Slashdot Mirror


Berlin Anti-Gentrification Activists Say They Have Occupied Google's Office in Kreuzberg To Fight Against the Skyrocketing Rents (noblogs.org)

Multiple Slashdot readers have submitted a blog post by a group of Berlin-based "anti-gentrification activists": Today we occupied the Umspannwerk in Kreuzberg to prevent the planned Google Campus there, to fight against the skyrocketing rents and to open up the space for something better. The Google Campus is intended to be a magnet for annoying young entrepreneurs whose IT-sweatshops ("start-ups") promise to deliver new ideas to Google's company business. New tech companies are driving the rents up in the area higher and higher. The endpoint of this process can be seen in San Francisco, which once must have been a halfway livable city.

While it is especially aggravating that Google, despite its aggressive collection of data, is morphing into Big Brother with a user-friendly face, this is not the decisive factor for us. We would also put a spoke in the wheel of any other company. What happens now in the Umspannwerk instead depends on everyone who fills the house with life. It could become a base for the many initiatives that are currently struggling against rising rents and displacement -- a campus of subversion. But it can also be used as a covered grill area for the cold months, or something more. We call on all rebellious tenants, subversive and precarious cultural workers, work-shy benefit scroungers, strike-hungry air traffic controllers, long-living pensioners, unruly refugees, and all other local pests from the neighborhood (and beyond) to join us in the occupation as quickly as possible. A neighborhood assembly will take place at 6 p.m. to discuss the occupation and how to proceed.
Local media has covered the development. [Editor's note: the stories are not in English.] Some context on the local tussle: 'Google go home': the Berlin neighbourhood fighting off a tech giant [May 2018, The Guardian].

161 comments

  1. Sure, comrades by hawk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Welcome to 1968 . . .

    *rolls eyese*

  2. We tried to tell everyone in the 80's and 90's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That people need to learn to code to have a good job. If you didn't listen, well now you're fucked.

    Good union jobs for unskilled labor don't really exist anymore except in very artificially maintained social economies.

    Tech companies will keep building campuses as long as they keep hiring people. If you don't want more jobs then what the fuck do you want?

    1. Re:We tried to tell everyone in the 80's and 90's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less assholes?

    2. Re:We tried to tell everyone in the 80's and 90's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Groups of assholes (anti gentrification activists) want less assholes?

    3. Re:We tried to tell everyone in the 80's and 90's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Less assholes?

      "fewer assholes"

    4. Re:We tried to tell everyone in the 80's and 90's by Megol · · Score: 0

      Funny, my CLI doesn't support the fewer command?

    5. Re: We tried to tell everyone in the 80's and 90's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, kill the protesters. They are the assholes that want something for being born.

  3. Economic development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Another word for gentrification is "economic development". If you're opposed to economic development, you could go live in a third world country I suppose.

    1. Re:Economic development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you are the one to get the short end of the stick of gentrification, you will be living like in a 3rd world country.

    2. Re:Economic development by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      When you are the one to get the short end of the stick of gentrification...

      Well, instead of wasting time bitching about it...perhaps one could spend extra time trying to educate themselves, get a better job, a different job, etc.....?

      Its never too late, until it is too late.

      But progress happens, and in the case of economic development, if you want to stay in the area, you need to make sure you can keep up, and try to be a part of the economic upswing.....or, well, there are other places to live.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Economic development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why don't tech companies choose a location in the middle of nowhere and build their offices there? With such a high concentration of highly paid workers, the free market will build a city around it.

    4. Re:Economic development by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      That question speaks volumes, about you, middle schooler.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re: Economic development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure your job is not on the absolute end of the bell curve. me, for example, I'm going for a physics degree, which in the end will probably lead to an employment as a data scientist. i bet that puts me quite a bit more to the right than you are.
        so, if i ever manage to rationalize your job away, will you bitch, or will you relearn? I'm pretty sure you're just full of it, and you will bitch.

    6. Re:Economic development by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why don't tech companies choose a location in the middle of nowhere and build their offices there? With such a high concentration of highly paid workers, the free market will build a city around it.

      Microsoft did. Walmart did for their tech bunker (want a freaking mansion as a software dev? Work for Walmart.)

      Google and Facebook and Amazon want to have offices in prestigious cities, as it helps attract young stupid talent. People who would rather live in a 400 sq foot highrise apartment "in the city!" than a large house somewhere nice. It makes sense if you're mostly hiring guys in their 20s: they don't want a house, they want someplace they can stagger to drunk after a night at the club, hopefully with company.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Economic development by neurojab · · Score: 1

      Why don't tech companies choose a location in the middle of nowhere and build their offices there? With such a high concentration of highly paid workers, the free market will build a city around it.

      Microsoft did. Walmart did for their tech bunker (want a freaking mansion as a software dev? Work for Walmart.)

      Google and Facebook and Amazon want to have offices in prestigious cities, as it helps attract young stupid talent. People who would rather live in a 400 sq foot highrise apartment "in the city!" than a large house somewhere nice. It makes sense if you're mostly hiring guys in their 20s: they don't want a house, they want someplace they can stagger to drunk after a night at the club, hopefully with company.

      That may be true to some degree, but it doesn't really explain the silicon valley phenomenon. If that were all that were going on, New York and London would have all the tech companies and nobody else. Tech companies need skilled workers, and the average stint at a tech company is dropping like a rock. IBM used to build tech campuses out in the middle of nowhere and towns would build up around them. They don't do that anymore. Possibly due to loss of market clout, but also because the employment landscape is changing. People just change jobs a lot more often than they used to - and are basically expected to do so. Many/most experienced tech workers are not going to uproot their families to go work in the middle of nowhere when there is little chance they will stay at that job until retirement. Given that, tech companies usually want to set up where there are other tech companies in the hope of attracting experienced talent.

    8. Re: Economic development by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I've lost count of the number of physics PhDs I've supervised in code monkey roles.

      They're kind of mentally narrow, but the good ones can be trained.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Economic development by lgw · · Score: 1

      While there's some truth in that, it's worth noting that Amazon has it's HQ, and Google and FB (and everyone else these days) have officiates in Seattle because Microsoft built an office in the middle of nowhere, vaguely close to Seattle. And Google and Facebook do have New York and London offices.

      The biggest companies can just make a tech center by opening a large office somewhere. Which may the the plan for Amazon HQ2, after all. Of course, as long as it's been, I'm starting to wonder whether Amazon even knows WTF they want out of HQ2.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Economic development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wonder whether Amazon even knows WTF they want out of HQ2.

      "Less liability to Seattle and King County taxes."

    11. Re: Economic development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes. and code monkeys will stay employed and in demand, forever and ever and ever and ever, anf while they are still happily coding, you'll be crying bitter tears after that last job of yours, before you became unemployable.

    12. Re: Economic development by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      No, the ones that develop their skills _past_ code monkey will stay employed and in demand, same as me.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Economic development by Paul+Carver · · Score: 1

      What, and have slashdot posters chastise them for setting up a "company town"? They wouldn't dare.

