
How San Francisco's bike-share scheme became a symbol of gentrification - prostoalex
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/21/bike-sharing-scheme-san-francisco-gentrification-vandalism
======
WalterSear
It's not. It's a symbol of what is wrong with its opponents in SF, who are
committed to opposing any change that doesn't benefit them directly.

 _Mario, a San Francisco user of the bike-share program, who has a discounted
membership because he qualifies for food stamps, said he was perplexed by the
backlash. “It’s the cheapest transportation option we have,” said the 29-year-
old, who works as an administrative assistant and asked not to use his full
name, because he feared backlash from anti-gentrification activists._

~~~
FussyZeus
> It's not. It's a symbol of what is wrong with its opponents in SF, who are
> committed to opposing any change that doesn't benefit them directly.

Which makes them distinct from exactly no one? This is a conflict of culture
not of benefits. This is a result of city planners who do not talk to the
communities they plan for/in, and who arbitrarily make changes to public
services and facilities without input from the people who actually live in the
places they're in.

I'm willing to bet money that nobody who decided where these bike stations
went ever even spoke to the poor in the areas where they went. I'm also
willing to bet that the people in those areas, even if it isn't true,
_believed_ that the extra parking spaces and extra traffic lanes benefitted
them more than the bikes. If they didn't, they wouldn't be destroying them.

I'm not saying vandalizing is the solution here, but with the wealthy tech
sector utterly dictating the price of housing and consequently shoving out
literally everyone else all over the Bay Area, is it really such a reach of
logic to think that a shiny rack of new bicycles, no doubt transacted via some
kind of app or spiffy web service, is not going to be a lightning rod for
communities that are getting the shit beat out of them by a tech obsessed
elite?

~~~
zzalpha
_I 'm also willing to bet that the people in those areas, even if it isn't
true, believed that the extra parking spaces and extra traffic lanes
benefitted them more than the bikes. If they didn't, they wouldn't be
destroying them._

Hah, classic engineering mistake: assuming people are rational.

People hate change.

People really hate change they didn't choose (irrespective of whether that
change is good or bad), because people want to feel in control.

On top of that, given the sheer, mindless hostility that cyclists receive from
non-cyclists (some deserved, most not at all), when you mix that with rage
over gentrification, these bike share programs should've been seen as a target
before they ever got rolled out.

So I agree with you that I'll bet the roll out of this program was botched.

But I very much disagree that the subsequent reaction was rational or thought
out based on a cost-benefit analysis.

~~~
acchow
> People hate change.

Do you have data to back this up? Given how quickly the internet took over the
world, Facebook, iPhone and smartphones, mass move from IE to Chrome, Uber...

I really don't think there's much truth in this banal platitude.

~~~
zzalpha
Given how quickly many people reacted negatively to women's suffrage, the
Voting Rights Act and removal of Jim Crow laws, the legalization of gay
marriage, the removal of confederate statues and symbols...

I'd say history is at least partially on my side.

Wouldn't you?

As an aside: You might disagree with this "banal platitude", but you can be
civil about it.

------
ienjoythebeach
> _Bike lanes have often become proxies in urban conflicts over
> gentrification, seen as a street design geared to young professionals,
> techies and hipsters and a pathway to trendy coffee shops, high-end retail
> and luxury apartments._

Strong disagree. Bike lanes are a necessary part of any city's infrastructure,
providing a safe way for all cyclists to move from one point, to another. To
anchor bike lanes to groups of people like techies and hipsters is absurd.

~~~
rhallie11
I think another way it could have been put: no one cared enough about bike
riders to put in bike lanes until wealthier riders moved in.

Like, yeah, totally agree that bike lanes are an important part of any city's
street planning. The more absurd thing is that there have been people riding
bikes through the streets of SF for decades, and it wasn't until parts of the
city began to gentrify, and bike shares became popular amongst the wealthier
residents, that anyone cared enough to fix the problem.

