
Google Bus blocked, window smashed in West Oakland  - negrit
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/12/20/18748143.php
======
jessedhillon
_West Oakland is a traditionally black neighborhood that surrounds the Port of
Oakland. It has been heavily gentrified, developed, and restructured over the
past three decades. Now there is an upper class enclave that has been
established near the West Oakland BART station, in Jack London, and in the
city of Emeryville._

Oh fuck you and your dreadlocks.

There are only two photos on that page, so I don't definitively _know_ who
these protesters were (although there are no "traditional" blacks in those
photos) -- but I know (I have a strong suspicion, I don't factually know) that
the protesters were not drawn from the group mentioned above. These are
Burning Man hippies, self-styled artists, people who graduated from great
schools with useless majors, and the usual constituent of the Bay Area's
overprivileged poverty tourists: 20-30 y/o white kids from middle class
families.

The actual, _working_ , poor people in West Oakland were at their first of the
two or three jobs they hold. Or they were spending a few rare moments resting,
or with their kids. Or they were lining up to get a meal at community kitchen.
Actual _black_ people were not part of this protest, because a mob of black
people attacking a bus would be getting wall-to-wall coverage on every
channel. It would have been responded to with a swift and overwhelming police
presence.

The same thing happened a few years ago when these same non-workers shut down
the Port of Oakland in the name of workers. The people who actually work the
port asked that they not disrupt the port, but in the end these dreadlocked,
shiftless complainers cost those longshoremen a day in wages -- _Viva El
Proletariado!_

What we have today is a group of young, electively poor white kids who are
upset that the price of unheated lofts and dingy Victorians are being driven
up by people who have the means and motivation to actually own and improve
them. That they wrap themselves up in the image of the poor (and yes, mostly
black) -- whom they _themselves_ displaced by rushing in to bid up rents with
mom and dad's money -- makes this appeal all the more ludicrous. At least the
tech gentrifiers will actually improve the fucking place, unlike these
leeches!

(Source: I live and own property in Oakland)

Edited as suggested below by bonemachine.

~~~
9999
Re: The port shutdown:

The longshoremen's union supported the Occupy shutdown, but were contractually
obligated not to participate in the protest. Source:

[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/occupy-oakland-shuts-down-
port/](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/occupy-oakland-shuts-down-port/)

Since almost everything else you said is anecdotal, it's hard for me to
respond to, but your statement about the longshoremen, that's certainly wrong.

In general, the people that you are deriding and caricaturing represent the
first wave of gentrification, and those people actually do make meaningful
contributions to the areas they move into. Think of the excellent restaurants,
concert venues, boutiques, bars, etc. that exist in Oakland now--that's first
wave gentrification. Those people are also historically more aware of their
surroundings and the culture that they are moving into and tend to show
solidarity with the lower income residents that they are paving the way
towards displacement for. On the other hand, the second wave of gentrifiers
tends to dramatically increase the cost of living, rate of displacement, and
tends to care very little about the plight of their fellow citizens.

The Google buses are a convenient symbol for economic disparity though, and I
often wonder why Google doesn't try to do a real public works project instead
of simply creating a segregated system of buses. Why not add wi-fi to public
buses? Why not extend the light rail system into the valley? Why not donate a
whole lot of money to a public mental health project so there aren't so many
deranged lunatics screaming on public transit? If they did that, then they
will have created a more comfortable environment not only for their own
employees, but for the entire community.

~~~
jessedhillon
_...but your statement about the longshoremen, that 's certainly wrong._

No, it's right. ILWU (the union) leadership has made statements such as

 _" Organization from outside groups attempting to co-opt our struggle in
order to advance a broader agenda is quite another and one that is destructive
to our democratic process and jeopardizes our over two year struggle in
Longview."_ [1]

So I may not have been right about them speaking out specifically against the
Oakland shut down, but in general the union leadership is against strikes.
Although, of course, they take great pains to not alienate potential
ideological allies while rejecting calls to shut down ports.

The sentiment is at least mixed, as you can see from other coverage: [2]

 _" Leaders of the ILWU, which represents thousands of longshoremen, spoke out
in recent weeks against the coordinated effort by Occupy protesters to
blockade ports from Anchorage to San Diego"_

 _" This is joke. What are they protesting?" Christian Vega, 32, who sat in
his truck carrying a load of recycled paper from Pittsburg said Monday
morning. He said the delay was costing him $600._

 _" It only hurts me and the other drivers. We have jobs and families to
support and feed. Most of them don't," Vega said._

[1] [http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/occupy-oakland-
west-...](http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/occupy-oakland-west-coast-
port-shutdown)