      Though it would be interesting if one of them identified an end of line station on an existing rail line that could be extended and reached an agreement with the city to guarantee express, high speed service between downtown city center and a new station to be built within walking distance of the new corporate complex and pre-planned rail stops in every neighborhood around the complex.

    14. Re:Economic development by drsquare · · Score: 2

      Yeah those damn stupid kids, wanting a social life and places to go in a nice walkable neighbourhood, instead of living in the middle of nowhere and having to drive 10 miles to get a pint of milk.

  4. Rents by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    That is the problem with renting: you are at the mercy of someone else. Even with buying you can still be hit with increasing costs, like property taxes, etc. But if you are renting you better be flexible and be ready to leave when your lease expires.

    1. Re:Rents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are correct ways of dealing with skyrocketing rents:

      1) build more apartment homes. Supply going up will bring costs down. Homeowners always resist this since it lowers their property values; so you have to mount a sufficiently strong political force.

      2) If necessary, operate within the established political framework to adjust zoning, regulatory requirements, or legal barriers-to-entry that prevent new apartment homes from being built.

      3) Move somewhere else. When demand for property in your area goes up, and people richer than you are willing to pay more for it than you can afford, you *should* be displaced. That is a natural part of economic growth in an area. If the demand for property goes up, regardless of the reason, its value goes up, and if you can no longer afford it, the fact that you have lived there a long time is no argument for preventing the property's owners from making the money that others are willing to pay them for it.

    2. Re:Rents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the problem with renting: you are at the mercy of someone else. Even with buying you can still be hit with increasing costs

      Another problem with renting is that renters will vote for things like property tax increases.

    3. Re:Rents by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Renters pay property taxes too, you know. How else do you think the landlord paid the tax bill?

    4. Re:Rents by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      What % of renters are experienced and smart enough to get that?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re: Rents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Germany, not really

    6. Re:Rents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are correct ways of dealing with skyrocketing rents:

      1) build more apartment homes. Supply going up will bring costs down. Homeowners always resist this since it lowers their property values; so you have to mount a sufficiently strong political force.

      2) If necessary, operate within the established political framework to adjust zoning, regulatory requirements, or legal barriers-to-entry that prevent new apartment homes from being built.

      3) Move somewhere else. When demand for property in your area goes up, and people richer than you are willing to pay more for it than you can afford, you *should* be displaced. That is a natural part of economic growth in an area. If the demand for property goes up, regardless of the reason, its value goes up, and if you can no longer afford it, the fact that you have lived there a long time is no argument for preventing the property's owners from making the money that others are willing to pay them for it.

      1). This has never happened. In places where rents are increasing, the developers build high-end apartments and condos. If you have a lot and can build only so much square footage on it, would you rather take 5% profit on 20 units selling for a million dollars each, or 5% on 30 $250K units?
      2). Sure, but when you remove the zoning etc that allows only single family homes, what gets built is high-end apartments, condos, and McMansions that fill every square foot of the lot. Government mandated "affordable housing" eventually morphs into expensive housing somehow, usually by sensible profit taking by the new owners of the unit..
      3). Quite true.

    7. Re:Rents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it interesting that you felt the need to go AC to post what should be a completely uncontroversial view. It is well known that this is the source of housing shortages in cities.

      But you are pushing up against more than one sacred cow... so let's not stir up the zealots with our real names. Because in their religion, higher rents are the result of greedy slumlords taking more than their fair share. And gentrification is the result of racist and clueless young rich people displacing minorities, as everyone knows. And the only acceptable solution to this dillema is to use government force to make people stay in their ghetto and keep rents below anything reasonable, while banning greedy developers from creating housing for the greedy 1% and forcing them to build more "affordable housing" for the rent-controlled masses.

      So I get it... keep it AC so you don't attract a troll or 2.

    8. Re:Rents by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      1). This has never happened. In places where rents are increasing, the developers build high-end apartments and condos.

      It doesn't matter. The supply of housing is still going up. Wealthier people will move to these nice new apartments and vacate where they are living now, freeing up housing for lower income people.

      There is limited demand for "luxury" apartments. Builders will focus on them exclusively only where there are such severe restrictions on construction, that not even the demand for high end housing is being met.

    9. Re:Rents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with buying you can still be hit with increasing costs, like property taxes

      But taxes are government's way of telling us we are loved. We want more taxes, not the same or less!

    10. Re:Rents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1). This has never happened. In places where rents are increasing, the developers build high-end apartments and condos.

      It doesn't matter. The supply of housing is still going up. Wealthier people will move to these nice new apartments and vacate where they are living now, freeing up housing for lower income people.

      I should have been more exact. Developers are indeed building affordable housing, but they aren't building it where people with money want to live due to my previous statement/question. " If you have a lot and can build only so much square footage on it, would you rather take 5% profit on 20 units selling for a million dollars each, or 5% on 30 $250K units?".

      And conversely, builders don't build high-end units in less desirable areas such as those far away from city amenities, or far away from work.
      Rural areas have plenty of affordable housing. Rich people don't want to live there, so luxury apartments don't get built, but modular homes do.
      What I don't feel a need for is that idea that we need to subsidize a few lucky poor or moderate income people so they can live in a desirable area. And it will never be more than a few that get the "affordable housing".

      I live on the edge of a highly desirable area. A half mile east the ~1500 sq foot houses run around 1-1.5 million. A half mile west, the same houses (I mean exactly the same built in the same years by the same builders) run 100-150K. Activists are constantly battling for affordable housing to be built in the desirable area. So a few blocks of single family homes have been torn down and we now have several condo towers with $500-600K one bedroom apartments in the nice area. Prices are much higher for the better units.
      There's plenty for sale in the less desirable area, but that is farther from the cool stuff, and black people live there.

    11. Re:Rents by lgw · · Score: 1

      1). This has never happened. In places where rents are increasing, the developers build high-end apartments and condos.

      It happens every time the property market crashes. AT the height of the early-2000s condo bubble, there were 400000 unoccupied condos in FL, priced stupidly high. The the bubble popped, and you could get one for a song.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  5. Skyrocketing? by Carewolf · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sure the prices are going up, but much slower than they used to, and Berlin is still by far the cheapest capital in Western Europe

    1. Re:Skyrocketing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having worked for a European firm, I can say that Vienna's actually cheaper than Berlin by a noticeable degree.

  6. SF livability not Googles fault by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reason SF has become a literal shithole has nothing to do with Google, and everything to do with the policies of the local government. If more housing were allowed to be built the city might well still be livable by anyone earning less than 200k/year (or is that even livable there these days? Maybe with roommates).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:SF livability not Googles fault by pauljlucas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the local government's policies are a result of the local electorate, i.e., NIMBYs, who fight (and vote) to preserve neighborhood "character."

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    2. Re:SF livability not Googles fault by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      Sounds like Munjoy Hill. Look it up.

      Oh, and if on Munjoy Hill your house burns and has to be torn down and replaced, the city will likely fight that, claiming current fire codes prevent reconstruction. As if the existing house wasn't tolerable. If the fire code is so important and critical, then start buying and tearing down nonconforming structures. Oh, wait. That seems fascist.

