Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Co-Opts Whale-Watching Boat To Ferry Employees

Posted by Soulskill on from the now-illegal-to-look-at-whales-without-a-google+-account dept.

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')."

9 of 373 comments (clear)

  1. Citation Needed by pdbogen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Citation Needed by Workaphobia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    2. Re:Citation Needed by gnick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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."

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re: Citation Needed by pdbogen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Citation Needed by pdbogen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. i dont get it by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:i dont get it by pdbogen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:i dont get it by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. "co-opted" means something else by Meostro · · Score: 5, Insightful

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