[2] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/occupy-oakland-
port...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/occupy-oakland-
ports_n_1144476.html)

~~~
9999
The Longview comment is from the Longview, Washington Union rep, not Oakland.
The driver interviewed there is also not a longshoreman, and very likely not
repped by a union at all. The Occupy Oakland movement was not a monolithic
group of dreadlocked, burning man, trustafarians as you implied, but it's a
convenient mis-characterization, as is your implication that the Union was
only interested in avoiding alienating their ideological allies out of
convenience rather than in actual solidarity with their cause.

EDIT:

I was mistaken regarding the comment coming from the Longview rep, it's
actually from the Union President. When viewed in full, his opinion seems to
be more nuanced than simply "closing the port is bad."

[http://www.ilwu40.org/docs/12-06-11-McEllrath%20Letter.pdf](http://www.ilwu40.org/docs/12-06-11-McEllrath%20Letter.pdf)

~~~
jessedhillon
I don't think you're effectively rebutting my larger point, which is that
these protesters represent themselves as being of one population, when they
are in fact of another. Certainly, if I change my statement to "some port
workers" were economically damaged by the protest, purportedly on their
behalf, in which they did not participate or call for, the point remains.
Regarding the "convenient mis-characterization" \-- my girlfriend worked in a
major union for five years, specifically in the communications department; I
know very well how to read statements made by, and on behalf of, union
leaders. The kind of tension and political tiptoeing I described certainly
exists.

The mere fact that we can point to two statements, one expressing support for
Occupy, and one denouncing a specific Occupy action, _by definition_ means
that there is a conflict in strategy and tactics.

Now, I will grant that this is all based on my opinion and observation -- none
of it is empirical or measured. So what? Supply some measurements if you think
that my opinion is illegitimate. Tell me what percentage of Occupiers are
actually from traditionally poor background -- those who suffer systemic
disenfranchisement, a lack of role models, have insufficient access to
education -- you know, the people who they claim to represent. If this is such
a diverse movement of the working poor, go ahead and let me know how the
demographics of self-identified Occupiers compares to that of East Oakland
(the poorest neighborhood in Oakland.) Shit, speaking of diversity: I would be
surprised to learn if even a _single percentage_ of them were multilingual!

I'm all for advocating on behalf of those who have been systematically locked
out of opportunity, who have never been able to access the things we all take
for granted, which have made it possible for us to be so successful. The
people I see at Occupy events are poor, but it doesn't seem to me that it's
for a for lack of access. They are bitching, basically, because the
opportunities for very well privileged slackers to get by decently without
putting in too much effort have all dried up. The rest of us -- poor and
working rich -- are busting our asses off.

Happy to be proven wrong, but these are my observations, and yes my biases
too.

~~~
9999
If your larger point is that they are representing themselves as being of one
population (poor minorities), I would offer this counterargument:

Let's assume that they are all shiftless, white, dreadlocked, trustafarians.
They are not representing themselves as being OF that population of poor
minorities but rather are advocating FOR the population of underrepresented,
poor minorities. How then are they different than wealthy benefactors donating
to AIDS relief or anti-malarial programs in Africa? Well, they are donating
their time, not their money, but if they do have so much money one wonders why
they wouldn't simply donate that... You also make the observation that the
individuals that are actually being negatively effected by gentrification in
West Oakland are off working on their second or third jobs at that hour of the
day, then wouldn't they need someone that is in a more comfortable position to
advocate on their behalf?

It's interesting that you ask me for some empirical, measured data on the
ethnic and class background of Occupiers. Because of the nature of that
movement, it's nearly impossible to pin them down on anything. I was an
observer at many Occupy events elsewhere, however, and what I found was very
deep suspicion of anyone not directly involved in planning, so I'm afraid that
it would be basically impossible to conduct the kind of research you're
talking about. I was not involved with Occupy Oakland, but I know a few people
who were, and interestingly enough, they had some of the same problems with
other activists that you have. I do not think you are entirely wrong there.
Certainly, some of the people that got involved just wanted to smoke weed,
make idiotic signs, chant slogans and get laid, but it's ludicrous to suggest
that the majority of activists involved there were of that ilk. It would also
be ludicrous to suggest that there weren't any pseudo-activists. They were
certainly there.

Personally, I found the Occupy movement's organizational non-structure to be
self-defeating and it's no surprise that it has almost completely fizzled out.
I also find the tactics being used by these particular protesters to be
somewhat wrong-headed. In your original post though, you showed absolute
disgust for these people and and in my own experience, they don't _all_
deserve it. It will be interesting to find out more about what actually
happened at this protest.

~~~
jessedhillon
_How then are they different than wealthy benefactors donating to AIDS relief
or anti-malarial programs in Africa?_

They are using violence (and the threat of violence) and presenting an
outrageous sense of righteous indignation.

~~~
9999
It seems that one of them committed a violent act here. They're not all doing
that.

------
sp332
_The bus remained where it was, the thought of driving to Mountain View with a
broken window and flooded with cold air an unthinkable horror they could not
endure._

Or maybe because it was a crime scene?