~~~
mc32
I think it's not quite like that. More like what happened at Howard U. When no
one as moving in and gentrifying people accused them of not doing enough for
the community. It begins gentrifying and they get accused of contributing to
the gentrification by upkeeping their environs too much and attracting
gentrifiers.

~~~
rhallie11
As a former Howard student, I think the school's just hella cheap, but also
doesn't like getting negative attention from the outside. Students (myself
included) have been complaining for years about the quality of the buildings,
and asking for renovations. But it wasn't until the neighborhood started
gentrifying, and the new neighbors started to complain, that Howard did
anything about it.

Which is why people get upset. Its not that the changes aren't good, its the
fact that the change doesn't happen until someone else asks for them.

~~~
skybrian
I don't know about Howard but seems like lots of colleges are spending on
fancy new buildings (etc) to attract students and that's driving up the cost
of education? Do you think that has anything to do with it?

~~~
rhallie11
Howard specifically tries to brand itself as a school that has a large amount
of economic diversity, and a high percentage of students who are first
generation college grads (around 38% for the class of 2014 [1]). Its a pretty
well-known/prestigious HBCU, and doesn't have a problem attracting applicants.

But, unlike a lot of other schools in its position, its alumni network
generally doesn't give back all that often (probably in part because first-gen
college students are more-likely to have financial responsibilities to their
families, and less-likely to be able to afford to give/prioritize giving back
to their universities).

But I do specifically remember having to move off campus because my dorm had a
mouse/mold problem (woke up multiple nights in a row to mice in my bed, and
started having breathing problems because of the mold. Some students even had
mushrooms growing out of their carpet). And when I brought it up to the
director of residence life, he responded by saying that it wasn't a big enough
deal to address, and that students always complain about these things and
eventually stop pushing....So....

[1]
[https://www.howard.edu/assessment/documents/reports/Graduati...](https://www.howard.edu/assessment/documents/reports/Graduating%20Student%20Exit%20Survey-
UG%202014.pdf)

------
habosa
There are comments about how communities were not consulted before installing
these bikes.

I found it so refreshing to actually see something _happen_ in SF. No endless
community town hall meetings, pilot programs, bond measures, and political
grandstanding. Instead a bunch of cheap and publicly accessible bikes appeared
overnight.

No of course the program is not perfect, but if the city had asked every
single person if they were OK with it we would have ended up with nothing.

------
tbrock
This article is one of the most rediculous thing I've ever read.

San Francisco needs those bikes for people to get around because the public
transportation in SF is downright awful. The "subway" is composed of cars from
many lines that travel through a single tube and then go on the street and
become subject to the traffic. I walk faster than many bus lines.

If anything, the bikes make life easier for everyone here and that is a good
thing.

~~~
sidlls
Those bikes cost money to rent, though. The Bay Area Bike Share costs $3 for a
30 minute rental. That's expensive compared to the Muni. The annual pass is a
$124 fee. That's a steep one time fee for someone who's barely making ends
meet.

These folks who bike generally aren't renting bike shares. They're scavenging
cheap used kids' bikes off Craigslist.

~~~
tbrock
The muni pass costs $70/month. One year of bike costs less than 2 months of
muni, not sure the cost argument holds up. If you are actually using it to
commute, and not to hipster around town, it's very cheap.

As another commenter pointed out they even have a program where you can get a
yearly pass for $5 if you qualify. I simply can't see this as worse than not
having it.

~~~
sidlls
Sounds like you've never been poor. Often it's easier for a poor person to pay
daily than to scrounge for a pass. They don't have $70 in the bank today, but
they have enough to ride daily until their next payday.

~~~
tbrock
That makes sense but why would you be enraged about this if you were in that
situation? It's not hurting anyone besides maybe car owners who aren't in the
category you mention.

I can't afford a lot of things but if having them available improves the life
of others why bother complaining if it doesn't harm me.

------
mattpratt
> “Overnight, they just came and set this up. They had no respect for this
> community.”

A common narrative amongst opponents of the program is the lack of community
outreach. Not mentioned in the article is that Motivate, the company that runs
the bike share program, reached out to communities and collected feedback for
2+ years before rolling the program out.

Outreach report from February: [https://s3.amazonaws.com/babs-www-
assets/FordGoBikeInterim+O...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/babs-www-
assets/FordGoBikeInterim+Outreach+Report-February2017.pdf)

~~~
mrgordon
Yeah its amazing the opponents can just lie and say it happened overnight. I
knew where the stations were going for a LONG time and there were over 30
community meetings.

Meanwhile the critics say they "will not negotiate" with the bike share
program. Never a good sign.

