
Why is San Francisco trying to strangle its golden goose? - endswapper
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/24/why-is-san-francisco-trying-to-strangle-its-golden-goose/
======
idlewords
I find the part about "trying to shoehorn ride-sharing entrepreneurs into
“employee” status" particularly rich.

Anyone who takes Uber in SF has met a fair number of these 'entrepreneurs'.
They look an awful lot like low-wage employees trying to make ends meet, and
extending them basic protections that reflect the reality of their job is not
clipping their entrepreneurial wings.

~~~
flyinglizard
It's not really fair to frame them as employees. Their relationship with Uber
is a two way street - they can work whenever they want and can drive for
another service in parallel. They don't have a boss in the traditional sense,
but rather they are providing services to Uber. Denying that places the entire
concept of the "gig economy" at risk, and it's a shame because this mutual
flexibility is the only way forward in many fields, for both the companies and
individuals.

~~~
tptacek
It seems clear to me that firms like Uber are arb'ing a gap in current
employment law. The question isn't whether or not Uber drivers meet the FLSA
and IRS definitions of an "employee". Sure, fine, whatever, they don't. But:

* Is it moral to capitalize on employee classification rules to build an enormous workforce that is denied protections and benefits that are common to other employees? _And_ ,

* Do we as a society want to maintain the classification rules that allow this to happen?

We could easily change the rules so that, for instance, protections and
benefits must be extended to anyone who does more than N hours of work for you
in a calendar year. Individual states could do that. Shouldn't we? Why or why
not? In answering, consider that over the long term, Uber won't be the only
firm taking advantage of these rules, and that in competitive marketplaces the
most ruthless, least responsible companies often have an insurmountable edge.
One thing we like to do with regulation is to prevent races to the bottom.

~~~
noobermin
One way to deal with this (what I'd say is the right way but hardest way) is
to take the burdens usually placed on employers to provide and have the state
take the tab...funded by an increase in taxes.

~~~
plussed_reader
If you're talking about property taxes, you might want to read up about Prop
13(1978) and how it fundamentally altered the tax base of California.

There are some good points that we are still fighting the after effects of
this policy to this day. A good example would be how business owners
encapsulate their properties to not trigger the re-assessment of the property
to current values. It explains a number of the remaining low cost/slum-lord
apartments still around.

------
jimmywanger
San Francisco was a no-go zone in the 80s. Soma was mainly warehouses and
unpaved lots, and the Mission was dangerous at nights.

What are the "downsides of the technology boom"? The mission was originally
german-irish, and then became latino. Now a lot of young technology
professionals live there, cause, you know, cities evolve.

I remember in the 80s you had to hopscotch over human feces when walking in
SF. Why are politicians so short sighted that they want wealthy, well educated
people out of their city?

~~~
irq11
You still have to hopscotch over human feces. And now you have to hopscotch
over the people who have been pushed out of their homes, too.

~~~
twblalock
The homeless in SF are almost all mentally ill, not working people who were
displaced by high rents. In fact, a lot of them come to SF from elsewhere,
where they were already homeless, because SF is simply more tolerant of
homeless people than any other city in the area.

~~~
freyir
So which is it? Were they displaced by high rents, or already homeless
somewhere else?

And let's not sugar coat it. Some are mentally ill, but many others have
serious drug/alcohol addictions. You only need to stroll through the
Tenderloin or Civic Center at any time of day to see that first hand.

~~~
idlewords
Mental illness and drug/alcohol addiction are highly correlated.

But read the SF survey linked twice in this thread. It's got lots of actual
answers. The homeless you see on the street are not really representative of
the problem. There's a bigger population of precariously housed people who
cycle in and out of homelessness.

------
mwfunk
I think the fundamental misunderstanding expressed in this article is this:
San Francisco isn't the tech capital of the world, San Francisco is an hour up
101 from the tech capital of the world. It has a tremendous startup scene
because of its proximity to SV, but some SF residents (rightly or wrongly)
would prefer it didn't become SV2, which it has been slowly turning into (WRT
startups at least). SF's standing in the tech industry is 100% based on
geography, there is nothing inherently tech-friendly about SF itself.

