
The Tech Industry vs. San Francisco - sizzle
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/07/07/140707fa_fact_heller?currentPage=all
======
optimusclimb
I'm so tired of reading this stuff. I really feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
If anything, it sounds to me like staunch creationists arguing that "both
sides" of the "debate" need to be heard.

At this point I attribute most of it to basic human envy, or perhaps even just
not liking the "nerds" getting ahead.

Most of us here work in tech. We know our co-workers. We know where we came
from. For many of us, years growing up spent reading, tinkering, being maybe a
little anti-social. A lot of us probably found a computer at a young age, and
just felt a compulsion to learn how it worked. Now we're getting paid for it.

I guess I just don't see this greedy group of evil doers out to ruin a city
when I look at the people I've encountered in the industry. I see people who
got a bit lucky that their passion became profitable.

I mean, bashing Google busses? Yes, Google created a perk, but they created it
because a lot of their workers wanted to live in the city, and it beat having
them all bring cars into SF and clog the 101. But I guess if you're a tech
nerd, you're not supposed to live in the city, because that's for OTHER
people, not you.

Do doctors, lawyers, and people in finance get harangued constantly in other
cities? (substitute anyone with a well paying job) Do they have to take
surveys about their donation habits to charities, and if they didn't, answer
why not?

Why do we collectively put up with this? It really all seems to boil down to a
class of people deciding that "techies" aren't worthy of living in THEIR city,
and that's that.

~~~
bowlofpetunias
This is basically the tech-equivalent of "they hate us for our freedom".

This symbolizes exactly what the problem is: zero sense of social
responsibility, and when it starts pissing people off you pull the victim
card.

You really don't understand what the problem is when the tech-elite creates
it's own public transport system, pissing on all the people that make up the
city you live in, from the people that collect your garbage to the barista
that makes your espresso?

Here's some news for you: these people aren't pissed off at "techies". They're
pissed off at people like you.

~~~
macspoofing
I don't know what he said that got you off.

>You really don't understand what the problem is when the tech-elite creates
it's own public transport system

Jesus. It's a company bus. My uncles 30 years ago were shuttled (under
communism no less) to their work, by their work. It makes a lot of sense.

I try not to be dissmisive. You feel what you feel but come on. Get a grip.
What exactly is the problem? And what is the solution?

------
CalRobert
It doesn't help that cities (Mountain View comes to mind) have made it illegal
to build the high-density mixed-use development that are part of the reason
people want to live in SF and not, say, Fremont. Who wants to live in a big
house in the middle of nowhere and have to drive everywhere?

~~~
paul_f
"Who wants to live in a big house in the middle of nowhere and have to drive
everywhere?"

I do. Keep in mind, not everyone shares the same idea of nirvana.

~~~
davidw
There's plenty of space for both, but in the US, regulation is entirely - or
nearly so - in favor of one kind of system:

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-
ebook/dp/B0078X...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-
ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO?tag=dedasys-20)

Less regulation would likely lead to diverse kinds of housing being available,
and I'm sure there would still be plenty of suburbs.

------
zachrose
> “The shuttle buses are nothing but a symbol of the issue,” [Ron Conway] told
> me, gazing out at a thin swell of mist over the water. “The buses serve a
> real useful purpose, and help the environment by not putting people in
> cars.”

Another way to think about it is that tech buses compete with public
transportation. If you want to reduce traffic and help non-employee citizens,
invest in the existing public system.

~~~
nerfhammer
The buses don't compete with public transit as they cover cross-county routes
for which there basically is no feasible public alternative vs driving. And
the constituent counties have historically often _resisted_ cooperating with
each other to expand public transit agencies.

~~~
jarek
> The buses don't compete with public transit as they cover cross-county
> routes for which there basically is no feasible public alternative vs
> driving.

So try to fix that. The distance is hardly unbridgeable with public transport
and express point-to-point public services are hardly a novel idea.

> And the constituent counties have historically often resisted cooperating
> with each other to expand public transit agencies.

So try to fix that.

Ah but that's more difficult than putting a private system on public assets.

~~~
davidw
It's not their job to fix _all_ of the problems and politics of the bay area.
If they wanted, they'd be well withing their rights to just say "fuck it, you
lot can drive". Long term, it'd be nice if the public transportation improved,
but you know what? The haters would find something else to whine about, like
public dollars going to transport workers at a huge company like Google,
because they had "meddled in the political process with their fat wallet", or
some such thing.

~~~
supersystem
"The haters would find something else to whine about"

Because people who don't agree with you are "haters that whine"? It's not
exactly hard to find out what they want and that it's not primarily about the
buses.

There's also plenty of reasons why the buses aren't good for people in the
tech industry. Especially for entrepreneurs that want to compete with these
companies.

~~~
davidw
I thought this article did a pretty good job of explaining things:

[http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-
housing/](http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/)

Yeah, there are plenty of people with legitimate gripes, but having grown up
in a place with its fair share of them.... it seems there is a category of
people who are just out there looking for something to get riled up about. And
it seems quite wrong to target the people and companies when they're just
doing what they do and happening to make money at it. If there's a housing
problem, address that, no? They might as well shake their fists at the
internet itself, because that is what's helping the companies make the money,
with which they pay the people, who drive up the prices.

