AndyH
Well-known member
I don't give you permission to put words into my mouth, garsh. I am aware that at least one tech company has agreed to pay the city for use of the public infrastructure. That's good - and contrary to your assertion I don't call that theft.garsh said:They did. The path of least resistance is to run their own buses.AndyH said:If mass transit 'sucks', why isn't Google using their significant influence with politicians to make it better?
It's funny - absolutely nobody thought of having private buses use public bus stops as "theft" until this whole SF/gentrification issue came up. Since then, Google met with the city and agreed to pay to use the bus stops. So now they're paying to use them, and you still want to call it theft. Most rational people would call that view... irrational.while using public infrastructure without paying for it. Most rational adults would view that as theft.
That 'whole SF/gentrification issue' didn't just 'come up' - it's been growing all over this country and all over this world. That's the only reason I initially brought up Occupy as an example - because it shows the problem did not just suddenly appear, and it certainly doesn't go away now that someone's paying to use bus stops.
A mission for you: Find out what incentives the city put on the table, and what concessions they gave, in order to get a tech company to build a campus there. And then see how much that tech company has influenced local politics and tax policy since. Then see if you can connect those dots to the situation today. I'll bet you can.