Comment by 734786710934 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 734786710934 | Hacker News Reader

There's a weird disconnect in this article between the reality of what Zuckerberg is trying to do and the agenda being pushed by the author.

You have this paragraph:

"The social network has been lobbying to build more housing in the region, which Silicon Valley cities, worried about traffic and preferring a commercial over residential tax base, have fought against. In East Palo Alto, Facebook has invested $18.5 million into the Catalyst Housing Fund, an affordable housing initiative; the company has set a goal to grow the fund to $75 million."

Followed by this paragraph:

"East Palo Alto’s residents have long felt disempowered against change brought by tech leaders like Mr. Zuckerberg. A 2.6-square-mile town where one-third of the school children are homeless, it has stood as a sign that Silicon Valley’s wealth might not spread to those beyond its tech campuses."

If Silicon Valley’s wealth is not being spread to those beyond its tech campuses it's not for a lack of trying.

Interesting, I didn't feel at all like there was a weird disconnect or agenda being pushed. In fact, it felt to me like a pained attempt to paint a contentious situation fairly and factually. It seems all too plausible to me that both of the following might be factually true:

• Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg are putting a lot of money into the local community and feel like they are going above and beyond their obligations in that regard

• various hardships that the local community has suffered and is suffering over the recent years are directly and visibly linked to Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg, and therefore they feel like Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have and are continuing to harm them, not help them

The article seemed to be taking pains not to claim that any of the following were true, or that their opposite was true:

• Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg are wrong to feel that they are going above and beyond; they should instead be contributing to the local community more and/or differently

• the local community is wrong to feel that Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg are doing more to help than to hurt them; in fact, they have no right or claim to getting more from, or even what they currently get from, Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg

It sounds like you think it's clear that Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg are contributing plenty enough to the local community. I'd be interested in learning why you think it's so clear that they needn't be doing more or different things, in spite of the local community's reported continued hardships.

You missed the key fact here: Zuckerberg wants to do more for the community but his initiatives are being blocked by the city. I say that there is a disconnect because this is being presented by the author as a failure of Zuckerberg's rather than of the city.

The bit you quoted has Zuckerberg’s initiative being blocked by other (richer) nearby cities.

> in fact, they have no right or claim to getting more from, or even what they currently get from, Facebook

Well, can't they enact taxes if they wanted to?

Hence, gaining a right to more money from Facebook.

Personally, I don't think any level of government should be beholden to charity from cooperations. Schools, infrastructure, and other things that make up a desirable community are not free, taxes is the tool to finance them.

SV wealth is protected from taxation, see: Apple and Google and Facebook. That doesn’t scream, “helpful” or “trying to spread it around” to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com