. They became violent. And 99%, 1%, or Percentile-agnostic, that's wrong. There is a time and a place for protesting, and it's not in front of the bus during the morning commute. That place is reserved for self-entitled bicyclists, angry motorists, and pedestrians on their cell phone wandering into traffic, thank you very much.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:Hmm. by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nice story bro. I do understand. I worked hard to keep food on the table and a roof over my family's head. I worked outside from dawn to almost dawn no matter the weather. I took a risk by continuing my education using student loans while working full time. It paid off in the end.

      Take your bullshit story that accuses others of living like royalty elsewhere.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    5. Re: Hmm. by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, I don't see the problem here. If a city prices out all its low-paid workers who keep the toilets and streets clean and the buses running, then something will change. It's a self-correcting problem.

    6. Re:Hmm. by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What happens when your "proper places to protest" are reduced to nowhere effective? When you're corralled into "free speech zones" far from private property, which is every square inch of the city? Important protests of the past have blocked up private businesses, and even impeded "innocent bystanders" from going about their life: consider the Woolworth's lunch counter sit-ins central to forcing de-segregation during the civil rights movement. If you limit protests to where they are harmless and invisible and never intrude on the priorities of the powerful, then you'll never get anything out of them --- leaving the disenfranchised masses even more desperate and angry.

    7. Re:Hmm. by Entrope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you suggesting that these protesters were limited to useless "free speech zones"? Which SF laws or regulations keep people from protesting on the sidewalks? Keep in mind that there is an important distinction between trying to make your message seen -- a speech-focused protest -- and trying to disrupt a person or business who you think is behaving unjustly -- a conduct-focused protest. Sit-ins are an example of conduct-focused protest. Conduct-focused protests are ineffective when either the conduct or the target is chosen poorly, and both conduct and target were chosen poorly by the protesters in this case.

    8. Re:Hmm. by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you got a problem with The Man, go camp on The Man's front lawn, and make sure the whole world, and especially him, knows it.

      The man's front lawn is surrounded by a very high fence, with the house set off from view of the street by several acres (possible patrolled by armed guards who will shoot trespassers). You really think you can walk up to the front door of Google, Apple, or Facebook executives' house and leave door hangers telling them what naughty boys they've been? That their staff won't route them to the helipad instead of the Bentley if their street to work is blocked by protestors? Today's immense wealth disparities mean the oligarch class can live entirely insulated from any public street where protestors can legally and ineffectively gather. Shouting at The Man's front yard's external fortifications won't get you anywhere.

      During the "major protests and civil rights battles in this country," the exact same concerns you raise --- that only innocent, hard-working folks were harmed by obstructions to streets and businesses --- were spouted by the powers-that-be opposing change. If you protest according to the rules of the rich and powerful, all you'll get is the continued rule of the rich and powerful.

    9. Re:Hmm. by lecoupdejarnac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Software developers (especially at Google and Apple) do not make "at, or less, than minimum wage"; this is absolutely absurd. According to sfgate.com the average salary in San Francisco right is $110,950 for application developers and slightly higher for systems developers.

      According to the same link, food service workers make and average of $22,180 a year in San Francisco. That's a very wide income gap, indeed.

      So engineers at some companies work long hours, so what? Most engineers (myself included) love the work they do, and it's a far cry from working multiple jobs with little or no benefits to barely be able to feed your family and be unable to afford a nice place to live.

      Not only will you win an Irony award from me, but you'll get arrested for obstructing traffic too -- and rightfully so. Time and place. First two things you learn in activism. Time. Place. Learn it.

      The time and place for activism: somewhere with a lot of impact and that probably means it should be extremely disruptive to a lot people. Sure it's a pain in the ass to have your commute screwed up by striking transit employees or something like this bus protest. But that's a cost of democracy, and we're all better off if people are free to protest and to be disruptive. Without disruption, protests are too easily ignored and the power of the masses is too easily constrained. To hell with "free speech zones" and protest permits. I agree that protestors shouldn't overdo it, or they'll lose the support of the masses. Unfortunately in the US, they rarely get any support at all. People cling to their sense of entitlement and have no willingness to stomach some inconvenience for the sake of the greater good.

    10. Re: Hmm. by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I see I've been modded Funny, but I'm entirely serious: if it's too expensive for janitors and waiters to live in a city (or commutable distance), something will happen. Either the wages for those jobs will go up, to get people to take those jobs, or the wealthy people living there will get sick of having nasty toilets and self-serve restaurants and dirty streets, and will move elsewhere, which means the cost of housing there will fall, so that poorer people can move back in.