~~~
johnward
TIL: "cold air" is ~54f.

~~~
sp332
At 54F ambient, wind chill at 40 MPH drops to just above freezing.

~~~
ry0ohki
It's the back window busted out though? So there wouldn't be a 40mph wind
chill I don't think

~~~
jack-r-abbit
Look at the pictures. Those buses typically don't have a "back" window (the
very back panel of the bus is not a window). It is not very clear in the photo
of this article but others show very clearly that the smashed window was on
the side, near the back, just above the rear wheels. Driving at freeway speed
with that side window smashed out would be very windy and cold in that bus.

------
null_ptr
Gotta love _“TECHIES: Your World Is Not Welcome Here”_

I find it hard to sympathize with a bunch of lazy thugs who do nothing to
improve their situation. Engineering and white collar jobs in general have
always paid well. Industries who are in demand even more so, and for just
reason. Did similar protests happen in Detroit 50 years ago during the auto
boom? Did unskilled rubes that do nothing all day put up banners saying _"
Auto boys not welcome"_?

This is absurd. Take control of your own damn life. Educate yourself and learn
relevant skills. The resources are out there and more accessible than ever.
Spend a few good hours in your public library every day for a year and walk
out of there a changed person with valuable skills to offer.

~~~
yarou
These kids never worked a day in their life, though. Their parents provided
them with all the tools to succeed, but they still managed to fuck it up. They
have no desire to improve themselves, they simply want to continue to leech
off of whatever person will tolerate them the longest. Sickening.

~~~
null_ptr
Exactly. They want a free lunch off the hard work of others. Otherwise they
would have been on their way to _work_ this morning, not vandalizing a bus.

~~~
gohrt
Please don't marginalized the un/underemployed. There is unemployment in the
US, and not everyone can or should be an entrepeneur. (Heck, plenty of us
wealthy tech workers would not succeed as entrepeneurs).

The noblesse oblige is to demonstrate leadership by creating opportunities for
honest workers.

Edit for clarity: null_ptr implied that the alternative to this behavior is
"going to work". Other possibilities are "try to find work", or "be stuck
because there is no work avaialable".

~~~
null_ptr
No sympathy for thugs and vandals. People who smash bus windows Friday morning
have no place in civilized society. This has nothing to do with their
employment situation. Why don't they go to the public library and learn some
relevant skills? Learning opportunities that actually lead to well paid jobs
are more accessible than ever. If you have the time to smash a bus window you
have the time to learn skills that will uplift your spirit and place in this
world.

------
defen
As if the real problem with Oakland is that there are too many Google
employees living there. Let's be honest - the only reason they do this is that
Google employees sitting in a bus are a "soft" target. There is essentially
zero chance of reprisal or consequence, at least if it's done as a one-off
thing. You get to feel self-righteous for fighting "the man" without any risk.

Let's say they win this quixotic crusade and actually manage to force everyone
with an income above $N to flee the area. What is the next step toward a
better Oakland?

~~~
aetherson
Yeah, I want to know what people think that alternative to gentrification is.
Do they imagine that high income people will eventually just not live
anywhere? Do they imagine that life would be better if all growth in the Bay
Area were new construction sprawl out in the edges of the urban area where
there's no displacement? Is it explicitly selfish, like, "go gentrify San
Jose, those guys are assholes anyway"?

~~~
kasey_junk
I don't have a dog in this fight, but there are some pretty obvious things you
could do to fight the burden of gentrification on lower income original
members of the population (they may have other side effects that are
burdensome).

Off the top of my head: \- Massive taxes on "teardown" or size exploding
renovations. \- Zoning laws that require at least 1 (or a % based) Section 8
unit per multi-unit development/renovation. \- Massive subsidies on empty lot
development that implement affordable housing practices.

It would be even better if you implemented these changes throughout the entire
metro area, not just the areas currently under development. But if you think
protests by the poor for rich folks moving into their neighborhood are bad,
wait until you see the inverse.

~~~
JimboOmega
By "size exploding" do you mean "reducing the number of units"? Because then I
might agree.

Really, though, allowing them to put up a high rise where there are currently
single family homes reduces the overall pressure everywhere.

Of course, SF will never subsidize empty lot development, even if there were
any empty lots to build on; the right to build in SF is far higher than in any
other US city - double that of (as of 2007) Los Angeles or New York:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-o...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-
of-two-town-houses/306334/)

I don't know what you mean by "affordable housing practices", but the reality
of it is building lots of housing units. You can subsidize the poor, but that
will just push out those just rich enough not to qualify for the subsidies;
it's a supply/demand problem, and the only solution is more supply or less
demand.