------
mundo
> Supporters of the program said it could help people struggling to make ends
> meet and claimed it is one of the most accessible in the country, with a $5
> annual membership for low-income people and options to sign up without a
> credit or debit card.

This is the most enraging part of the article. The people who administer this
program spent time and money to make it more accessible to the poor, and
they're still vilified as gentrifiers. Will they bother to do that next time?
Isn't the lesson here, "don't bother to sit down and listen to the activists
and incorporate their feedback, it won't help"?

------
scurvy
Haters gonna hate...everything. Anyone who mutilates a bicycle like this has
deep seated psychological issues that go way beyond planning and any
gentrification issues.

~~~
jstepka
amen

------
spurcell93
As a probably gentrifier in NYC, I can relate to both sides of this issue. I
have friends who grew up in Brooklyn who are so incensed by gentrification
that they throw garbage all over the street, in order to deter "more fucking
billionaires from moving into their high rises". Feelings aren't always
rational, nor are our reactions to them. I applaud outreach groups who are
trying to find common ground here. As Mario says, “It’s the cheapest
transportation option we have.” And everyone should be onboard with that,
especially because it also helps solve congestion that makes quality of life
worse for all residents (travel time, air quality, noise...)

~~~
paganel
> in order to deter "more fucking billionaires from moving into their high
> rises"

They're most probably fighting a losing battle. The only thing that can now
stop the NYC real-estate bubble from inflating even further would be a severe
financial crisis, in which case your friends' neighborhood gentrification will
be the last of their problems.

------
to_bpr
> A bike-sharing scheme has sparked outrage and vandalism from those who see
> it as designed for affluent, white professionals – not locals

That this could ever be written, seriously, points toward how toxic the times
we are living in have become.

------
tmh79
I live in the neighborhood in question. The "nextdoor" group for the
neighborhood has a healthy mix of "new comers" and "long timers/latinos".
There is a poll in the neighborhood asking "should the bike share stations be
allowed in the mission", and right now it has about 75% "yes", 20% "no" and 5%
"I don't know". IMO, this poll is clearly not scientific, but it does show
broad based support for the bikes, and my view is that those who are
virulently against the bikes are a distinct, loud minority of residents in the
neighborhood.

~~~
mrgordon
Yea its probably mostly Calle 24 to be honest

------
mrgordon
One of the most ridiculous facts that gets overlooked in all this is that the
bike share wanted to offer cheaper day passes to use the bikes. The bike
rental shops pushed back and said it would harm their business so the bike
share couldn't offer a cheap daily pass and had to push people to either a
very short rental (say 30-45 minutes) or a long term membership.

Now everyone blames the bike share for not having a reasonable pass to bike
for a few hours or the whole day even though it was their competition that
made it that way!

------
francisofascii
I would think historically and perhaps globally, travelling by car was a
symbol of wealth, and bikes were for the masses and the poor. So the attacks
are more likely directed at a culture that embraces bikes rather than directed
at gentrification.

~~~
gaius
Not anymore. _Not_ owning a car is the symbol of wealth now, it says "to me
the cost of Uber and Deliveroo is nothing".

------
mitabaston
It's easy to slash bike tires, it's hard to move into a high paying job in SF
when you're not already on the right track. I'm one of the people doing my
fair share of displacing low income people. And that's because I happen to be
able to afford the huge rent.

Do I like seeing that kind of money going to my landlord? No way! Would I be
interested in seeing more political initiatives designed to increase the
housing supply? Yes! Am I worried about who will be able to afford to live
here and teach my kids or police the streets? Yes again! What about the
chronic nimbyism that plagues the area? People that already own houses here
are desperate not to see any devaluation to their properties.

It pains me to see the murals in the Mission portraying tech people as the bad
guys, when to me it's more like we're just the visible newcomers that are
getting most of the blame. At least for now we get to share some of the
attention with the bike sharing system.

------
forapurpose
In my city, bike sharing stations are in wealthy / hip neighborhoods, and bike
lanes connect those neighborhoods with each other and with the places such
people go.

The bike stations are not in neighborhoods of people who need inexpensive
transportation, and the bike lanes do not connect, for example, poor and
working class people with their jobs. For example, bike lanes connecting poor
immigrant communities with the restaurants where many of the residents work
would be great.