      Or, maybe they'll just learn to like dirty streets. Just look at NYC. There's lots of very wealthy people there who don't seem to mind that the sidewalks are all nasty and it smells like a sewer; they're all perfectly happy to pay ridiculous rents there for ramshackle little apartments and commute on an ancient, foul-smelling, noisy subway system that looks pathetic compared to subways in European cities.

    11. Re: Hmm. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you worked for years, decades maybe to make your neighborhood a desirable place to live. Got on the school's PTA, residents association, neighborhood watch, voted every election, helped clean up the housing stock. Now someone with more money wants to live there, so GTFO peon. Thanks for your hard work, now fuck off.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. How is it their fault? by jfbilodeau · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hate to make it sound like I'm pissing on the protesters, but how is it the fault of techies that house pricing is going up?

    --
    Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
    1. Re:How is it their fault? by Entrope · · Score: 5, Funny

      If techies accepted jobs that were just barely above the poverty line, they wouldn't be able to afford expensive houses, and the protesters would focus their efforts on more deserving targets like all the bankers and lawyers who live and work in the city (and who would still be able to bid housing prices up).

      You know, because this country's problems are caused by paying good wages to STEM workers, and the solution is clearly to not do that. Someone should let politicians know.

    2. Re:How is it their fault? by Cheviot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't agree with the protesters, but their argument is that by providing these busses, Apple and Google are encouraging their employees to live in the area the busses service.

      Previously the employees would have chosen to live somewhere convenient, but more expensive, due to the need to drive themselves. Now the Apple and Google employees can buy up places near the bus routes, causing a mini-housing shortage and driving up prices, thus pricing locals out of the housing market

    3. Re:How is it their fault? by characterZer0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also a bad thing for people who want to stay in the home they have lived in for years but can no longer afford the increased property taxes.

      That is the fundamental flaw of property taxes - the taxes can go up even if your property stayed exactly the same just because a bunch of people around you overpaid.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    4. Re:How is it their fault? by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Being young, they like being able to walk from their apartments to the hottest clubs or concerts or whatever.

      True, but if the price of living in SV came down substantially, a lot more would consider the premium of living in SF too high.

      Also, if SV became more urbanized, there would be more clubs and whatnot. When Manhattan got expensive enough, you started seeing trendier and more desirable parts of Brooklyn.

    5. Re:How is it their fault? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is the fundamental flaw of property taxes - the taxes can go up even if your property stayed exactly the same just because a bunch of people around you overpaid.

      That's actually the purpose of property taxes. The alternative is to have some guy who owns a strawberry farm in the middle of what is now a major city just sitting on that property and impeding growth (sometimes they're just waiting for its value to go up), instead of selling it to someone who'll make better use of the property. (True story. Disneyland eventually bought the 52 acre farm for ~$90 million.)

      What's best for you is not necessarily what is best for the public at large. Rising property taxes are a way to "encourage" people doing economically inefficient things with their property to sell to someone who could make better use of the property. "Better" defined based on what sort of business or residence the surrounding area has turned into. It's a less drastic measure than eminent domain.

      The problem with the "bunch of people around you overpaid" scenario is that many municipalities are greedy and (1) increase property taxes every year, when a 5-year or 10-year average would help smooth out a lot of the bumps in market prices, and (2) don't have provisions for lowering property taxes when the value of real estate decreases. Otherwise, if the real estate value remains high, those people didn't overpay.

  3. Shooting the messenger by kruach+aum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The tech industry is not responsible for driving up housing prices. The greed of people who set housing prices is responsible for driving up housing prices. However, it is much harder to visibly protest the upscale equivalent of a slumlord (I guess still a slumlord), especially when such highly visible symptoms as environmentally friendly commuter buses are within easy reach.

    1. Re:Shooting the messenger by envelope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It isn't greed so much as supply and demand. There's no real estate master setting prices for the area. Each house sells at its own price.

      --

      appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars
  4. Re:What do they want? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or are they just trying to scare successful people away?

    They want them to move away from San Fran, so that the whole place will become a slum that they can afford to live in.