I'd agree the entire metro could benefit.

------
mgraczyk
Is it just me, or does the psuedo-intellectual/conspiratorial rhetoric used in
this post make anybody else uncomfortable? I feel like class warfare tends to
start with misplaced high-mindedness, as if there is an element of being "in
the know" for those who take part in the violence. Obviously the author
thought writing this way would help further his cause, so what does that say
about the participants? Too uninformed to know the difference? Too angry to
care?

~~~
anigbrowl
Of course, it's agit-prop bullshit masquerading as reporting. Self-satisfied
ideologues (of all political stripes) are nauseating people.

------
djs1sjd
I take that bus routinely (though not this morning), and I can assure you that
its occupants are a diverse group of East Bay residents of many races and
ethnicities (black, white, asian, hispanic, etc), and though I haven't done a
survey, I doubt any of us are 1%s.

Many of us, myself included, support strongly progressive economic policies,
but there is no real conversation to be had with people who will resort to
violence like this. Sadly, use of violent and illegal methods to convey a
message seems to be somewhat common in these parts.

I suspect that these "protesting" groups are acting out some sort of imagined
war between rich and poor, and since the real 1% don't take a bus of any kind
to work, we're their next best target.

~~~
marquis
In our industry we are privileged. I am not sure another time in history when
anyone (almost) could bootstrap themselves to relative wealth compared to
their neighbours and families with determined effort rather than hard labour
and luck (such as the gold rush or being born into wealth). To assume that
there is no problem, that everything is fine and people are just upset for the
hell of it is hubris. We could become the new oil barons, and be glad of low
wages so we can live like kings. Or we could adjust to our wealth, at least
acknowledge it and even if you never donate to your local foodbank or get
involved with a local community group or night school, understand that you
have privilege. Noblesse oblige and all that.

~~~
djs1sjd
Who said there is no problem? Not me. I'm aware and upset about many of the
same problems. However, I think smashing bus windows under presumption that
those inside are uniquely responsible for the problems sends the conversation
backwards, not forwards.

~~~
marquis
I'm not sure if you edited your post I replied to but yes, it seems we agree.
I may have misread earlier.

------
anigbrowl
As a resident of Oakland who is sick to death of professional protesters
slapping agit-prop posters on any available surface (not least community-
financed public artwork), fuck these people and everything they stand for. And
no, I don't work for some billion $ startup or even a million $ one, I'm the
sort of starving artist that they claim to be fighting for, but aren't.

------
kohanz
The writing is strange and sounds very biased. The repeated reference to a
_kind young man_ , for example.

~~~
jaibot
This isn't a news article - it's a post on "East Bay | Global Justice and
Anti-Capitalism"

~~~
JimboOmega
Yup.

Would really like to see a real news article - or at least several other
sources discussing the incident.

------
GrinningFool

        “Bus driver, what are you gonna do, man? What are you gonna do?”
        “Don’t worry. It’s freedom of speech, freedom of speech.”
        The kind young man then walked to the rear of the bus, saying,
        “Oh my god! What’s gonna happen next?”
        The same female passenger took out her phone and began filming the blockade.
        “At least we’re warm in here and they’re cold out there,” she said.
    

The nice thing about 'journalism' like this is that when you just make shit up
to improve your 'story', there's nobody to hold you accountable.

------
nathanvanfleet
"driven up the property values and rent prices, creating animosity, evictions,
and poverty" I'm sorry but I can't imagine the gentrification has caused
poverty. It's probably made it more inconvenient and pushed out people in
poverty though.

~~~
altero
Rent prices and other expenses skyrocketed. And not everyone has option to
move out. So yes, it caused powerty.

~~~
PeterisP
Zoning laws creating an artificial scarcity of housing has caused the rent
prices to skyrocket - already before that the prices were high enough to cause
a boom in building lots of living space, if the city (by their voters) would
allow it.

~~~
Symmetry
I'm not too familiar with the SF housing legal environment, but in some places
a lack of new housing is caused by preservation boards that are willing to
declare, e.g., chain link fences as historical structures to prevent new
development in their areas.

------
elipsey
If "Gentrification is a dynamic and nuanced problem", perhaps throwing bricks
through windows is not the best approach to finding a solution.

I'm not convinced that "gentrification" is always a problem. Must prices
always remain the same? Am I entitled to be protected from competing as a
buyer with other buyers who can put scarce housing resources to more valuable
alternative uses, for example allowing someone else to commute to a job at
Google, rather than allowing me to work a pizza place? This is not
condescending, I have, and I wasn't surprised that I couldn't afford housing
near the private university, or fancy corporate campuses at that time.

Furthermore, if we think housing prices are a problem, perhaps we should look
at zoning and density. If entrenched interests prevent a majority consensus
from altering zoning laws, then try throwing some bricks.

Has that happened in SF and I just don't know about it?

------
rodly
As usual, the irony is at an all time high.

> "While they took their seats, several people unfurled two giant banners
> reading “TECHIES: Your World Is Not Welcome Here” and “FUCK OFF GOOGLE.”

People holding banners that were laser printed with materials synthesized by
complex machines. People with cell phones tucked away in their pockets. People
who have used Google a million times.