      San Francisco seems to want to deny the fundamentals of economics, population, and human nature, or they just don't want to, well, just don't want to. One way to solve the housing crisis there is to deny any further commercial/office space construction or redevelopment that increases seats and jobs. Yeah, like that's gonna happen.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    3. Re:SF livability not Googles fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CA is failing on purpose. To drive people out of their state and spread the liberal cancer to everyplace else.

    4. Re:SF livability not Googles fault by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      The reason SF has become a literal shithole has nothing to do with Google, and everything to do with the policies of the local government. If more housing were allowed to be built the city might well still be livable by anyone earning less than 200k/year (or is that even livable there these days? Maybe with roommates).

      Yes. And they'll vote those same Democrats right back into office, believing that the Republicans are boogeymen.
        Collectively as a city, probably the dumbest in the US.

      Such a shame. SF was one of the best cities prior to WWII. Then the navy started to discharge all their crazies there.

  7. Not Google's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    These are the same people that protest new construction of homes or fight for policy that makes it impossible to build higher density housing.

    High housing prices are caused by a lack of housing. Full stop.

    These people are responsible for their own problems.

    -And no. Developers don't "only build high cost housing". This is stupid. This is the economic equivalent of flat-eartherism and chemtrails. When there is a low housing supply, ALL housing becomes high cost housing.

    Even if developers want to build "High cost housing" Let them! Do you know what causes gentrification? RICH PEOPLE BUYING UP LOW COST PROPERTIES AND IMPROVING THEM BECAUSE THERE IS NOWHERE ELSE TO LIVE FFS.

    1. Re:Not Google's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a myth to think there is "one size fits all" housing. Just like different animals have different dwellings, so to should different types of people have different dwellings.

      For example, in Hawaii, the native population can subsist on small plots passed down generation to generation. However important people like the ultrarich Mark Zuckerberg require a dozen or more of these same plots to live on. Unfotunately, the natives in their ignornace do not see the wisdom of the natural order. They wish to retain their family plots of land, totally failing to see how an important person like Mark Zuckerberg can not possibly live so humbly. These unfortunate people must be evicted from their land to make way for Mark Zuckerberg's home, the only home that someone of his importance could possibly live in.

    2. Re:Not Google's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a myth to think there is "one size fits all" housing. Just like different animals have different dwellings, so to should different types of people have different dwellings.

      For example, in Hawaii, the native population can subsist on small plots passed down generation to generation. However important people like the ultrarich Mark Zuckerberg require a dozen or more of these same plots to live on. Unfotunately, the natives in their ignornace do not see the wisdom of the natural order. They wish to retain their family plots of land, totally failing to see how an important person like Mark Zuckerberg can not possibly live so humbly. These unfortunate people must be evicted from their land to make way for Mark Zuckerberg's home, the only home that someone of his importance could possibly live in.

      I found the Zuckerberg case interesting because in my home state that process (forced sale of poorly documented land occupied by families for centuries) was used to drive off Appalachian hillbillies and negroes back in the 20th century so that mountain resorts could be built, plus the occasional killing.
      When people talk about reparations for blacks, it's not necessarily about slavery, it's also about paying for land stolen by corrupt lawyers and judges that happened while our parents were alive.

    3. Re:Not Google's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent point. And it is not only in the rural South or Appalachia. In Connecticut they forced people out of their homes to build an "economic zone". Well, after the people were evicted and the houses demolished, they decided that there wasn't going to be an "economic zone" after all. "Sucks to be you" was all the officials could offer up as an excuse.

    4. Re:Not Google's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking about New London, aren't you?
      That is the Supreme Court case in which the so-called liberal justices discovered a right of Big Business to take whatever they want if someone (anyone other than the owner) might benefit from it. The old Constitutional standard of taking for "public use", which is pretty clear, to now it can be taking for "public purpose" which is quite vague.

      Here's the decision including the dissenting opinions
      https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf

      STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion.
      O’CONNOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

      The dissent written by Justice Thomas (my favorite justice) says it best IMHO.

      The Court has elsewhere recognized “the overriding respect for the sanctity of the home that has been embedded in our traditions since the origins of the Republic,” Payton, supra, at 601, when the issue is only whether the government may search a home. Yet today the Court tells us that we are not to “second-guess the City’s considered judgments,” ante, at 18, when the issue is, instead, whether the government may take the infinitely more intrusive step of tearing down petitioners’ homes. Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.

      And here is O'Conner

      Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. “[T]hat alone is a just government,” wrote James Madison, “which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

  8. See also: anywhere Google builds an office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google built an engineering office in Boulder, Colorado. Several companies followed or enlarged their presence (Microsoft, Oracle, Amazon, Twitter). Rents there went up over 200%.

    1. Re: See also: anywhere Google builds an office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tough shit. Do you want the jobs or not?

      Cities that do not want companies to make jobs available there should clearly and unambiguously say so.

    2. Re:See also: anywhere Google builds an office by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      Boulder won't let anyone build tall buildings because of their view of the mountains. That's the solution here. Even in Denver there is a lot of bitching about tall buildings and growth.

      Please note that (at least here) the anti-gentrification types are NOT the same as the 'no tall buildings in my backyard' types who tend to be people who own single family homes 5 blocks from downtown.

    3. Re:See also: anywhere Google builds an office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems quite reasonable for a town to not want to see itself become a shithole of overpopulation and urban blight that comes with high pop density. At some point the people in an area go, "That's enough - no more people".

      Low population densities are much nicer places to live, and people who already live in a place don't want to see their home town destroyed on the altar of extreme overcrowding.

  9. Re:Sure, comrades by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

    One man's gentrification is another man's urban renewal.

    To me they're fighting the wrong battle - they should be fighting for higher wages so that as gentrification occurs they're not pushed into ghettos but move laterally, maintaining their standard of living.

  10. Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't need a world of coders. Coding is useless in: surgery, beat cop, ditch digger, loan shark, musician, history teacher, plumber, pilot, lawyer, etc.

    Get the picture?

    1. Re:Wrong. by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah tell that one day to your robo-surgeon, robo-cop (no pun intended), robo-ditch digger, robo-loan shark, robo-sician etc.

      --
      sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
    2. Re: Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no worries - no pun found

  11. Nightly news blurb by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

    "Squatters evicted by police. See it here at 11."

    What happens now in the Umspannwerk instead depends on everyone who fills the house with life...

    No, the short-lived PR bump will depend on everyone who occupies the house. What happens in the Umspannwerk will still be determined by the private owner.

    1. Re: Nightly news blurb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps if the private owner enters the house, somebody will fill it with death.

  12. want lower rent? build more housing... by layabout · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not talking about more single/multi family homes. We need more 15 story urban apartment bricks around each transit stop. The population density should approach 10k people per transit stop at that density you can also support multiple food marts and other retailers to fight the tyranny of the local merchant while preserving a car free/walkable environment.

    1. Re:want lower rent? build more housing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Seattle did with their light rail and gentrification. Move the colored folks out.

    2. Re:want lower rent? build more housing... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Berlin is still rows and rows of Soviet era apartment blocks.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:want lower rent? build more housing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't build enough housing in a city. There's no room for it and building up is expensive. The only way to have lower rents is to decentralize. Besides, as long as people think they should move to the cities despite the skyrocketing rents, the rents are not too high, obviously. Supply and demand.