    Either that or they want to force them all to buy cars, producing more gridlock, more pollution, and more wear & tear on the roads.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  5. Cake by danceswithtrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is an ever widen inequality gap in America. Gaps in wealth, income, education, access to healthcare, life expectancy, etc. Much attention has been paid to the life of the top 1% but not so much to the bottom 20%. Real incomes for them have stagnated or gone down over the last decade. The urine poor public education system gives little opportunity for upward mobility. Hunger, cold, and loss of housing are constant worries.

    Meanwhile in congress, politicians want to cut social welfare programs, keep taxes on the wealthy at record low rates, give tax breaks for corporate jets, cut unemployment benefits, send the poor to fight stupid wars (how many of the Apple and Google employees have friends and family serving in the Middle East?). The list goes on and on. I am fighting the urge to blame this all on the Republicans because the Democrats don't really seem to want to fix the problem.

    So the situation has devolved into this-- where the poor, disaffected, resentful masses with little hope of improving their lot see the gleaming buses give free rides to the Apple and Google employees with their free lunches. To be fair to the employees in the buses, they are probably not the really rich because they have onsite parking. First the spray cans. Next the torches, rocks and sickles. Meanwhile the politicians in Washington cry "Let them eat cake."

  6. exactly what is wrong with "Gentrification"? by lophophore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly what is wrong with "gentrification"? One commenter on the linked article on IndyBay points out the City of Detroit as an example of what happens when the middle class leaves. Is that what they want for Oakland?

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
    1. Re:exactly what is wrong with "Gentrification"? by femtobyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a difference between "the middle class leaves" (because middle-class jobs are gutted) and "the middle class is forced out of their homes by the upper-middle-class." The people being evicted are representative of the vast overwhelming majority of the population; general working people who keep a city going. Perhaps you don't believe anyone should be allowed to settle down and work and live in a small but reasonably comfortable home if they can't pull a six-figure salary; these people disagree. Maybe you don't worry about losing your home, having to move far out of town; losing your friends, community, school zone, and perhaps your job, too. Maybe you were raised with a silver spoon in your mouth, with zero experience of the actual struggles and concerns of the majority of working American families. But don't let your ignorance control your disdainful attitude towards the working class.

  7. short sighted by cellocgw · · Score: 4, Informative

    As I recall, housing prices in SF and environs were going astronomical long before Google existed. And seeing as Apple's been there since the 70's, it seems rather odd that "just recently" Apple is responsible for a price rise in housing.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  8. You miss the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We are starting to see the social unrest caused by the wealth disparity in the US - a disparity of Third World proportions. You have people being left begind in the economic prosperity and to add insult to injury, they are then told it's because of their character: unwillingness to work hard, poor money skills, getting the wrong education or degree. (It's funny, back in the 90s, all those tech people were saying "follow you passions! That's how you make it big!" and "We only hire people who are passionate about what they do!")

    The techies were just the first targets. Don't worry, the CEOs will come next - if they can get through shareholder paid for armed security. Security for big shots is a BOOMING business, btw.

    This is what happens when people feel like there's no hope for them to better their lives. They see that "work hard" means nothing when you have assholes who know the right people become billionaires with little or no effort - they just had the contacts to folks who knew how to set it up to sucker investors with an IPO.

    It's starting to happen folks! Social issues like this were solved in the 30s but we went BACKWARDs in the last couple of decades.

    We need 1950s income tax rates back; which was the most prosperous times in US history. Back then working hard and having "good" character got you some where.

    "I'd rather have to give half away than have all if it taken away!"

    -Joseph P. Kennedy.

  9. Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The disparity in the US is huge, yes, but being poor in the US is a picnic compared to the third world. No one in the US needs to starve. You have a roof over your head. You have at least some money for luxuries like a mobile phone and a TV. Comparing this to third world poverty shows that you've never been to the third world.

    That is false and you have absoutely no clue. See the chart. We are on the level of some African countries - and some of those Third World shitholes are actually better than we are.

    The rest of that statement show someone who has a very very cloistered life.

    Taking too many company buses and living on the company "campus" are we?

    They are idiots, pure and simple.

    That's what I think of all the SF tech companies. They are all just advertising companies with a delusion of being innovative.

    1. Re:Clueless by joe_frisch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Disparity and poverty are very different. The US has quite high disparity, but the average wealth is quite high, so the poor in the US are in general not nearly as poor as the poor in 3rd world countries.

      Disparity and poverty are both bad and both cause very serious problems, but they are different.