~~~
gress
Yeah - all political protest that uses modern technology is automatically
hypocritical.

Because Google makes a useful product, they are above any kind of criticism.

~~~
Crito
> _Yeah - all political protest that uses modern technology is automatically
> hypocritical._

No, only those protesting modern technology.

Protest Gitmo with modern technology all you want. Nothing wrong with that.

~~~
gress
None of this is about protesting modern technology.

~~~
Crito
No, just the people who create it... _Totally_ unrelated.

~~~
gress
Absolutely so. The fact that they create technology has nothing to do with the
protest.

~~~
Crito
You're right, the root cause here is jealously, boredom, and a typical bully
attitude.

However technology _is_ a core feature of the root cause that the protesters
_claim_. They are not angry at moderately wealthy workers _in general_ , they
are angry at moderately wealthy workers _from technology companies in
particular_. They make this excruciatingly clear.

And do not _even think_ of telling me that the only wealthy people in SF are
those working for technology companies. That is bullshit, and you know it.

~~~
gress
They are angry at companies who provide corporate busses to make neighborhoods
more comfortable for their employees than they are for other people, rather
than supporting public infrastructure that everyone benefits from.

As to your comment about 'bullshit' \- you seem kind of angry.

------
jrockway
It would be much better to have 100 more cars on the road during rush hour,
right?

~~~
k-mcgrady
By providing free transportation from SF Google employees are encouraged to
live there. Why not live closer to work? It would probably result in a few
more cars on the road but a lot of the employees would move closer to Google
freeing up apartments for people who actually work at businesses in SF and
HAVE to live there.

NB: I have no stake in this, I like in Ireland.

~~~
kkowalczyk
1\. Shortage of housing is even worse near Google campus than in SF

2\. Angry mob or your opinions should not dictate where people choose to live.

I could offer many suggestions as to how you should live YOUR life to better
suit MY goal and ideas, but I don't because that would be stupid.

You should choose a place to live that suits YOU the best and you should offer
the same curtesy to others.

The "occupy Google bus" movement is straight-up bullying.

~~~
gress
Yeah - people shouldn't complain - they should just shut up and get a job that
pays them a 6 figure salary and provides an air conditioned luxury coach to
take them to work.

~~~
simoncion
Edit: Oh, heh. I mis-read your statement. Regardless, I'll keep my original
comment below. Do with it what you will.

_________________

1) 6-figures is middle-of-the-road when it comes to meeting living expenses in
SV. You will _never_ own an urban house (and will likely not own a suburban
house) on that salary in the area.

2) Have you, like, ever ridden in a big bus before? They're pretty nausea-
inducing and tend to get stuck in the same traffic that every other ground
vehicle gets stuck in. Their only advantages are traffic reduction and (maybe,
if you can fight the nausea) the ability to catch up on email during your
commute in.

3) I did the commute-down-the-peninsula thing for a couple of years. It was
also pretty miserable and not very cheap (but far cheaper than owning,
parking, and maintaining a car). I can't argue that Caltrain is _worse_ than
these buses, but I can argue that they're both pretty miserable.

~~~
gress
I'm not really sure _what_ to make of this!