    4. Re:want lower rent? build more housing... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about more single/multi family homes. We need more 15 story urban apartment bricks around each transit stop. The population density should approach 10k people per transit stop at that density you can also support multiple food marts and other retailers to fight the tyranny of the local merchant while preserving a car free/walkable environment.

      There is plenty being build in Berlin, it is one big construction site. But all the new apartments are going to be high price as that would make the builders the highest profits.

      As for your transit stop estimates, that is complete BS in Europe. We have closer to 500 inhabitants per public transport stop, and that shouldnt go any higher.

    5. Re:want lower rent? build more housing... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      You can't build enough housing in a city. There's no room for it and building up is expensive. The only way to have lower rents is to decentralize. Besides, as long as people think they should move to the cities despite the skyrocketing rents, the rents are not too high, obviously. Supply and demand.

      There is plenty of room in Berlin, lots of areas with old industrial ex-communist factory ruins that are not yet rebuild, because the first areas to be rebuild was all the prime real-estate that was made available by taking the 100s of kilometers wall that went through the city down. And the area around Berlin is uninhabitated swamp land.

  13. People need to make up their minds by El+Cubano · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Community Activists": Businesses and white people are leaving downtown areas for the suburbs, and it is not fair to the poor who have no where else to go. They need to come back, help rebuild the neighborhoods, and open new businesses.

    White people and business owners: OK. (start returning, improving the neighborhoods, and opening businesses)

    "Community Activists": It's not fair. Businesses and white people are flooding the neighborhoods, improving them (the cause of higher rents, prices, and tax valuations), and opening businesses, and it is not fair to the poor who have nowhere else to go.

    Somebody needs to get their head on straight and decide what they really want.

    1. Re:People need to make up their minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Community Activists": Businesses and white people are leaving downtown areas for the suburbs, and it is not fair to the poor who have no where else to go. They need to come back, help rebuild the neighborhoods, and open new businesses.

      White people and business owners: OK. (start returning, improving the neighborhoods, and opening businesses)

      "Community Activists": It's not fair. Businesses and white people are flooding the neighborhoods, improving them (the cause of higher rents, prices, and tax valuations), and opening businesses, and it is not fair to the poor who have nowhere else to go.

      Somebody needs to get their head on straight and decide what they really want.

      Yup that sums it up, we get blamed for everything.

    2. Re:People need to make up their minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what they want is socialism, but they forgot how socialism just makes everyone poor except for the 0.01%. If they spent half as much time paying attention to history and economics as they did protesting, they would be looking for solutions instead of causing trouble.

    3. Re:People need to make up their minds by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      What people want is to live in a nice neighborhood that is also affordable.

      To what extent that is an achievable goal, OTOH, is an open question.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:People need to make up their minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets not forget that they did the same thing with law enforcement too.

      The community activists cried because there was too high of a police presence in their area and that it had to be for racial reasons, not because there was crime there. So the police "left" and dropped their patrols to the level that those activists wanted. Now they are crying because crime is too high and the police don't want to be there for, you guessed it, racial reasons.

      Of course these are the same people that scream and cry about all of the murders in their areas and how the police aren't solving them, but when the police try to ask questions, to catch the murderers, nobody saw anything. Apparently they expect the police to be able to solve crimes out of thin air.

    5. Re:People need to make up their minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good whites are supposed to live like the 3rd world so the rents stay low and open businesses which can hire low IQ minorities - telemarketing firms, fast food joints, factories and slaughter houses. Coming into a neighborhood we fled from and living as whites isn't fair - they cannot build homes like we do, they cannot maintain homes like we do even if we build them and they cannot perform the work that we do. Find an area of Africa which proves me wrong. Protip: you can't, this comment will be voted down and hidden by those who can't.

    6. Re:People need to make up their minds by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      To what extent that is an achievable goal, OTOH, is an open question.

      Easy solution. Move to Berlin. It's an incredibly cheap European capital city to live in.

    7. Re:People need to make up their minds by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      The problem with nice neighborhoods is that everyone wants to live there. It's the same thing with beaches, lakes, etc. It would be nice if everyone could live (or have a nice little bungalow they could escape to for vacations) no more than 10 feet from the ocean, but there's a limited amount of beach front property, etc. When demand outstrips supply, prices increase. This is fundamental economics and inescapable. Attempts to circumvent this will inevitably fail, much like the design for an aircraft that fails to take the effects of gravity into account.

    8. Re:People need to make up their minds by scourfish · · Score: 1

      They are also bringing economic opportunity to blighted areas, and some of those minority individuals living in that neighborhood, over time, will find an economic niche and get out of poverty. There will be disruption, sure, but it the end result will still be better than nobody in that neighborhood escaping poverty.

    9. Re:People need to make up their minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I ask you to fix a pothole and you fill it so much that it is now a bump, then you'll get blamed.

      All these poor renters want is some economic development, but not too much. Is this so hard to understand? If someone asks for some water, do you aim a firehose at his mouth?

    10. Re:People need to make up their minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they are welcome to do that to the extent they want.

      But if they expect someone ELSE to come in and rebuild the neighborhoods and develop the local economy, well you are at those people's mercy.

      If you want to control the process, do it yourself. If you beg someone else to do it for you, then you can't complain about what THEY decided to do.

    11. Re:People need to make up their minds by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      People suffering gentrification would love to control the process. Are the major corporations going to let them? No? Then they're already at someone else's mercy. So the only hope they have is protest. You can't say "do it yourself," if you aren't giving them the resources to do it themselves AND you're actively eroding the few resources they do have. That's the problem with gentrification.

    12. Re:People need to make up their minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are the major corporations going to let them?

      Who said the "major corporations" owe you anything?

      Keep them out if you want. By all means, go tell Google to build its sites elsewhere, and then you are 100% free to do whatever you want with your local area with no interference from those "major corporations" you bemoan.

      Oh, that's too hard? You don't want to actually do the work? Well then... you can't complain when someone else does it for you.

    13. Re:People need to make up their minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not how economics works. You can't intentionally have "just a little" growth without non-trivial side effects (like "no growth").

    14. Re:People need to make up their minds by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Good whites are supposed to get a pair. Especially Males and push back. We've taken shit for far too long. Time to start hitting people with a clue-by-four because so many people are clueless. Clueless that Capitalism works and that's why the USA is on top. Socialism doesn't, just tears down everything.

      Even progressives are sick & tired of political correctness.

      Here's a clue - you can't be whatever you want to be. Go into where your brain will let you. Really smart? Don't get a stupid job. Stupid? Don't expect to get a smart job. Life isn't fair, deal with it. We can't have equal outcomes, nor would we want to live in such a country.

  14. Burn this BITCH down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the immortal words of Michael Brown's stepfather Louis Head: "Burn this bitch down! . Google, we're talking to you!

  15. Re:Sure, comrades by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    What, the East Berliners will invade us again!? What did we do to them this time?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  16. Re:Sure, comrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to 1968 . . .

    *rolls eyese*

    Don't mention this war. I did, but I think I got away with it.

