Hacker News Reader

Comment by tedivm | Hacker News Reader

If you're going to talk about following the law, how about the fact that the bus is illegally parked in a public bus stop? That's why these guys are protesting, because the individuals in the city have one set of laws they're supposed to follow while the tech companies are apparently immune.

Seriously, read what these people are saying. They've complained about the fact that Muni buses are dumping people into the middle of the road because these tech buses are literally parking themselves in the muni bus stops to pick people up. If any other citizen did this it would be a $271 fine, but for some reason having a tech company behind you means you're above the law.

The two tiered system- the economic apartheid- is the real issue here.

View on HN

> If you're going to talk about following the law, how about the fact that the bus is illegally parked in a public bus stop? That's why these guys are protesting, because the individuals in the city have one set of laws they're supposed to follow while the tech companies are apparently immune.

and from below:

> Again, that's the main point of the main protest

This is just dishonest. When the organizing groups say they're going to have another protest in january and keep protesting until the Ellis Act is repealed, it's silly in the extreme to suggest that the "main point" has anything to do with using MUNI stops without permission. And that of course has nothing to do with the protest in Oakland (where the window was smashed), but I notice you put in "the main protest" there, so I assume you're referring to the one in the Mission.

Gentrification is a very real issue and constantly being brought up in these protests. When signs read "TECHIES: Your World Is Not Welcome Here" and that fake Google employee is saying "This is a city for the right people who can afford it", no, bus parking is an outlet for ire and certainly not "the main point".

> If you're going to talk about following the law, how about the fact that the bus is illegally parked in a public bus stop?

Well that's a perfectly OK thing to protest, but I'm not sure it's illegal though. Have you called the city and asked? I bet they have permission. Illegal means violating the law, are they violating the law or you just unhappy about the arrangement. I can see a valid argument being made about it not being a good thing, but I doubt it's illegal.

If it is illegal just call the police? What do they say?

Yes it's illegal. The city has turned a blind eye to the problem, but now it's gotten too big, with buses stopping everywhere.

The city says there may be a trial next year with designated bus stops being used by these private buses for cash, but until then, the law is being flouted.

If you got a car or van and started transporting people across the city using the public bus stops, sooner or later, you would be fined and probably arrested too.

So affected cities have a few choices: fine every delivery vehicle and bus which parks 'illegally or illegally uses municipal bus stops. Modify code to allow stop sharing. Disallow non municipal buses from using municipal bus stops. Allow them to use side street. Or, if they mean to disallow private buses altogether, prepare for an increase in traffic and commute times.

Interestingly, I don't recall protesters protesting the delivery vehicles who constantly block traffic lanes all over SF. That gives me pause and think the protesters' 'narrative' is questionable.

They don't have permission, and the cops haven't done anything. Again, that's the main point of the main protest. They don't have permission- again, something that's been brought up at the protests, and is on the signs themselves. Yes, they are actually violating the law.

Maybe you should like, educate yourself on the issues because picking a side? That way you can actually be informed, instead of spouting reactions that really don't make sense in the context.

So if they move their buses to a legal area for pickup, will you be satisfied? Or is that not the real issue here?

In SF they have permission yet people still protest. Some shuttle stops even have signs which look like they've been installed by the city, ie "No Parking/Shuttle Stop 6am-10am" on Van Ness

Are the same people protesting the Megabuses and Bolt buses when they 'illegally' use the same bus stops as municipal buses? Otherwise this does look like it's targeted.

I'd support the buses loading unloading on side streets, but still, imagine all the cars which would have to be on the road to replace the buses, if they were made illegal. Having buses bus people is actually a good thing.