~~~
simoncion
You're not sure what to make of what?

~~~
gress
Well if you misread my comment but don't tell us what you thought it said, I
can't put your response in context.

------
Futurebot
Ultimately, the issue comes down to housing supply - a problem created both by
long-time locals and municipal governments. It's the same exact story in other
places, particularly here in Manhattan. Would this problem exist if the number
of apartments/houses kept up with the number of people who wanted them? There
are answers to this dilemma, but they are politically unpalatable to many. See
a previous comment of mine for more:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6549063](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6549063)

Short version: build a lot more, and put a regulation in place to keep the
"look" of the new buildings similar/the same to the current
neighborhood/buildings being replaced.

People want to live in these places. People need to be near jobs. People will
avoid commuting if they can. People want to be near cultural institutions.
Many people want to be near lots of other people. Look at the housing shortage
in North Dakota - before the energy boom, no shortage. People move in because
of jobs - shortage, and very high prices. In that case, building, rather than
policies did not keep up (there are answers here as well, particularly prefab
/ modular housing.)

The number of people in cities (particularly large ones, but smaller ones as
well) continues to grow (again, see link.) Our policies (in particular) need
to adjust.

------
cinquemb
_" While this is taking place, the City of Oakland and Federal law enforcement
are attempting to spread a surveillance network called the Domain Awareness
Center throughout Oakland. Intended to secure the Port of Oakland against
terrorist attacks and labor struggle, this surveillance network will actually
monitor the entirety of Oakland through over 800 cameras. The authorities want
to monitor the crazy and uncontrollable city that is pressed right up against
the Port of Oakland."_

Would be interesting to get the coords of the cameras when they go up on
iSee[0], so people can take the necessary action to avoid them. It would be
interesting in general if someone made a mobile app where people can stand
where cameras are (and take a photo of it for some spacial awareness) and
submit the coords to a public database where people can take the data and plot
their own paths away from a central server.

[0]: [http://66.93.183.118:8080/isee/s1](http://66.93.183.118:8080/isee/s1)

------
marvvelous
Better article describing 2 more bus incidents from this morning -
[http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/12/20/eviction-
protesters...](http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/12/20/eviction-protesters-
oakland-san-francisco-target-silicon-valley-buses)

------
dylandrop
I'm seeing a lot of vitriol and generalizations in this thread. It's
understandable to be upset about this, but automatically assuming that the
protesters are "lazy trustafarians" leeching off of the tech community is not
a mindset that is helpful to anybody. If anything, it just escalates the
situation. The approach we should be taking is: what is the problem, why are
people upset, how do we solve it. Of course smashing the Google bus is not a
productive way to protest. But the tech community needs to take the high road,
not the low road. Making sweeping generalizations only creates more anger and
thus makes the situation worse.

------
goldenkey
'The kind young man' 'An unthinkable horror they could not endure'

Holy shit, the hyperbole that hurts my heart!

------
angersock
First against the wall, it would appear. All of us doing tech work should be
paying very, very close attention to this sentiment.

That said, why can't these folks find more constructive ways of trying to
change the system and address their grievances?

~~~
zrail
The private buses are a very visible symbol of what's going on in their
neighborhood. They're an obvious target.

~~~
dragontamer
They're an obvious soft-target. An easy target that they can attack without
penalty.

The "obvious target" would be to do this in the middle of the city, to raise
better awareness of their anger and their message. As it is, this is simply an
unknown attack on a bus. Even the spin-propaganda blog post is very unclear on
what the problem is...

~~~
vacri
_As it is, this is simply an unknown attack on a bus._

And yet look at all this discussion here on a forum that caters to the
demographic they're targetting.

------
huu
Has this actually happened? I can't find any other news source confirming
this.

Edit: Yeah, this actually did happen. Picture of the broken window:
[https://twitter.com/craigsfrost/status/414121201754468352/ph...](https://twitter.com/craigsfrost/status/414121201754468352/photo/1)

~~~
JimboOmega
Someone tweeting a picture isn't exactly verification. There's no real way to
tell if that picture has anything to do with the location or bus in question.

I'd really like to see some more verification - especially after the way the
last Google Bus "incident" turned out. (A guy who at first appeared to be an
employee trying to shout down the protesters... was actually a guy there to
support the protesters, and make an artificial 'scene')

~~~
huu
Here you go:
[https://twitter.com/craigsfrost/status/414074094578307072/ph...](https://twitter.com/craigsfrost/status/414074094578307072/photo/1)

Edit: The SF Chronicle is currently reaching out to the witnesses to get a
better feel for the story. I'd expect something to come out in the mainstream
news real soon.

~~~
JimboOmega
I'll be waiting for it. If I knew Craig Frost, I might be more willing... the
stilted writing style of the original just leaves me wanting to see more
viewpoints.

------
firstOrder
"Someone threw fliers with a smiley face logo and the message disrupt google
into the air."

Hilarious! Disrupt Google!

Lots of posts here "there's more constructive ways to deal with this". How
constructive is a bunch of pigs evicting a family because their landlord is
jacking up the rent because a bunch of Google hipster yuppies want to slum it
in Oakland?

Then there's the usual "these people weren't the poorest people in Oakland"
posts. The police shoot people like Oscar Grant dead over nothing in Oakland,
I could imagine if a swarm of young black men started throwing rocks at Google
buses. The whiners here win either way - either they would get a Fox News
story about how apolitical young black thugs are harrassing Google workers, or
we get the comments here complaining that this is not what they were
confronted with.

It's not like the moneyed classes aren't pulling the political strings in the
Bay Area now, like Ron Conman getting his boy Ed Lee in as San Francisco
mayor. Which goes to other inane comments of the "why don't they do this
outside the mansions in Altadena, instead of to us poor six-figure Google
employees?" Well the Altadena people aren't the ones gentrifying Oakland and
driving rents up. Some people here claim that Oakland residents like that
gentrifiers are coming in and driving up rents, which shows how out of touch
they are.

People here are so out of touch they forget (perhaps excepting people like Ben
Horowitz) that the Black Panthers were born in Oakland. I suppose almost all
don't remember the 1934 waterfront strike. These actions are harbingers of
these things coming about again.