  17. Good work Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    keep the tech monopolists and American big corporate out of your country as much as you can. Good to see that some parts of Europe are standing up and fighting back.

    1. Re:Good work Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! let's all fight back against economic development. No jobs for anyone! Awesome idea.

    2. Re:Good work Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed! Keep Germany quaint and backwards: it makes it a much nicer vacation spot for Americans, and on top of that, it's much less likely to try to take over the world again that way.

    3. Re:Good work Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having Google grow its monopoly and continuing its brain-drain by hoovering up German engineering talent is not the kind of economic development you want.

  18. Better solution: LEAVE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you think I don't move to Monaco? I can't afford it! Same here. If a place is too expensive to live, get the fuck out. Simple as that. Stiff the landlord till they evict you, and save the money to get the fuck out of dodge.

    1. Re:Better solution: LEAVE! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Think of the money you'd save on taxes. Monaco has zero income tax. Always remember the top tax bracket in Europe is 'Monaco'. Citizenship is kind of expensive.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  19. unruly refugees by shaksys · · Score: 0

    unruly refugees.. Thats hate speech in Germany. Someone call the police!

  20. Do you want a nice city with jobs or what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do you want a nice city with jobs or what?

    1. Re:Do you want a nice city with jobs or what? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      We all want change and progress, but only up until it affects us personally. The rest of the people who were swept up in its path, we can easily dismiss if we bothered to take them into consideration at all. But when it comes for us, now there's a fucking problem and why isn't anyone doing something about it?

    2. Re:Do you want a nice city with jobs or what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cities were nice before those jobs showed up...

    3. Re:Do you want a nice city with jobs or what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Berlin was an economically depressed shithole.

      Well, it still is.

    4. Re:Do you want a nice city with jobs or what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think Berlin is some little rural shit hole with dirt roads where everyone is on benefits with no future? And that the only way to fix it is by allowing the evil Google to raise another bastion there? Man you must be a paid Google-bot to make a stupid comment like yours.

  21. Re: Sure, comrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Urban renewal is gentrification.

  22. Re:Sure, comrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah its called civilization moron.

  23. Re: Sure, comrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boy....you really donâ(TM)t know jack shit about me or my upbringing. Begs the question, what else donâ(TM)t you know jack shot about? Iâ(TM)m guessing, a great deal.

  24. Thesaurus abuse! by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    TFA seems to have been written by someone with a well-thumbed thesaurus and way too much time on his hands.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  25. F you boy by gDLL · · Score: 1

    Most of you putzes here came from well to do families.

    Well you did say most, therefore *let moi throw the first stone* as I do not ride on anybody's "legacy", you would keep us former easterners (i'm not german but still) without access to IT development just because some lazy bastards want to wallow their crappy neighborhood ? F you very much.

  26. 200 by Luthair · · Score: 1

    out of 3.5 million, I can see how that would really tilt the rent....

  27. What's your plan? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    One man's gentrification is another man's urban renewal.

    A rose by any other name...

    To me they're fighting the wrong battle - they should be fighting for higher wages so that as gentrification occurs they're not pushed into ghettos but move laterally, maintaining their standard of living.

    Exactly how do you plan to make that happen in a short enough time frame to actually make a difference? The primary tool for working class people to effect higher wages are unions and those have been pretty steadily declining in power with no obvious end in sight. And frankly given how fast Google has grown their work force I don't see any realistic way for wages of many professions to keep up even if there were a strong union presence. In a global economy there are limits to how high you can raise the wages of a machinist or a janitor or a teacher in comparison to a high paid tech worker.

    1. Re:What's your plan? by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

      One man's gentrification is another man's urban renewal.

      A rose by any other name...

      To me they're fighting the wrong battle - they should be fighting for higher wages so that as gentrification occurs they're not pushed into ghettos but move laterally, maintaining their standard of living.

      Exactly how do you plan to make that happen in a short enough time frame to actually make a difference? The primary tool for working class people to effect higher wages are unions and those have been pretty steadily declining in power with no obvious end in sight. And frankly given how fast Google has grown their work force I don't see any realistic way for wages of many professions to keep up even if there were a strong union presence. In a global economy there are limits to how high you can raise the wages of a machinist or a janitor or a teacher in comparison to a high paid tech worker.

      Occupy a bank instead of Google's office. ;)

      --
      Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
    2. Re:What's your plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly how do you plan to make that happen in a short enough time frame to actually make a difference? The primary tool for working class people to effect higher wages are unions and those have been pretty steadily declining in power with no obvious end in sight. And frankly given how fast Google has grown their work force I don't see any realistic way for wages of many professions to keep up even if there were a strong union presence. In a global economy there are limits to how high you can raise the wages of a machinist or a janitor or a teacher in comparison to a high paid tech worker.

      It sounds like we need more tech workers. Like, many, many more tech workers. If tech is in such high demand that tech workers are able to command disproportionately high salaries compared to other sectors, then maybe a huge number of tech workers are what is needed to drive salaries down.

      Combine that with aggressive action against H1Bs, ignoring the tech sector's disingenuous and self-serving cries that they don't have enough workers, and aggressive action against "guest workers" and cheap imported/illegal labor to do those jobs "that Americans refuse to do" (because they don't pay a living wage) and wages in those sectors will rise as well.

    3. Re:What's your plan? by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      Increasing the number of tech workers might help, but there's also a scale problem -- one tech worker's work can generate income far in excess of other professions. Google can afford to pay high wages to tech workers because the return on investment is also high. Even if there were lots of tech workers and Google could go cheaper, it might not do so because it would still be wash with cash and might generously reward its employees anyway. There is certainly some of that happening in tech. It's the industry income itself, not just the salaries of the employees, that is causing the displacement. To balance that, you would need some way to restrain Google's profits vis-a-vis the profits of the other companies in the city... taxation or some other force to redistribute wealth. I leave the question of whether such redistribution is desirable or not for other discussion.

    4. Re:What's your plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The primary tool for working class people to effect higher wages are unions and those have been pretty steadily declining in power with no obvious end in sight.

      This is clearly not the case anymore. Now the way to get a better wage is to be more competitive. Unions go against competition, and hence, why they're dying out. That's also why wages are rising steadily in the developing world and stagnating in the developed world. You people in rich countries will have to wait until the rest of us catch up before you can start asking for higher wages I'm afraid.

    5. Re:What's your plan? by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

      Minimum wage increases, unions, etc.

      In a global economy there are limits to transferable professions. A janitor and teacher are needed locally to perform their duties.

      The other thing to consider is that as Google grows it's workforce that is adding money into the community. Typically in these situations the trades become high demand professions as everyone is spending their wealth on things like home improvements. Those contractors can then raise their rates, etc.

      There is short term upheaval to gentrification - no question. The alternative though is that instead of renewal you get decay. If everyone is just getting by no one will put in the money into home improvements, contractors don't get enough work, they don't buy building materials, and the economy stagnates as less and less money flows through it. It's not an easy process but it's one that gets repeated constantly with very predictable results. Each neighbourhood is on roughly a 60 cycle. The renewal that is happening now will decay and become the low income areas of 40 years from now - by 50-60 years some other renewal will come through and repeat the process (hopefully).