What I think bothers some of the protesters is that the careers they chose aren't as remunerating as those chosen by 'techies'. I know artists who resent the fact the the average person does not value 'Art' as much as they value low brow entertainment. They feel at a loss and upset at the fact they have to 'sell out' doing advertising gigs to make money --that doing 'Art' is not profitable and that the government should subsidize it more because "they know it's good and it's an intangible part of a good society, etc." Much of that may be true, but the reality is most people (the proletarians and the vilified middled classes) don't have an appreciation for 'Art' and ironically it's the wealthy who 'get' 'Art'.

Why don't they take Muni?

MUNI routes are not optimized for all people and some people work in a different municipality, etc. Academy of Art College, UCSF, etc. all have private buses and shuttles to address that shortcoming. I can almost hear the outcry that 'techies' are overcrowding our buses!

Have you seen the size of the UCSF shuttle buses? They are tiny compared to the tourist coach sized google buses. Also they don't just take UCSF staff and students, they also take patients.

Googlers can take the Caltrain to Mountainview and hop on the free shuttle buses which drop them off at their campus. Why don't they do that?

Or since Google has an office in San Francisco here's a better idea - let people who live in San Francisco work from that office, and people who live outside work at Mountainview.

> Googlers can take the Caltrain to Mountainview and hop on the free shuttle buses which drop them off at their campus. Why don't they do that?

Have you ever tried to use Caltrain? It will make you want to gouge your own eyes out.

I took the train from SF to mountain view. 50 minutes of train time with large sections of no 3G/LTE.

So what? That doesn't give corporations the right to break traffic laws in SF, not just once or twice, but repeatedly for years. The city has failed to do it's job of enforcement, but the violator is still guilty.

Do you think all the laws which fail to get enforced regularly should get enforced regularly, or just the laws you think should be enforced regularly?

Because Muni is incredibly slow--I can walk from Fort Mason to Market Street faster than I can take a bus, and that's with a foot injury that has me limping and unable to stand by the end of the walk--and doesn't go anywhere useful. Caltrain is slow and expensive, lets off a several mile hop from Google, and requires an hour or more on the aforementioned awful Muni bus to get to the starting part.

If the public transit was functional, like in DC or NYC or Boston, we'd use it.

> for some reason having a tech company behind you means you're above the law.

Which tech company is behind Academy of Art[1] and UCSF[2]? When I lived in San Francisco half a year ago, I saw far more of these than the tech company shuttles.

1. http://www.academyart.edu/news/articles/transportation-syste...

2. http://campuslifeservices.ucsf.edu/transportation/services/s...

Academy of Art and UCSF shuttles have their own stops, usually fronting the massive amount of real estate that they own. I've never seen one idling at a muni stop.

> I've never seen one idling at a muni stop.

Here you go: http://www.sfbg.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/Full_325_...

Economic apartheid... Not sure how to digest that one. That's a tad hyperbolic.

The article clearly states that the tech companies pay the city for the right to use the bus stops. Elected officials made a decision to sell public bus stops to publicly traded corporations.

> The article clearly states that the tech companies pay the city for the right to use the bus stops. Elected officials made a decision to sell public bus stops to publicly traded corporations.

What you are saying is factually incorrect. They are not paying anything at the moment. They are in talks to start paying next year, but the reasons those talks happened is because people started protesting this.

I see talks of facts and no substantiation.

The ability to buy out public infrastructure inherently amounts to plutocracy, which is unacceptable.

You have 1 vote. Make it count.

Even the Oakland Police Department won't break the windows of your vehicle in retribution for parking it illegally.

Way to totally miss the point, though. Trampling on the ostensible-if-fictitious rule of law is outrageous, and accordingly instills outrage, which is often manifested in such ways as breaking windows of vehicles.

Ah, ok, so it is not about the rent prices?

> If you're going to talk about following the law, how about the fact that the bus is illegally parked in a public bus stop?

A vehicle temporarily pausing to pick up or discharge passengers is not usually regarded as "parked". A car is unambiguously "parked" when it stops and the driver leaves. If the driver is still present and you want to charge him with something, it's more likely some sort of moving violation would apply. "obstructing traffic", perhaps?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com