  10. Why doesn't SV urbanize? by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Despite all the complaints about a lack of housing, SV hasn't become more urbanized. Is there any reason for that other than zoning and other government imposed limits? If SV companies really wanted more housing in the area, they'd pressure the local governments to change that. It's absurd to complain about lack of housing when you don't see 10 story apartment buildings everywhere.

    1. Re:Why doesn't SV urbanize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I own a house in Sunnyvale, near the Yahoo headquarters. My neighbors and I do not want more urbanization for the simple reason that it will increase the housing supply and lower our relative property values. That is the primary reason you do not see more urbanization in SV - the people who already own there do not want their property values to go down. We also tend to vote in the local elections much more so than renters.

      Additionally, the transportation infrastructure in SV is strained as it is. It can literally take 45 minutes to an hour to drive 5 miles across town, public transit sucks, and there is not much hope of that improving. That makes it even harder for high-density developments to be approved - the infrastructure is not really there to support it and the people already living there do not want even more traffic to deal with.

  11. Only in California by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In most parts of the country, cities lament that people LIVE in the suburbs, and only WORK in the city, robbing them of the property taxes they need to support the crumbling social and economic infrastructure, causing a collapse in property values (Detroit is a perfect example, but other large cities have the same issues).

    In California, when people make an effort to LIVE in the city, paying all those higher taxes and propping up all that social and economic infrastructure, they're protested for harming the poor by keeping the property values from collapsing.

    Face facts, people - you can't have it both ways. If you don't want those middle-income people keeping your neighborhoods from turning into crack houses, you shouldn't complain when the landlords don't have to put up with any deadbeat who feels like squatting in their buildings.

  12. more likely they've been able to live in SF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    with modest jobs (think service sector, utility technician, etc.) until recently. The cost of living in SF is rising quite rapidly, correlated with the increase in value of firms like Facebook, Twitter and others. Especially correlated with such companies' appearances on the public stock exchanges, which gives their employees a lot of purchasing power, which escalates the prices of housing, property tax rates, rents and so forth.

    "Ordinary" jobs (jobs with compensation not de facto indexed to the rise of technology company valuations) don't keep up with increases in local costs of living in areas like SF or San Jose. This hits pretty hard on somebody, for example, like a service tech at a sewage processing plant. That's a moderately skilled job, one that provides real value to the community. Somebody who has filled that job well for 20 years, and who has been able to live in SF on their earnings, quite suddenly finds themselves being priced out of their community. How? Escalating property taxes (based on escalating home prices driven by demand from ISO-enriched techies); increased rents (same reason + others), increased prices of goods and services, etc. After 20 years, they find they can't keep up. Suddenly, living in SF is a "luxury".

    All they did was do a good, useful job, maybe raise a family, contribute to making a good community - in short, all the stuff we'd like Americans to do - and they're priced out through no fault of theirs. It's a problem for them, and it's a problem for all of us. It doesn't seem like a problem to those who are on the techie compensation skyrocket, but it is. They just won't notice the damage as soon as others around them.

    1. Re:more likely they've been able to live in SF by mikael · · Score: 4, Informative

      Same thing happened in Aberdeen, Scotland during the 1980's. Oil workers were getting paid £50K/year for two week on/two week off contracts working on the oil rigs. Oil workers liked being in the city for all the pubs and nightclubs. That shot up the prices of homes such that other people such as teachers, technicians, nurses couldn't afford to rent never mind buy flats or apartments. Teachers even went on strike over this. The solution? Teachers got pay rises so they could afford cars and commute in from 10 miles away, and they converted the school playgrounds into car parks. For nursing the solution was just to bring in cheap foreign labor.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  13. Mod Parent Down - Factually WAY OFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    This just in: The homeless and unemployed mobbed a bus full of people perceived to be rich, perhaps unaware of the 60-80 hour work weeks endured by software engineers, that once you take that into consideration, many in the industry make at, or less, than minimum wage.

    The *entry level* salaries for Google and Apple engineers in Silicon Valley is $105K. That's over fifty bucks an hour assuming a 40-hour work week.

    Now assume an 80-hour work week, so it's still over 25 bucks an hour. And these engineers get *lots* of perks, including high end health care plans and free transportation to work. Bear in mind that a substantial chunk of a working class salary is spent taking care of these kinds of expenses, and there are lots of non-monetary hassles associated with maintaining a car in a big city.