    6. Re:What's your plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whats any of your blather have to do with German gentrification?

    7. Re:What's your plan? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Exactly how do you plan to make that happen in a short enough time frame to actually make a difference? The primary tool for working class people to effect higher wages are unions and those have been pretty steadily declining in power with no obvious end in sight. And frankly given how fast Google has grown their work force I don't see any realistic way for wages of many professions to keep up even if there were a strong union presence. In a global economy there are limits to how high you can raise the wages of a machinist or a janitor or a teacher in comparison to a high paid tech worker.

      So you want Google to strike the tent and leave? Will that fix the problem by driving out high paying jobs? Here's the trick, and it isn't very popular.

      I've done well financially. I've adapted my skillset to the job at hand, and learned new skills as they were needed.

      Told ya it wasn't popular.

      Many or most people want to get their first training, get their job, and remain in that career, if not in the same workplace for their entire life. I've worked with so many people that have the "not my job" attitude, and it has bit them in the backside every time. I've seen people laid off because they refuse to do anything other than the job description, I've seen older workers forced into retirement when they refused the management path and tried to work at the same level they were hired at for over 20 years. One co-worker refused to learn digital photography because the Darkroom and film photography was the hot trade. That didn't work out too well for her.

      And there will always be those people - not a thing can be done about it. Human inertia. We see it here in the States. "Grandpa was a Coal Miner, Daddy was a Coal Miner, I'm a Coal Miner, and all of my children will be.... Wait, they shut the mine down? A new mine 200 miles from here? But we're Coal miners, and this is the town we live in, not some dman place 200 miles from here!" But they have to realize they are part of their own problem. But this is apparently Google's fault, not theirs. Maybe some makework programs sponsored by the German Government will help?

      Meanwhile after retirement, I just took on a very lucrative part time job using a skillset I didn't even have 10 years ago. Luck favors the prepared.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re: What's your plan? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Fuck you, Boomer. Your generation inherited prosperity and freedom. You stumbled into wealth despite your personal uselessness. And what did you leave for future generations? A bankrupt financialist police state.

      Now you have the gall to lecture us on how we need to just try harder? Go play in traffic! Better hope your "free market" retirement plan doesn't implode. Or you can enjoy eating dogfood in your golden years.

      Cool story bro. Better check out your history. Keep on spouting the rhetoric of failure. Many people had the same sad story while we were growing up. Many people always will. And just like those people you've bought into it. If you think you can't succeed, you are correct.

      But it isn't all gloom and doom. You have people to blame for your failure before you even fail.

      Let us know how that works out for ya

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  28. I'm all for it! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    “Everyone in life has a purpose, even if it's to serve as a bad example”

    I think it's great that Berlin takes on the burden to demonstrate the dangers of this kind of policies. And I'm glad they are using Google to do it. It's a win-win situation!

  29. Re:Sure, comrades by alvinrod · · Score: 3

    That isn't going to work to the extent that it would be necessary. When companies like Google, Apple, etc. move to an area, the workers they bring are highly skilled, highly paid individuals. Unless additional housing is built, those new workers will lead to an increase in price of a limited resource. They can easily afford to pay more for housing than existing residents whose labor may not command as high of a wage as a software engineer. The additional influx of new highly paid employees means that the local economy in general will see a boost, but it's not going to be evenly distributed (the owner of an eatery might make a good deal more money, but the fry cook isn't going to see as much of a bump) and it won't offset the increased prices that these newcomers are willing to pay for good housing.

    The only way to solve this problem is to build additional housing, but cities are often loathe to grant building permits at all (it will require destroying old buildings that "represent the history of the area") or have implemented rent controls that mean developers have no interest in building new housing since they can't charge what they feel is a fair rate. If everyone owned their own housing, you could get the government to implement laws to prevent property taxes increasing for existing owners just because someone wealthy moved next door, but governments are often too greedy to agree to that and it does nothing to help the people who are renting.

    So we repeat this useless set of actions and whine about gentrification instead of learning from mistakes or doing something that will actually solve the problem in a way that makes most people the happiest. People eventually get pushed out due to rising prices and while they are upset, no one else really cares about them as everyone else has their own set of problems to deal with and aren't personally affected by this issue. Eventually everything settles down as a new equilibrium is reached where the people living in an area can all afford to do so. Meanwhile, somewhere in another state or a neighboring city, a new business has moved into the area and has brought with them employees who earn significantly more than existing folks in the area.

  30. If you think that's bad... by The+Original+CDR · · Score: 1

    Construction of the Google Village with 20,000 employees in downtown San Jose will is start in 2025. This will be an interesting case study. San Jose has always been a bedroom community with more housing than industry and virtually empty in the day while surrounding cities and San Francisco are filled with workers. Google Village will bring more traffic to downtown. However, it will be located next to a major transit hub with VTA buses and light rail (Silicon Valley), Caltrain (Gilroy/Silicon Valley/San Francisco), Amtrak (San Jose/Oakland/Sacramento), BART (Coming Really Soon! San Jose/Oakland/San Francisco), and the bullet train (Coming Someday! Los Angeles/Central Valley/San Jose/San Francisco/Sacramento). If you can't afford rent in Silicon Valley, you should be able to afford something in the hinterlands.

  31. Re:Sure, comrades by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    To me they're fighting the wrong battle - they should be fighting for higher wages

    Wages are unlikely to go up just because they "fight". Who exactly would they be fighting?

    Better suggestion: They should spend, say, 5 minutes, learning about economics. Prices are high because of mismatched supply and demand. So either decrease the demand (unlikely), or increase the supply (easy: just issue some building permits, and relax height restrictions).

  32. Ponzi Scheme by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

    What I want is somewhere to live. My problem is that buying a house in any major western city has become a giant leveraged speculative investment where you bet your lifetime earnings that central banks will continue to reduce interest rates so that the next generation of young people can buy your dumpy house in ten years time using an even bigger mortgage, thus allowing you to scale up your leverage into an even bigger speculative investment somewhere less stabby than you were before. And if I rent, I have a landlord who doesn't give a stuff about maintaining or improving the property because they are making so much capital gains from their massively leveraged portfolio that a potential small increase in rental yield is irrelevant and not worth the effort.

    The whole thing is really stupid. Even worse, it is hedge funds and portfolio investors who are making out like bandits, while actual owner-occupiers just see a paper gain that they can never really realize (if they still want somewhere to live in their city).

    I would like to believe it will all 'correct' one day, but I fear the real correction is a return to feudalism - arguably the default state for human civilization.

    1. Re:Ponzi Scheme by lgw · · Score: 2

      My problem is that buying a house in any major western city has become a giant leveraged speculative investment

      I agree. That's why I rented until I had saved enough to pay cash for a house. Not a leveraged speculative investment now. If house prices double because of some BS, I'll sell and move somewhere cheap. If they fall, I still have the same house to live in, can't be underwater (even literally: FFS people, check flood maps before you buy a house).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  33. Re:Sure, comrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something must be wrong with my eyes. I keep looking at this post but if I try to read it aloud, it all comes out like "Waaaaaaaaaahhh" ..

