Bay Area class tensions relating to tech workers & shuttles

[cwerdna]

For those in the SF Bay Area, not sure how many if you have heard of this issue relating to tensions in cities like SF and Oakland about tech workers living there and using private shuttles provided by their employers (e.g. Google, Apple, etc.).

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconside ... ve-tension" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2013/12/20/ ... -backlash/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20/5231 ... bus-window" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/06/chargi ... bus-stops/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - Seems crazy that the the city will likely start charging companies $100K/year to use these bus...errr.. shuttle stops.

I recently showed one of the 1st three stories (or something related to it) to someone who's lived in SF for over 7 years and works in the South Bay. She was unaware of this tension, probably because her company doesn't provide any shuttles to/from SF

[abasile]

This is ridiculous. What's next, throwing rocks at luxury cars in protest at the "inequality"?

No one should feel entitled to live in a particular, desirable area at a price that they find to be affordable. The last I checked, residential real estate is owned by private parties, not by the government. I understand that gentrification is squeezing out lower income folks in SF and that has caused hardships, but such is the nature of real estate markets. There are plenty of other, desirable places to live that are far less expensive. One factor that attracted my family and me personally to where we live is the relatively low cost of real estate.

Many people may find that their best option is to leave the Bay Area altogether. Rent controls simply distort the market and postpone the inevitable.

[AndyH]

This is ridiculous. What's next, throwing rocks at luxury cars in protest at the "inequality"?

No one should feel entitled to live in a particular, desirable area at a price that they find to be affordable. The last I checked, residential real estate is owned by private parties, not by the government. I understand that gentrification is squeezing out lower income folks in SF and that has caused hardships, but such is the nature of real estate markets. There are plenty of other, desirable places to live that are far less expensive. One factor that attracted my family and me personally to where we live is the relatively low cost of real estate.

Many people may find that their best option is to leave the Bay Area altogether. Rent controls simply distort the market and postpone the inevitable.

Have you seen the movie "Elysium"?

Where will most of the world live once 'the inevitable' spreads?

[cwerdna]

Have you seen the movie "Elysium"?

Where will most of the world live once 'the inevitable' spreads?

I have, in a theater. Thanks for bringing that up. It does add another perspective to this issue.

Traffic in SF tends to really suck and traffic during rush hour on the highways in the direction that workers predominantly go also really sucks. The shuttles help alleviate that/prevent the traffic from getting even worse.

Violence isn't the right solution though. It just occurred to me that perhaps this is partly what Occupy Wall Street has morphed into, after all that died down.

[LeftieBiker]

I understand that gentrification is squeezing out lower income folks in SF and that has caused hardships, but such is the nature of real estate markets.

Ah, Social Darwinism. Those expounding it tend, of course, to not be on the receiving end of its negative effects...

[LKK]

Folks can complain about rising rents but all these rich yuppies living in the city dump a lot of money into the local economy. This translates to jobs for those in the city and taxes to cover city expenses. I'm not sure SF allows big companies within the city limits anyway, I know they ban big box stores, restaurant chains, even fast food restaurants other than those in place before the ban.

[RonDawg]

I'm not sure SF allows big companies within the city limits anyway, I know they ban big box stores, restaurant chains, even fast food restaurants other than those in place before the ban.

Some of the biggest corporations in the US are, or once were, headquartered in San Francisco: Wells Fargo, Bechtel, Levi Strauss, and Pacific Gas and Electric are just some of them. Bank of America used to be headquartered there.

Now within the city and county limits, you likely won't find the space for a spacious campus i.e. Apple or Google.

[garsh]

Have you seen the movie "Elysium"?
Where will most of the world live once 'the inevitable' spreads?

Have you seen the movie "Oblivion"?
They were both sci-fi fiction about the "elite" living on space stations, and neither have anything to do with reality.

[LTLFTcomposite]

They were just a ripoff of the cloud minders.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_Minders" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ah, to be in Stratos, where every year your team goes to the super bowl.
Poor people of SF don't have the eloquent Richard Sherman as their emissary.

[AndyH]

Have you seen the movie "Elysium"?
Where will most of the world live once 'the inevitable' spreads?

Have you seen the movie "Oblivion"?
They were both sci-fi fiction about the "elite" living on space stations, and neither have anything to do with reality.

Nothing to do with reality? You sure about that? I'll agree with you if you mean we don't have the uber-wealthy living on space stations, but When was the last time you spent 5 years of your life sifting through the landfill so you could afford to feed your kids?

Not picking a fight here at all - but as has been already pointed out in this thread, the folks in favor of some 'progress' aren't the ones being run out of town to live in a cardboard box in hmmp - some other town. :/