Google Co-Opts Whale-Watching Boat To Ferry Employees

theodp writes "Purportedly intended to defuse tensions over gentrification that have led to blockades and vandalism of Google's ubiquitous shuttles (video), which make use of public San Francisco bus stops (map), Wired reports that Google is now chartering a ferry to take its workers from SF to Silicon Valley. 'We certainly don't want to cause any inconvenience to SF residents, and we're trying alternative ways to get Googlers to work,' Google explained. Inconveniencing whale-seeking visitors to The Aquarium of the Pacific, however, is apparently not considered evil. After learning that Google had co-opted the $4 million, 83-foot, 150-passenger whale-watching catamaran MV/Triumphant to ferry as few as 30-40 Googlers to work, some expressed concerns on Facebook that Google would be The Grinch That Stole Whale Watching Season (not to worry; the boat's slated to make its 'triumphant' return to Long Beach after Google's '30-day trial')."

Comments

Citation Needed

[pdbogen]

theodp, do you have any source whatsoever to actually back up your assertion that the use of the boat is intended to defuse tension?

And since when is "inconveniencing" tourists by chartering just ONE of the boats "in the fleet" considered evil, as you imply?

Re:Citation Needed

[Workaphobia]

Apparently if a boat is used for something besides its original purpose, no other boat can ever replace it. You know, cause boats and tasks mate for life.

I'm no free market fanatic, but it's like they're *trying* to misunderstand basic supply and demand.

Re:Citation Needed

[gnick]

That was my impression too. This sounds like the equivalent of, "a company rented a van for a business trip that a family could have used for sight-seeing."

Re: Citation Needed

[pdbogen]

Yes, clearly my slashdot account with excellent karma in good standing for ten years is a Google PR sock puppet.

I have a bias, just like others do. But, as it happens, I live in the city, work for a tech company in the city, and walk to work. I don't use the Google shuttle, I don't personally care what happens to it, but it's simple fact that the Google shuttle isn't the problem, isn't the cause of the problem, and isn't even a symptom of the problem; the protesters have simply selected it as a symbol.

Re:Citation Needed

[ganjadude]

and I hate to sound harsh but.... so? This is how it is in NYC as well, and most major cities, properties are better taken care of, costs rise and eventually you push yourself out if you are not making enough, so you move a little further outside of the city, get 3X the house for 1/3rd the price and usually are happier in the end anyway. Lets face it, not everyone can live where they want to, I sure as hell dont want to be where I am but I cant afford to move where I do, I dont go running around throwing a hissy fit about it like these clowns in SF though

Re:Citation Needed

[pdbogen]

Interestingly, the residents are a micro version of those same poor displaced whale-watchers. What's happening to them is a free market economy. They rent an asset owned by someone else. That owner has an unarguable right to seek the best return on their investment: It is greatly in their interest to rent their property for as much money as they can.

Why aren't you angry at the landlords for raising rents and using the Ellis act to evict people? That's not Google's fault. Google isn't driving people out; they're just paying their employees well and adapting to their needs (in this case, providing a shuttle from SF to Redwood, since a number of employees live in SF).

Why aren't you angry at the city for not issuing housing permits for more economic high-density housing? (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francisco-exodus/7205/) Google isn't the one that lobbied and protested to keep the 120-year-old Victorian your 60-year-old woman lives in intact, instead of replacing it with a highrise.

Sure, it sucks that the place you lived forever is changing in ways you don't like. It sucks that residents' NIMBY-esque actions to stop that change turned out worse for them in the long run, because someone came along that's willing and able to pay more for your space than they are, and they resisted the kind of development that would've helped to make enough space for everyone.

If you don't want to be driven from "your" rented home, you have to own the place you live. If you can't afford to own it but you can afford to rent it, that means you're living in a kind of bubble: Your landlord thinks the land is worth more than what you're paying, meaning they think they can get more rent for it later, meaning at some point or another the occupant will be paying what the owner wants, whether the occupant is you or someone working for a startup that's getting paid five times what you get paid. It's a free market, and shit like this happens.