  14. This is not about "wealth inequality" by Aquitaine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a lot more mundane than that: supply and demand.

    When a place becomes desirable over a long period of time, lots of people want to move there. How cities manage this relatively good problem to have is very telling about the character of their politics.

    San Francisco decided a long time ago that it didn't want very much new construction. Their land-use restrictions are among the most restrictive in the country, and even if you can get past them, the amount of red tape to either build something or renovate something (particularly if anybody thinks it has historical character, which is not a high bar in SF) combined with the frequency and ease of anti-development lawsuits means that the city has been encouraging people to come to town while adamantly refusing to find anywhere to put them.

    This is the inevitable result of a certain kind of liberal mindset: the same people who are in the streets and protesting the lack of affordable housing are the ones who will file lawsuits and protest development that provides housing. It may not be the housing they like, but the thing about the housing market is that you have to have somewhere to put everybody. SF is like New York in this respect: the high end is fine, even if it costs a lot more to be rich in SF than most anywhere else in the United States. The low end, while hardly fine, is served through affordable housing: if you are willing to survive the Waiting Lists of Housing Limbo, you can qualify for a place to live, so long as you never make too much money. Politicians love this stuff because it lets them point at families that could never live in a place like that and take credit for solving the problem that they are making a lot worse, because there is no longer a middle to the housing market.

    This problem isn't inherent to government-subsidized housing - you could figure out how to build and/or subsidize low-cost housing without completely distorting the market. But combine it with land-use restrictions and your average San Francsican's general unwillingness to tolerate tract homes and voila, nobody can afford to live there. Blaming Google and Facebook for this is not only ignorant, it's the worst kind of envy: you have what we want, so you must be responsible for the fact that we haven't got it.

    Austin has experienced a similar boom to SF and some of the same problems, but even though we've failed on the infrastructure side, we didn't limit development to anywhere near the extent that SF has. Consequently, Austin is still the most expensive place to live in Texas, but the average cost per square foot is between 1/3 and 1/4 of what it is in San Francisco.

    TL;DR: If you want everyone to have a place to live, you have to be OK with the fact that they won't all live in charming bungalows or 19th century restoration hardware displays. Anyone who thinks that getting rid of the tech sector in San Francisco is a solution should go visit Detroit to see what a city looks like when business leaves. Just don't call the cops or the fire department unless you have an hour to kill.

  15. Most protestors deserve to be evicted by floobedy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have lived in the SF Bay Area almost my entire life. In this area, every single time anyone tries to build new urban housing, the left shows up and protests. Are you trying to build a new condo building? PROTEST. Trying to build new apartments? PROTEST. The political left has fought, tooth and nail, for decades, to restrict severely, or even to reduce the supply of housing in the SF Bay Area, and ESPECIALLY urban housing like high-rise apartment buildings. Then, the consequences of their actions occurred: the price of real estate went up, especially for renters.

    When the price of real estate started going up, because of absolutely restricted supply, the left started rebelling against the consequences of its own actions. They started protesting again--not against themselves who actually caused the phenomenon, but against Google, who had nothing to do with it. Now the left has people holding banners saying "FUCK GOOGLE" and "Techies not welcome here".

    Of course, if the protestors really succeeded in "fucking Google" etc, and tech companies were really not welcome here, then silicon valley would have to move somewhere else. Then the tech industry which supports this entire area (like GM used to support Detroit) would vacate, and the tax base would implode, and San Francisco would increasingly resemble Detroit--not at first, of course, but gradually over decades. Then the left would protest the consequences of their own actions, once again. "FUCK GOOGLE FOR LEAVING", "FUCK TAX RECEIPTS FOR GOING DOWN" and so on. Perhaps they would demand that tech companies and workers continue to pay local taxes despite not working or living here anymore.

    I find it ironic that one of the protesting organizations is called "just cause". Because "just cause" is what was already happening. People are getting what they DESERVE--unaffordable real estate--which is what they caused by their own actions. That is what "just" means, or used to mean.

    Frankly, I think it should be easier to evict renters. If they do not allow the construction of new housing units, and they have never bought a house, then they should have nowhere to live. They have only themselves to blame.

  16. Hey Google and Apple! by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear Google and Apple,

    I saw on the news that local residents hate you now and are preventing your workers from arriving to work on time. Please move your operations to our state and we will show how much we appreciate all your paid employees spending their money in our neighborhoods.

    Sincerely,
    The 49 other saner states.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...