  34. Excellent! by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Some of the best entertainment I've read in years. Better even than Wired's unintentional satires from not-long-enough ago.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  35. Re:Sure, comrades by Cytotoxic · · Score: 4, Informative

    One man's gentrification is another man's urban renewal.

    To me they're fighting the wrong battle - they should be fighting for higher wages so that as gentrification occurs they're not pushed into ghettos but move laterally, maintaining their standard of living.

    That is absolutely the wrong direction to push.

    If you want to keep rents (and housing prices) affordable, you have to remove barriers to affordable (and not affordable) housing.

    Where are housing prices the highest? Cities like San Francisco, New York City, etc. that have strong controls in place that make developing new housing very difficult.

    If you removed these restrictions and let developers build loads of new, expensive, luxury housing, you'll find that the value of the old housing stock won't appreciate like it does if you restrict these developers. In fact, you will likely find that the older, less luxuriously appointed housing drops in price.

    There are some pretty strong forces that oppose looser zoning restrictions - including existing homeowners who would be very happy to have their buildings double and triple in value. But the ones that make absolutely no sense are folks who think they are advocating for more affordable housing by advocating rent controls and set-asides for affordable housing in any new project. You don't get lower prices by limiting supply and capping prices. You get shortages.

  36. Lefties never happy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We want higher wages for all! That company pays people too much!

  37. What's old is new again. by Hylandr · · Score: 2

    1923 called, they want their Beer Hall Putsch back.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  38. Re:Sure, comrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're riding on your great-great-great-great granddaddies' legacy and think it was all your own talent and hard work.

    Yup, that's me, riding high on that legacy of escaping war and famine in Europe with next to nothing in the hopes of building a better life for people a few generations down the line through poverty, disease, and fighting in wars back in Europe. Easy street all the way.

  39. Clash of the SJW titans by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 0

    n/t

  40. How are wages doing? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    In America wages are going down. In particular we've got high paid work being replaced by low paid (e.g. good factory jobs replaced by "McJobs"). If you're wages are going down then it doesn't really matter if inflation's only 4%.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:How are wages doing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cite your source. Everything that I have read said that salaries have been going up for the last year or more.

    2. Re:How are wages doing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going up, but not as fast as inflation.

    3. Re:How are wages doing? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      In America wages are going down. In particular we've got high paid work being replaced by low paid (e.g. good factory jobs replaced by "McJobs"). If you're wages are going down then it doesn't really matter if inflation's only 4%.

      In Berlin they are going up, since the wages are lower than German and EU averages, as the city is slowly westernized, so are the salaries (most of the city was Eastern Europe 25 years ago, and not everything is restorated yet).

  41. Thing is those white people by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    want the services provided by the colored people (and yes, I'm aware of how horribly racist what I just wrote is, but, well, it seems to be what we're doing on this thread). But those same white people don't seem to want to _pay_ for those services. So they want a sort of slum area just outside the city where the folks who cook, clean, do their laundry and cut their grass live. Third world countries have these sort of communities, but America used to be better than that.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  42. I like the way you think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you come to my town and put that plan into use? We'll even get a monorail!

  43. San Francisco rent trends unchanged for 80 years by ragahast · · Score: 1

    Tech basically doesn't matter in the long term housing cost trend for the San Francisco area. The rate of increase has been unchanged for many decades, laying the blame squarely at the feet of development-killing regulation/NIMBYs.

    --
    .:Semper Absurda:.
  44. Wilkommen der JUDENSReich! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Jew Talmud excerpts (the book that calls Christ's mother a whore & a bastard of a roman soldier):

    1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

    2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

    3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

    4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

    5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

    6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

    7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

    8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

    9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

    10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

    11. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

    12. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

    13. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

    14. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

    15. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."

    16. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

    17. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."

    18. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

    19. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."

    20. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."

    21. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen H

  45. Re:Wilkommen der JUDENSReich! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  46. Goddamit, ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... I love this.

    I'm 72 years old and we did shit like this when I was a young lad.

    Put a stop to the Vietnam war, we did.

    Jump-started the Civil Rights movement.

    Fucking Woodstock.

    We're long due a happening.

    Right on!

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  47. Property Taxes, Not Gentrification is the Problem by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People pit out the word Gentrification like it's some kind of KKK scheme.

    But:
    gentrification
    jentrfkSH()n
    noun
    the process of renovating and improving a house or district so that it conforms to middle-class taste.

    The Problem is that with improved housing and other infrastructure comes higher property taxes. The curious thing is that Gentrification is pretty funded solely by the citizens moving into an area and spending money to do the renovating and improving. Then, the government of course looks as what you did and says, "hmmm nice place you got there. We think you should pay more money in property taxes". Then they go one worse and say to the poor residents, "people would pay for your place, so you need to pay us more".

    Property Taxes are a tax on unrealized gains. They are probably the most oppressive taxes in the US. They can drive someone out of a home they own outright, merely because the State says your home is worth $X and you need to pay $x * y%, regardless of your income situation.

    The solution is to decouple taxes on land and homes from current market values and only use market value when acquiring assets such as land and homes. Allow for some inflation of costs of infrastructure and the like, but just because they out a Mall in a mile down the road doesn't mean you should have to pay more.

    CA did pretty much this with Proposition 13. It stabilized growth and benefited millions of home owners. Sure, the SJW crowd whined about not having money for they pet programs, but that is arguably a good thing.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  48. Squatters in Germany ... by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    ... are a tough bunch. They usually have a left leaning socio-political agenda and quite often sympathy with regular citizens. And they can hold out for a loooooong time. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...ÃYe )

    Google perhaps should consider some other place to set up camp. :-)

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Squatters in Germany ... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Google perhaps should consider some other place to set up camp. :-)

      That will indeed bring the rents down

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  49. Re:Sure, comrades by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

    I agree that zoning is one tool to help. Toronto is in desperate need of a reality check on that front. The problem with not increasing wages at the same time is that you won't get affordable housing, you'll get slums. As you say, the value of the old stock won't increase and inflation will quickly make it uneconomical for those owners to invest money back into their property. Landlords begin doing less in terms of upgrades, maintenance, etc. to keep it profitable for them and decay sets in. By increasing wages at the same time as opening up new stock you allow everything to shift up and the worst of the worst get gentrified. It's also necessary because as you add vertical spaces (high rises) the costs get higher. Increasing minimum wage increases the buying power of those at the bottom - allowing them to afford the increased costs.

  50. Re:Sure, comrades by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

    Unionizing, fighting for a higher minimum wage, shared common costs reductions (like a national drug plan), etc. Things that increase wages or decrease the average cost to those least able to afford it.

  51. Doing Gentrification Backwards by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

    Currently, the gentrification process is 1) upgrade buildings then 2) import gentry. I would propose that we 1) Upgrade the people in-place then, 2) upgrade the buildings. Lets invest in the people that already live somewhere and then let them upgrade their buildings. Give that rundown neighborhoods tend to have rundown schools we owe these residents a lot for failing to invest in them while they were young.