Now, one could argue about whether it would be good or bad for SF to turn into
SV2, but unless someone starts bulldozing entire city blocks to start building
campuses for companies with hundreds or thousands of employees, it is not yet
SV2. To date the conflicts have been more about how much runoff from SV are SF
residents willing to tolerate, in terms of being a bedroom community for SV,
and the local startup scene that arises from that arrangement.

I personally think that much of the anti-tech sentiment in SF comes from
entitlement, tribalism, and a culture that values protest and political strife
for its own sake over actually trying to understand what the problems are and
actually trying to solve them, but that's just my take. More charitably, I see
it as SF trying to figure itself out in changing times, as opposed to the
"tech capital of the world" being strangely oblivious to its own place in the
industry.

~~~
idlewords
A lot of the tension between SF and SV comes from that region's refusal to
accept its status as an employment hub. Communities like Palo Alto want to
preserve the fiction that they are spacious suburbs, and use zoning laws to
enforce the fiction. Silicon Valley is really exporting its housing
dysfunction to San Francisco, which adds its own.

~~~
mwfunk
Everyone I know who lives in SF and works in SV (and I've known a lot of them)
lives in SF because they want to, not because it was the best choice
economically. They want to live in SF because of the culture or the nightlife,
and are willing to endure sitting on a bus for 3 hours a day and paying way
more to get way less in order to live there. For all of those people, if all
they cared about was finding housing, it would have been way more practical to
just get a place in Sunnyvale or Santa Clara or San Jose (or Morgan Hill, for
that matter, although that's getting back into painful commute territory).

Now, one might say, "but it's so much more _boring_ to live in Sunnyvale than
SF!", but that's still a choice being made for lifestyle reasons and not a
housing decision that they were forced into. I would also say that if anyone
is bored almost anywhere in this day and age, that that's far more a personal
failing than a property of where they live, but that's totally besides the
point. :)

~~~
idlewords
If Silicon Valley urbanized, it would have culture and nightlife, and be a
much more attractive place to live.

Consider also that you and I are techies, and move in techie circles. There is
a large population of people working non-tech jobs for whom cost is the
overriding concern.

------
kartan
> Detroit doesn’t place burdensome regulations on automobile manufacturers

I think that San Francisco is trying to avert the Detroit outcome. Instead of
being completely dependent on a single industry they are trying to regulate
the growth and allow non-techies to live there. And instead of just forbidding
things or over-regulate they are using taxes and other incentives to bring
balance to the city. The article just cites some regulations as evil-doers
without explaining why that's the case, or what is the relationship between
the selected regulations.

I really hope that San Francisco is able to keep its roots and what make it a
great city to innovate and live.

> Eric Mar, a member of the city’s Board of Supervisors, even went so far as
> to say that the tax would serve as indemnification for the “downside of the
> technology boom,” according to The New York Times.

And as clarification, according to The New York Times Eric said that the tax
would serve as indemnification for the “downside of the technology boom”. The
"even went so far" is just part of Techcruch opinion.

~~~
jimmywanger
> I really hope that San Francisco is able to keep its roots and what make it
> a great city to innovate and live.

What roots are these? The Irish used to run the avenues, and now the Sunset is
predominantly Chinese. Like I mentioned before, the Mission used to be german-
irish, then it turned latino, and now there are a lot of techies there.
Portola used to have mostly white and black residents, now there are a lot of
Chinese people there.

Change happens. You have to constantly re-invent yourself.

~~~
idlewords
Techies are not an ethnic group. No one goes to SOMA to try the delicious
techie food.

The issue is an economically diverse city becoming polarized into a theme park
and bedroom community for high earners, and a bunch of poor enclaves, with a
service sector that has to commute in from outside the city.

~~~
jimmywanger
> Techies are not an ethnic group. No one goes to SOMA to try the delicious
> techie food.

They sure as heck try to go to SOMA to recruit technical people and try to get
technical advice. How is that any less of a tribe than a specific ethnicity.
One tribe has spaghetti, one has dim sum, and the other has layers upon layers
of technical expertise.