~~~
yetanotherphd
>How constructive is a bunch of pigs evicting a family because their landlord
is jacking up the rent because a bunch of Google hipster yuppies want to slum
it in Oakland?

That seems perfectly reasonable to me, assuming the eviction is legal.

This is a nation of laws. People like you who don't believe in rule of law
need to find a country of your own.

------
api
Not surprised to see this. The real estate hyperinflation in the Bay Area is
beyond sanity at this point.

------
gojomo
Now we know where Google can deploy Boston Dynamics!

~~~
Symmetry
I'm imagining a techno-catbus now that runs over the rooftops of the city on
robotic legs to avoid the cars and barricades on the road below.

------
yetanotherphd
I don't care about the legitimacy of their cause - violent thugs like the
author and his fellow protestors being in jail.

Call me a libertarian, but I believe I have the right to be safe and not be
attacked. In the twisted mindset of the author, I imagine that the impact that
tech employees have on house prices is morally equivalent to violence. However
people who believe in rule of law rather than mob rule should be able to see
through this.

------
davevil
Suddenly, Google's purchase of military robot manufacturer Boston Dynamics
makes more sense.

------
rchiniquy
It seems obvious this is the same group that obstructed a Google bus in SF
earlier this month. Protesting Google from the vantage point of a privileged
SF resident wasn't sufficiently sympthetic, so they're cloaking themselves in
the very real oppression and problems still crushing West Oakland. Shameful.

People bringing their protests to Oakland is nothing new (like the black bloc
protests during Occupy). I've been living in my Oakland neighborhood for about
9 years. On my block, that makes me the newcomer. I don't speak for Oakland
and neither do these protestors or whoever contributed that article.

------
ebiester
The tech community in the bay area is keenly aware of the issues. The idea of
protests aren't the issue; the destruction of property is the issue. That
said...

We have plenty of ideas on how to solve it, but they involve the buyin of
people entrenched in power who have other power bases. The solution is more
housing, more dense housing, and more cultural activities closer to the places
of employment. However, nobody's digging up Mountain view for skyscrapers
anytime soon. Subways aren't being built in San Mateo county that link to BART
anytime soon, outside of Milbrae.

I've said that if Colma would just move the cemetaries and and build
skyscrapers, a few museums, another symphony hall, and an entertainment
district, our problems would be solved. (We'd probably also have to give the
residents there a good deal, all 1700 of them. The big shopping center might
need a buyout too, we could rebuild that union square-style.)

It's quick to SF, well connected by car, we could probably bring a bunch of
industry in with mixed-use, we could do it well. Of course, it would probably
hasten the gentrification of Daly City, but a 2 square mile city could be
done, and the land would be a fraction of the cost of almost anywhere else.

------
chaz
A bus in San Francisco, too. Claims of it being an Apple bus.
[http://www.businessinsider.com/protesters-an-apple-
bus-2013-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/protesters-an-apple-bus-2013-12)

------
altero
Technicaly the bus is place of work, so there are interesting implications for
Google as employer.

~~~
anextio
No, the bus is owned by a third party contractor. That does not count as
Google's workplace.

~~~
altero
And the office could be rented. I think it is clear that Google expect people
to check emails and do 'work stuff', it was mentioned several times.

~~~
9999
If you worked on a personal project on a Google bus (on your own laptop,
without using their wifi), would Google be able to claim ownership?

~~~
valleyer
They can often claim ownership of personal work you do at your own home. So
yes.

~~~
erichocean
Which is why I don't work for Google.

------
quantumpotato_
"kind young man".. really? Fucking spin.

------
squigs25
Things change. Neighborhoods get gentrified. Neighborhoods get bombed. You
adapt, or you die. Protesting progressive change is futile.

You're not homeless because rents went up in your little neighborhood in
Oakland. You're homeless because you chose not to move when rents went up.

People need to take responsibility for their actions. I would like to protest
the protests of today.

~~~
drhayes9
"Chose not to move" is an interesting angle. I'm pretty sure I don't support
these protesters, but you're targeting the poor with your comments and I don't
think that's fair.

Here are some hypotheticals:

* I live paycheck-to-paycheck and can't afford to pay the application fees, deposit, or moving costs to move to a new place.

* My child attends a good school nearby and I'm investing in their long-term future; moving would save me money, sure, but there aren't other good schools in new neighborhoods I can afford that give me the same commute time.

* My commute to work is bad enough as it is and moving farther away from the city center makes it worse. Higher commute times are long-term stressors to the human body: [http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/05/your...](http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/05/your_commute_is_killing_you.html)

* My blue-collar wage has stayed the same over the last thirty years while the prices of _everything else_ have gone up. I am, thus, poorer. Moving doesn't solve that.

* If I move away from my low-cost childcare, who takes care of my kid while I go to work long hours (especially with, say, a longer commute)?