Requiring a credit card also limits access (though I don't know if that's
still true).

Bike sharing is designed by the young, upwardly mobile urban, for the young,
upwardly mobile urban - maybe that's done unconsciously, but that's the
outcome I see in my town.

~~~
lotsofpulp
It costs money to provide bicycles, and bicycles are easy to steal and break.
There most likely exists a funding and expense problem in poor immigrant
communities that makes it unfeasible to offer bicycles, the local government
does not collect enough tax and the losses from theft and damage to bicycles
too high. Requiring a credit card with a sufficient amount of credit limit
fixes this issue.

~~~
forapurpose
> There most likely exists a funding and expense problem in poor immigrant
> communities that makes it unfeasible to offer bicycles

The funding for the wealthy and poor communities all comes from the same city
treasury.

> Requiring a credit card with a sufficient amount of credit limit fixes this
> issue.

So much for opportunity, democracy, and equality under the law. Only the few
who qualify get the real benefits of citizenship. Billy Bragg once sang
(referring to Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America"):

    
    
      It's morning in America
      And you can be your best
      If you have a major credit card
      And can pass a urine test

------
saosebastiao
San Francisco's brand of liberalism has jumped the shark. It's like they live
in opposite world. It's bad enough that they believe that way to lower housing
costs is to never build anything at all and to impose rent control in a market
that is all too willing to convert to condos and sell. But now they are
arguing that the lowest cost form of urban transportation should be stripped
of its infrastructure in order to protect against gentrification. It's crazy,
and they should be ashamed of their inability to critically think about
anything at all.

------
pfarnsworth
It's the alt-left vs the moderate left (of which I'm a part of, I think bike
lanes and bike sharing are great ideas). Just goes to show you that the
crazies aren't just in the Republican party.

------
visarga
All cities change, can't stop time from flowing. It's not just the LA culture
that is under threat of change. I don't see a good side or a bad side to this
process. It just is.

------
choward
I would like to know more about the Ford sponsorship. First of all, why would
they sponsor it? How much are they paying? Is there another bike share program
that doesn't require me to be a moving Ford advertisement?

~~~
mrgordon
Citibike, Ford, Barclays... most the major bike shares have corporate
sponsors. They sponsor it because they get highly visible advertising and they
collect mobility data about where people move between.

------
DarkKomunalec
The proportion of whites in San Francisco is steadily falling [0], yet the
interviewees are upset that rich _white_ people are moving in. Whites went
from 92% in 1940, to 42% in 2010, and still there's too many?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco#Race_and_ethnicity)

~~~
CryptoFascist
Explicit prejudice against whites is accepted in the Bay Area, and many Bay
Area companies.

Downvotes, eh? The article itself contains a complaint about "seeing more
affluent white people come into neighbourhoods".

~~~
DarkKomunalec
> Explicit prejudice against whites is accepted in the Bay Area, and many Bay
> Area companies.

I'm sure that, as the US becomes more diverse, things will turn around.

------
CryptoFascist
So how long until SF and the Bay Area's anti-development, anti-improvement
ethos causes some other place (Austin/Denver)? to replace Silicon Valley.

For me, I'm only here for the money I get to keep after expenses. Once
somewhere else matches that and without the crazy whining about gentrification
and privilege, and the extreme NIMBYism, I'm gone. I suspect the same is true
for many others.

~~~
santaclaus
> So how long until SF and the Bay Area's anti-development, anti-improvement
> ethos causes some other place (Austin/Denver)? to replace Silicon Valley.

> For me, I'm only here for the money I get to keep after expenses. Once
> somewhere else matches that and without the crazy whining about
> gentrification and privilege, and the extreme NIMBYism, I'm gone. I suspect
> the same is true for many others.

Can't comment on Austin, but having lived in the Bay and Denver, there is just
as much gnashing of teeth and nativism in Denver (let alone Boulder, my god).
Same goes for Portland, Seattle, hell, even NYC. Locales like to act like they
are the _only_ city in the states undergoing demographic shifts.

------
ringaroundthetx
The privilege of being a non-white professional in San Francisco is getting to
join a housing development protest to check out details on the new trendy
building I want to consider living.

I hope they put up a bike station near it too.