> The issue is an economically diverse city becoming polarized into a theme
> park and bedroom community for high earners, and a bunch of poor enclaves,
> with a service sector that has to commute in from outside the city.

Define economically diverse. The only reason less affluent people can't live
in the city is because of the NIMBYism of SF residents, and the fact that they
believe real estate should be a good financial investment.

A few decades of compound interest later, you get to where we're at, where
either you have to be incredibly wealthy or lived here for a long time to
afford anything.

------
leroy_masochist
As a NY-based entrepreneur, from my perspective the only people who lose here
are those who have convinced themselves that there is no place other to be
than San Francisco, and who accordingly suffer to a greater and greater degree
as their commitment to staying in the city becomes less and less economically
justifiable.

Otherwise...we're all grownups here. If the people of San Francisco decide
that the best possible set of tradeoffs involves reducing tech's footprint,
and their elected representatives implement policies to that effect, then
that's democracy. Certainly the city's rich and diverse history provides some
weight to the anti-tech crowd's strongly held belief that the City needs to
pump the brakes.

~~~
twblalock
> As a NY-based entrepreneur, from my perspective the only people who lose
> here are those who have convinced themselves that there is no place other to
> be than San Francisco, and who accordingly suffer to a greater and greater
> degree as their commitment to staying in the city becomes less and less
> economically justifiable.

I think it's pretty similar to New Yorkers who insist on living in Manhattan,
rather than the other boroughs which are more affordable, or, God forbid, New
Jersey.

You don't have to move very far from San Francisco to get a significant
decrease in rent. Just a few miles is enough.

I know plenty of people who insist on living in SF. They do the same things
after work that most people do: go home, eat, watch TV or read a book. They go
out a few nights per week. They could easily move 10 miles south, cut their
rent by more than 1/3, and still spend just as much time enjoying the San
Francisco restaurants and nightlife as they do now.

------
kafkaesq
Some of the proposed measures may be misguided; others seem rather tame. But
either way, talk of "strangling the golden goose" (or implications that the
entire industry will pack up and leave as a result of these measures) is just
dumb hyperbole.

On top of that, some of the author's logic is just... broken:

 _It continues with the shutting down of private bus services for tech workers
that reduce traffic and pollution and encourage residents to stay in the
city._

Almost none of the new tech workers were "residents" before the current boom.
The problem with the shuttle busses is that they encourage people to _move_ to
the city -- forcing the people who were, in fact, long-term residents to move
out. The fact that the author (obviously very sympathetic to the tech
industry) can not just miss, but completely invert this obvious point simply
underscores the disconnect -- or more direct terms, cluelessness -- among tech
workers that some longer-term residents are so resentful of.

~~~
jimmywanger
> forcing the people who were, in fact, long-term residents to move out.

What's wrong with this? If you're a renter, you sort of accept the fact that
you can be forced to move at any given time, or that rents may be hiked up.

Rent control has been an unmitigated disaster in SF. You're basically giving a
subsidy to people who have lived here for a long time, over new arrivals.

Cities change over time. People arrive all the time. To try to shut people out
is naive and short-sighted. I sure don't want to live in a time capsule.

~~~
kafkaesq
_What 's wrong with this?_

Heck, I don't know -- whole families being traumatized? Children having their
lives upended, because their parents suddenly have to move across the state
(or the country)? That sort of thing? So you can live within walking distance
of that fancy new Belgian beer bar, and your favorite S&M club?

It's one thing to acknowledge that displacement of existing (generally lowest
income tier) residents is very unfortunate -- and yes, causes real suffering
-- but to maintain that the cure (e.g. rent control) may be worse than
disease. That's at least a position with a certain logic to it.

But what people reasonably resent about the new tech elite is that (some of
them) don't even pretend to rely on sober assessments like the above. They
just come right and out say it: "What's wrong with poor people being
displaced? What's wrong with a city that school teachers, first responders,
restaurant workers can't afford to live in? I'm doing fine -- why should I
give a fuck?"

~~~
jimmywanger
> whole families being traumatized? Children having their lives upended,
> because their parents suddenly have to move across the state (or the
> country)?