    1. Re:Doing Gentrification Backwards by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Currently, the gentrification process is 1) upgrade buildings then 2) import gentry. I would propose that we 1) Upgrade the people in-place then, 2) upgrade the buildings. Lets invest in the people that already live somewhere and then let them upgrade their buildings. Give that rundown neighborhoods tend to have rundown schools we owe these residents a lot for failing to invest in them while they were young.

      A lot simpler to move to an area where they actually want you. If the fine citizens of Germany feel that they have to storm a business and occupy it, it is unquestionable that they do not want that business to be there. I would shut the offices as soon as I could relocate, and make no bones about the reasons that German police do not provide security, that the German people do not want us there, and that the entire local business infrastructure is in danger of the citizenry deciding that the building need blown up or just break into the server rooms and destroy the servers. Because now the protesters have learned that they can take over the HQ any time they feel like it.

      Perhaps if Germany has places they have allowed to become slums, Germany needs to provide the wonderful housing and high paying jos these people deserve. that's the least the government can do. Regardless, Google leaving should have the desired effect upon rental rates, and the citizens will be happy.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  52. Easy Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germany just needs to follow the Paris Model and ship 200k-300k refugees to Berlin then watch the rents tank.

  53. Re:Sure, comrades by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

    Sure. The effective way to do that is to build more housing, so the less well to do will not get priced out.

  54. ALL other local pests? by virtig01 · · Score: 1

    > The Google Campus is intended to be a magnet for annoying young entrepreneurs whose IT-sweatshops...
    > We call on all rebellious tenants, subversive and precarious cultural workers, work-shy benefit scroungers, ... and all other local pests from the
    > neighborhood (and beyond) to join us in the occupation

    I wonder if annoying young SF techies are included in the "local pests from beyond the neighborhood" that are welcome to join in the occupation....

  55. Re:Sure, comrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about allowing/requiring corporate barracks/dorms at the jobsite? This would eliminate traffic, raised rents, etc.

  56. Re:Wilkommen der JUDENSReich! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gesundheit. see a doctor, that can be cured now.

  57. Re:Sure, comrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    kept spewing that anti-semitic crap, and like flies to shit....

  58. Re:Sure, comrades by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

    Except many cities are at the point of needing to build up, which is significantly more costly to build. That drives the entry level rates up, which requires higher wages.

  59. Re: Sure, comrades by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

    Do a google image search on each term - you'll see the difference (hint: it's not the substance of what they're doing, it's the perception)

  60. um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some context on the local tussle: 'Google go home': the Berlin neighbourhood fighting off a tech giant [May 2018, The Guardian].

    Looks aren't everything, and seldom provide a stable mainstay for a relationship... but that is an ugly woman in the green.

  61. Fight! by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    Unwashed lumpenprole anarchists vs capitalist running dog Progressives.

    Is it not delightful to see one's enemies fight?

  62. You just don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We certainly don't need more factory workers or Walmart greeters.

    People don't usually pick between lawyer and coder. They pick between dock worker and coder. Both with the requisite level of alcoholism.

  63. Re:Property Taxes, Not Gentrification is the Probl by redlemming · · Score: 1

    Property Taxes are a tax on unrealized gains. They are probably the most oppressive taxes in the US. They can drive someone out of a home they own outright, merely because the State says your home is worth $X and you need to pay $x * y%, regardless of your income situation.

    The solution is to decouple taxes on land and homes from current market values and only use market value when acquiring assets such as land and homes.

    A better solution would be to get rid of property taxes entirely.

    Let local government be funded from a share of state tax income - and don't let the states tax property.

    A lot of problems in the USA can be traced in part to property tax policy - such as having the highest incarceration rate in the world. Many people turn to crime when they don't have other alternatives.

    "After the Civil War, separate and racialized tax structures were set up to enable segregated schooling in the South and North. Astonishingly, nearly 150 years later, ... these same systems of property tax funding continue in most US school districts, allowing and even facilitating the continuation of ... resource inequality" - Camille Walsh, 2018, Racial Taxation.

    Why should the rich get the best schools, fire departments, police, emergency planning and disaster preparedness, roads, and so forth?

    Property taxes are a curse and a blight on society. Have a reasonable taxes on other things (such as inheritance) and you'll get turnover of property, so there isn't any legitimate justification for having property taxes.

    CA did pretty much this with Proposition 13. It stabilized growth and benefited millions of home owners.

    It's also done enormous harm, shifting a large share of government tax income from businesses to individuals - and reducing available housing. Two identical properties can pay a 20x difference in property tax. It also infringes the right to travel (a right arising under the 9th Amendment). But, hey, it's only the highest law in the land, why shouldn't government break the law?

    Imagine if the government decided to increase your income taxes by 20x for choosing to exercise your freedom of speech.

  64. I don't get anti gentrification by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    "Gentrification" often seems like an insult for progress. Sucks for the people already there but good overall. I'm tempted to say the same thing about the Indian Wars...now I'll discuss something less controversial, like Israel's security policy.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  65. Re:Property Taxes, Not Gentrification is the Probl by pots · · Score: 2

    The Problem is that with improved housing and other infrastructure comes higher property value.

    The poor residents mostly don't own their own homes. The trouble is that as a location becomes more desirable to live in by people who have money, and are willing to pay to live there, the location becomes less feasible for people who don't have money. The difference in rent can't be explained by property taxes, that's a relatively small factor.

  66. Re:Sure, comrades by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    That's about the right timeframe.

    There was a TV news show around then -- "60 Minutes"? -- that interviewed a local woman. If these aren't her exact words, they're pretty close to her exact words. "Them white boys come in on they motorcycles and they start fixing things up."

    She saw this as a bad thing.

    Apparently it's a bad thing when an area deteriorates, and property values and rents go down, and it's a bad thing when an area is repaired, and property values and rents go up.

    So, what isn't a bad thing?

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  67. Re:Sure, comrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Increasing minimum wage increases the buying power of those at the bottom - allowing them to afford the increased costs.

    Increasing minimum wage is a losing proposition. The increased costs ripple through the economy, compounding from one stage in the logistics network to the next, which results in higher prices (inflation - negating the minimum wage) and make automation more economically feasible (lost jobs).

    Think of a dog chasing it's own tail - it gets nowhere. Minimum wage increases destroy minimum wage.

    Worse, logistics networks are graphs, not trees. Make the cost of food higher for the plumber, and the plumber has to charge the farmer more, which in turn makes the cost of food higher.

    Unlike electrical systems, this is a slow form of feedback, which is why many people don't understand it. It can take a year or more for the effects to show up, which is longer than most people's attention span.

    People also lose working hours as a result of minimum wage, which means they have to add the time and cost of a second commute from working two jobs (which in turn means more traffic, more wear on the roads, more road rage, more medical issues for society, and so forth).

    The net effect is that minimum wage actually harms the people you wanted to help. See Neumark and Wascher (Minimum Wages, MIT Press, 2010).

    A reverse income tax (sometimes called UBI, though the two terms can actually refer to different things) can make economic sense. Minimum wage does not.

  68. Property Value Change like Climate Change by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    Property values go up or down due to natural cycles... bad.

    Temperatures go up or down due to natural cycles... bad.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user