Re:Citation Needed

[MightyYar]

There are some real problems with this, though. The US is fairly unique in that the poor live near city centers, due to urban decay and white flight among other things. Europe usually has the opposite problem - poor concentrated in the suburbs. Poor concentrated anywhere is a bad problem to have. The problem remains that the jobs tend to be closer to the rich people, but now you are making the poor drive cars into the city for work instead of taking the bus or train when they live in an urban area. Access to services is also worse when the poor are forced into a suburban setting - everything is more spread out geographically.

Anyway, it's not Google's fight - but it is a symptom of an unhealthy housing situation. You don't want all the people of means to be completely disconnected from the problems of everyday people.

Re:Citation Needed

[mi]

The problem is that the cheapest 1brs in SF cost $2800/month.

How is it a Google's problem — or a Google's fault? Are you going to argue, a corporation is "evil" because it pays its employees high wages — which leads to them being able to pay higher rents?

kids in mission who turn a vibrant ethnic neighborhood into Sharon Green in palo alto.

And there is nothing wrong with it — those "kids" still have to live somewhere. Are you going to restrict their freedom — for the dubious goal of preserving "a vibrant ethnic neighborhood"?

Re:Citation Needed

[mjwalshe]

It seems that renters in the USA want all the advantages of owning a property without the downsides

Re:Citation Needed

[bob_super]

The US is just finally learning the very European art of hating other people flaunting their money. The twist in this case is that googlers are not stratospherically paid, and many are just jealous that some companies take better care of their people than others.

I mean, really "hey, here's a free bus so you can be more productive." is causing unrest...
Google's reaction? "hey here's a free boat so you can still be more productive"

What do people expect Google to do? Cut salaries and build dorms in Mountain View? Outsource to China or learn worker management from Dubai? Stop trying to help their employees be happy productive people, and turn into unhappy whipped people walmart-style?
People should think before they call them evil. That boat isn't cheap, and they have no obligation to pay their people much, or help them get home from work.

Re: Citation Needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy this man a cookie.

If you live in the Bay Area, you know why it's so screwed up.

Prop 13.

Your neighbor can live in a $1.6million house but pay taxes like its worth $160k.

Prop 13 has created a very unhealthy real estate market where there is significant incentive not to move, even if you want to.

Re:Citation Needed

[Cimexus]

Mod parent up - as someone who moved from Australia to the US recently, this was one of the things that struck me almost immediately about most US cities. They are 'inside out' in terms of property prices/desirability.

In almost all Australian cities (and for that matter European and Asian cities), the closer you get to the CBD/downtown, the pricier property is. People want to live close to work, close to the vibrant downtown lifestyle (shops, cafes, restaurants, entertainment, nightlife etc.). Right in the urban core you have the super-expensive high-density places where the young, rich and hip want to live. Then as you go out in rings you get suburban housing of gradually decreasing price. First, the older, leafy, established suburbs with big old houses and established families that may have held the land for a long time. Expensive, because it's close to downtown while still offering detached houses rather than apartment living. Then mid-range suburbs ... then right at the outskirts of the city, the newest-built dwellings that are also generally the cheapest because they are far away. This where you'll find young families and first home buyers. They may eventually sell and move closer in once they can afford to. Or they may stay there (and eventually, these outer areas aren't as 'outer' anymore as the city expands).

But in the US it's all backwards. The areas in/close to downtown are the cheapest and no one seems to want to live there, and the expensive houses are all at the outskirts. It's kind of weird. Gives many US downtowns a kind of drab, utilitarian feeling ... a place people go to work but not live. (There are exceptions of course, NYC being the most obvious one, but sounds like SF is that way too, though I haven't been there).

The other point the parent made was excellent too - you don't want to segregate the social classes too much (either by concentrating the poor at the outskirts or in the center of the city). I used to live in Canberra, Australia, and one very noticeable thing there is that they have public housing developments (subsidized/free housing for poor people) scattered relatively evenly across all neighbourhoods. From the wealthiest to the poorest. You can easily have a block of public housing next to trendy modern townhouses or across the road from multi-million dollar ranch-style homes. This means you don't get that disconnect between social groups (and also means you don't get much crime, as you don't have these concentrated areas of desperate people where that activity can thrive)

Moronic.