What a low bar for traumatization.

> So you can live within walking distance of that fancy new Belgian beer bar,
> and your favorite S&M club?

Hyperbole much? You've managed to shoehorn both hipster style, alcohol, and
sexual proclivities that are a few standard deviations from the norm into the
same statement. Well done. /s

> "What's wrong with poor people being displaced? What's wrong with a city
> that school teachers, first responders, restaurant workers can't afford to
> live in? I'm doing fine -- why should I give a fuck?"

Poor people are constantly victimized. That's just a thing that happens. For
instance, I bet you're typing this post out on a computer that is made with
parts manufactured in China/Taiwan and are exporting your pollution. (Yes, I
consider a mobile phone a computer)

Why are you so concerned about the relatively mild pain of people in SF rather
than the peasants in southern China? Do you live in either place? What skin do
you have in this game?

~~~
kafkaesq
_Poor people are constantly victimized. That 's just a thing that happens._

No, it's a thing that we've been inculcated into believing to be something
that "just happens." Actually it happens for systematic and structural
reasons.

 _For instance, I bet you 're typing this post out on a computer that is made
with parts manufactured in China/Taiwan and are exporting your pollution._

The difference is that I don't pretend to believe that this kind of
exploitation is something that "just happens", or that I'm not responsible for
it.

Nor do I go around saying things like "What's wrong with children
disassembling the battery cage in my used phone for 25 cents an hour in the
Philippines or somewhere? These things happen, you know."

~~~
jimmywanger
> No, it's a thing that we've been inculcated into believing to be something
> that "just happens." Actually it happens for systematic and structural
> reasons.

Wha? Thousand of years of history would prove you wrong. The more laws we
pass, the more people with resources can abuse the letter of these laws to
seize advantages for themselves, and their friends/family.

Refer to the Melian dialogue: "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer
what they must".

That's just human nature. And I'm not just saying poor as in happens to have
no money.

Even if I were tossed out onto the street right now with nothing, I'd do ok. I
have friends and family who will look out for me and give me a place to sack
out. I'm still decently young and in good health, speak english fluently, and
have a good degree.

Now if you have no resources, you are teetering on the brink constantly. No
law or policy will be able to change that, due to human nature. No inculcation
is necessary, at the root of things we're just animals squabbling over scarce
resources.

~~~
kafkaesq
_Refer to the Melian dialogue: "the strong do what they can and the weak
suffer what they must"._

Referring to atrocities committed by a dying empire two thousand years ago
(recall that the occupation of Melos was eventually repulsed; and Classical
Athens itself would ultimately collapse shortly thereafter, as a direct result
of its unsustainable military expansion) doesn't seem very helpful in deciding
public policy.

~~~
jimmywanger
I guess you missed the main point of the quote.

If you have power, and your opponents only have the moral high ground, your
opponents will lose.

According to the historical sources (on wikipedia), the Athenians executed all
the adult males, and took everybody else into slavery.

Much like the situation of the Ukraine. Russia decided it wanted a warm water
port, and then took it. Nobody else said anything.

------
wott
I find this article very badly argued.

> _Detroit doesn’t place burdensome regulations on automobile manufacturers;
> Idaho doesn’t put undue restrictions and hurdles in front of potato farmers;
> and California takes steps to protect its farmers — because these industries
> are part of the lifeblood and identity of their respective states._

And automobile industry became the doom of Detroit, and Californian style
farming could pretty well become the doom of that state.

~~~
twblalock
Farming is a small percentage of California's GDP -- less than 5%, if I
remember correctly. California would be just fine without it.

~~~
idlewords
Except for the vast swathes of the Central Valley that would be left
destitute.

------
irq11
You'd think that San Francisco didn't exist before tech came to town.

The quickest and most effective way to fix a demand crisis is to eliminate the
demand. And it has the nice side effect of diversifying the tech industry and
reducing the ridiculousness of the tech echo chamber.

San Francisco could do a lot worse than strangling this particular goose. Tech
will find a way to go on.