~~~
vacri
On your first point, I find it's a vastly underrated concept. People who
aren't poor generally handwave away the costs of moving. In addition to the
ones you state, there's also things like connection costs for utility bills. I
moved about once a year in my 20s. We'd generally hire a trailer for $50 and
move with sweat equity, but all these little "you're now 'initialising' in a
new place" costs really add up.

------
damon_c
There is a real issue with these buses. In New York City, gentrification tends
to be correlated with subway commute time to Manhattan and distances to subway
stations.

When you introduce private busing, you plop gentrification down in strange
places that may lack public transportation and you're giving the gentry
exclusive access to an incredible convenience.

This convenience is conspicuously not shared by their neighbors who have long
walks, bike rides, buses to other buses to trains, to take them to their often
much less remunerative work.

The convenience also allows a certain economic class to enjoy more geographic
options while not forcing the city to have appropriate taxation to build real
infrastructure that can be shared by everyone.

It does kinda suck.

Someone very dear to me takes a Google bus daily and I fear for their
happiness.

------
meritt
I'm surprised this article hasn't been downmodded yet due to the incredible
amount of arguing and controversy within.

------
FiloSottile
> The bus remained where it was, the thought of driving to Mountain View with
> a broken window and flooded with cold air an unthinkable horror they could
> not endure.

Yeah, a neutral article for sure. The employees actually took the effort of
collecting the fliers off the street, but after a violent attack, would you
feel like going to work, or are they to blame if they didn't?

------
math0ne
Wow, there is some hate in this thread. I always think it's interesting when a
piece like this comes along that seems to spark a personal insult style
reaction from a community.

You can draw your own conclusions. I don't feel either way about this but it's
been fun reading the comments here.

------
baddox
I would love to see Google hire some muscle to provide security for their
buses. Just let the protesters choose what level of violence to bring to the
table.

~~~
ffrryuu
You mean guns? Maybe give bullet proof vest to Google employees.

~~~
baddox
I'm just mean security guards. I doubt they are allowed to carry guns.

~~~
ffrryuu
I like it that my sarcasm was treated like a serious comment :)

j/k, but seriously, you want good relations with the community. You can't win
with security guards.

~~~
baddox
At some point you stop caring about relations with the part of the community
that is physically blocking your buses.

------
gohrt
This is not news, this is a rant site.

~~~
Splendor
Correct. The "by Anti-Cyborg Conglomerate" signoff at the end was nearly too
much to take.

------
brent_noorda
Let's move those Google employees to Atherton and bring DOWN someone's
property values!

------
mkaziz
Did anyone else notice that the bus in the image doesn't have a back window?

------
rexreed
Time for Google, et. al to switch to Uber / Lyft / etc? Not as eco or commute
friendly, but a lot less noticeable. Or maybe time to subsidize publicly
accessible commuter bus lines?

~~~
blhack
>Or maybe time to subsidize publicly accessible commuter bus lines?

They could call it a tax!

~~~
rexreed
It would have to be regional tho, because those commuter bus lines would run
across city and county lines. So who would be the taxing authority? The state?

------
dangrover
Man, I'm worried we're going to get some Milagro Beanfield War style shit
going down soon. Maybe Betabrand should sell their hoodies in kevlar.

------
kika
> sterilize a city that carries rebellion deep inside its heart

I thought it was called "law enforcement"...

------
ffrryuu
Class warfare.

------
bovermyer
It's because of things like this that I'm glad I live in the Midwest and not
California.

------
linux_devil
Scary , good nobody is hurt , but this kind of attitude is really
disappointing .

------
funkjunky
HAhaha that's my town!

------
blahbl4hblahtoo
If Google would pay their fare share of taxes instead of sheltering them
offshore then the bay area could have awesome public transit for everybody.

For all of you bitching about the "burning man" types. The bay area is full of
runaways that look just like those kids and are easily radicalized. San
Francisco is a "libro-cryt" city. Its very liberal, but they treat the poor
like shit.

Apple and Goolge should stop sheltering their taxes.

~~~
Symmetry
All the money that Google keeps offshore to avoid paying taxes on is money
that was taken in over seas, and so would only be taxed by the federal
government on repatriation. Even if they brought it all back to the US next
year SF wouldn't see a cent of it.

~~~
blahbl4hblahtoo
It's only "earned overseas" because Google pays foreign subsidiaries money
from its US operating company. Its a dodge and everyone knows it.

------
mnml_
so ?