[t0qer]

So instead of peacefully letting the tech workers board somewhat environmentally friendly busses that are subjected to stringent emissions regulations, they harass google and others to the point where they have to ride a boat with NO emissions regulations to and from work? Not to mention the fuel economy of boat vs wheels is horrible.

i dont get it

[ganjadude]

I really dont get it. While I understand google is not squeeky clean these days, why do people have to turn everything into an anti google issue? Google pays for busses to bring its employees to work? its bad!!!! Google tries something different with a ferry, OH NO now people cant watch the whales!!!! I mean come on already google could say they are going to give everyone in the state a brand new tesla, and someone would be bitching about how they wanted a ford

Re:i dont get it

[pdbogen]

Sort of. The protesters latched on to that as a visible and easily protestable symbol of the real problem.

It's easy to get really, really angry at a super nice charter bus that's picking up the young and well-paid tech workers from your neighborhood (perhaps that you've lived in for a decade or more) that you're about to get kicked out of because you can no longer afford the rising rents.

Re:i dont get it

[ganjadude]

I dont know how it works in SF, but here where I live, a bus stop is open to any bus, public or private. We cant reasonably expect google to build its own bus stops, Now as for paying to use the existing stops I can see an argument for that route but my argument would be road taxes pay for that public use, therefore anyone can use it, even a private company

Re:i dont get it

[ShanghaiBill]

It was that Google's buses were using the public-transit bus stops, interfering with the regular buses. That's an entirely reasonable objection

No, that is not the objection. The protesters are primarily upset that Googlers are living in SF. It is legal for their buses to use the bus stops. Other private buses use them as well. There is minimal interference with the public buses.

if Google wants to run buses then let them arrange all the infrastructure needed themselves or pay the transit system for using public bus stops.

Everyone benefits from more buses and fewer cars on the roads. Allowing them to use the public bus stops is a good way to encourage desired behavior that benefits everyone, and it is legal for that reason. Requiring everyone with a bus to build their own redundant infrastructure would be idiotic.

Google is acting responsible here. The protesters are idiots.

Re:i dont get it

[Anonymous Psychopath]

It wasn't that Google hired the buses. It was that Google's buses were using the public-transit bus stops, interfering with the regular buses. That's an entirely reasonable objection, if Google wants to run buses then let them arrange all the infrastructure needed themselves or pay the transit system for using public bus stops.

Google is now paying the city $100,000 annually for the use of the public bus stops.

Co-opted or hired?

[Todd Knarr]

It sounds like Google didnt' co-opt the boat, they just hired it. The company that owns it and hires it out decided to take Google's offer over that of the whale-watching company who apparently didn't have a long-term contract for it's use. That's frankly one of the risks you take when you make your company's operation dependent on someone else without locking it down with an iron-clad air-tight contract: that someone else may change their mind and you're left high and dry.

"co-opted" means something else

[Meostro]

I don't think "co-opted" means what you think it means. I'm pretty sure Google just paid the operator for their service.

Re:Transportation is evil

[pdbogen]

The protesters basically want Google employees to leave San Francisco and stop causing rents to go up. They are angry at Google for making it easier for the employees to live here. The better pay means landlords can charge higher rents, and the landlords are using a loophole (the Ellis act) to evict residents that have been there longer, which usually means (due to rent control) they're paying less.

It's not even an economic niche. It's an island that's being overtaken by rising tides, and the field mouse on the island are protesting the schools of fish that are taking up residence.

Is Google the new M$?

[EMG at MU]

Seriously will ./ try to slant anything to make Google look bad? Co-Opt a boat? Did Google storm the boat by force and take it over like nerdy pirates? Or did Google negotiate a contract with a company to use one of their boats? If whale watching is in such crazy demand that Google using a boat for 30 days is ruining the season then it sounds like there is a great business opportunity for someone to start another whale watching tour company.

Why isn't anyone bitching about the owners of the boat letting Google use it? Becuase that wouldn't get ./'s pantys in a knot. Thats why.

Re:Transportation is evil

[ShanghaiBill]

In general, complaints about gentrification seem ridiculous.

The complaints are especially ridiculous when they come from the same nimbys that lobby against the construction of any new housing in SF.

Re: Whalewatching

[ackthpt]

Below average BMI? How is that possible, given all that free junk food that permeates the entire Google campus?? There's a reason that " Googler 15" phrase exists.

I didn't take a position at Google because they didn't have the right kind of krill on the menu.