------
cft
As Margaret Thatcher said:"Socialists would rather have the poor poorer
provided the rich were less rich"
[https://youtu.be/pdR7WW3XR9c](https://youtu.be/pdR7WW3XR9c)

~~~
Synaesthesia
Well under her and Reagan's policies the rich got richer and the poor poorer.

~~~
mattmcknight
Simply false.

Income gains were across the board in the Reagan years.
[https://www.brookings.edu/research/income-growth-and-
decline...](https://www.brookings.edu/research/income-growth-and-decline-
under-recent-u-s-presidents-and-the-new-challenge-to-restore-broad-economic-
prosperity/)

~~~
Synaesthesia
They all gained but if you look at the actual numbers, the wealthy classes far
more than the lower income classes who basically stagnated (we have to take
inflation into account)

[https://aneconomicsense.org/2012/01/29/the-impact-of-
reagan-...](https://aneconomicsense.org/2012/01/29/the-impact-of-reagan-good-
for-the-rich-bad-for-most/)

------
justinlardinois
> Detroit doesn’t place burdensome regulations on automobile manufacturers;
> Idaho doesn’t put undue restrictions and hurdles in front of potato farmers;
> and California takes steps to protect its farmers — because these industries
> are part of the lifeblood and identity of their respective states.

Aside from Detroit not being a state, isn't this also because these industries
are the main employers in their areas? Tech companies employ a small minority
of the people that live in San Francisco.

------
venomsnake
Is innovation leader the new newspeak for "job creators". The abundance of
tech jobs gives SF a mild to serious case of the resource curse. You can have
too much of a good thing. When all the money from high paying jobs is absorbed
by the rent - they are not doing anything useful. IF tech jobs move away - the
city landlords will lose. Not so much the city itself.

~~~
rhizome
Indeed, after the first dotcom crash I knew people who were able to negotiate
rent reductions and this was otherwise not an uncommon story to hear at
parties.

------
luka-birsa
So what the author is trying to tell me is: let's look the other way because
it's making us money. It doesn't matter if people or communities get hurt in
the process, we're making money, so let's make sure our unethical golden goose
keeps making money.

I'm a business owner working in tech an I actually applaud SF for having the
guts to stand up for its people.

------
matt4077
This is eerily close to the old joke of how economists "know the price of
everything and the value of nothing".

For this author, the purpose of SF's regulations seem to be in the realm ok
the "unknown unknown". He doesn't even acknowledge the possibility of defining
quality of life by anything other than GDP.

------
jedberg
You don't have to go to Boulder or SLC -- San Jose offers a lot of incentives
for tech companies. In fact San Jose doesn't tax you on income at all (there
is a per employee tax of $18 a year up to 25K but that's it). And if you're a
big enough tech company, you can get that waived too.

~~~
JBlue42
Isn't San Jose's tax policies part of the issues it's having in maintaining
its city?

------
lagadu
Easy answer to the clickbaity title: because the well-being of a city's
residents takes priority over corporate interests. The bit about forcing ride-
sharing providers to actually treat who effectively is their employee like,
you know, an employee is particularly rich.

The whole article just reads like an ode to corporatism; a whiny one too.

------
macavity23
Written by Carl Szabo from 'Net Choice', a Trade Association whose members
include Google, AOL, Facebook, Ebay. This is a straight-up corporate press
release.

------
orthoganol
Probably because San Francisco had a strong reputation for things not related
to tech, and then tech arrived. Silicon Valley being SF is relatively new.

------
ddebernardy
Carl Szabo, senior counsel working for NetChoice, a DC lobby, talking the book
of those who pay him in a Techcrunch opinion piece...

------
ajamesm
> When companies such as Twitter, Airbnb, Zynga

dying, unprofitable, dead

------
fatbird
"Hundreds of high-paying jobs and millions in tax revenue"

... is trivial in the scheme of San Francisco things, which has a population
of 800,000+ and an annual general fund revenue of 2.7 billion.

~~~
idlewords
The general fund figure for 2016 is over 4 billion.

[http://sfmayor.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/mayor/budget/SF_Budget_...](http://sfmayor.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/mayor/budget/SF_Budget_Book_FY_2015_16_and_2016_17_Final_WEB.pdf)

