Money is power. Power gets what it wants. The fight for San Fransisco is one-sided. The winners have been pre-determined.
It's a company with lots of employees who live in a specific area. It makes economic sense for them to rent a bus, and it's better for the environment to reduce the number of cars.
A bunch of people start attacking the bus; they hire security. It's not sinister or scary, it's predictable.
If you're mad at income inequality, campaign to change the tax code for individuals. Don't attack people going to work in a bus.
The idiots shouldn't be protesting the Google buses, they should be targeting every NIMBY idiot who thinks that it is possible to keep San Francisco the same as it was before. Cities aren't meant to stay the same, they are meant to shift and change and adapt, and they always will. Want to keep the houses single family, the apartments low-rise, and keep the original buildings? Fine, the buildings will look the same, but the people living in them will be filthy rich, cause nobody else will be able to afford it.
The irony to me is that a city filled with people who claim to be environmentally focused is so dead-set on being low-density. Low-density development is, on the aggregate, worse for the environment, but hey, you get to pay 2500 for that bedroom in a Victorian, so why not?
Why don't the people of MountainView and surrounding towns build high-density developments on their own door-step near the employers? Why don't you accuse homeowners there of being 'greedy hogs'?
Why don't all the people who want to work at Google and Facebook move closer to work? Why do they have to be so selfish to want to live in the city? Why do they expect their employer to bus them to work for free? They're grown ups, they can pay their own way and take Caltrain or drive, and if that's inconvenient then move!
For every dollar that a Google employee does not spend on transport to work, that's a dollar extra of disposable income that can be spent on rent. Google perks can be considered a subsidy which is inflating rental prices. True, right?
Why doesn't Google, an Internet company, figure out ways to build software and products with distributed teams?! Why do you need thousands of people in the same building? How many people does the average employee really need to speak to face-to-face on a daily basis?
The issue here is of people choosing to live in San Francisco. If those Google employees wanted to live near Mountain View, and if building development there wasn't possible, then maybe your comment would make sense.
>> Why don't all the people who want to work at Google and Facebook move closer to work? Why do they have to be so selfish to want to live in the city? Why do they expect their employer to bus them to work for free? They're grown ups, they can pay their own way and take Caltrain or drive, and if that's inconvenient then move!
Because it's a free country, where you can choose to live anywhere you want. There's no legal or ethical reason why someone should feel obligated to live close to work.
>> For every dollar that a Google employee does not spend on transport to work, that's a dollar extra of disposable income that can be spent on rent.
If you want to be pedantic, maybe that's an extra dollar that those folks are spending in San Francisco when they come home after work. After all, they are paying high rents to live in San Francisco, so that they can enjoy the city - where do you think they spend their money on food and entertainment?
>> Why doesn't Google, an Internet company, figure out ways to build software and products with distributed teams?! Why do you need thousands of people in the same building? How many people does the average employee really need to speak to face-to-face on a daily basis?
Google can do many things, and they probably have many people working in a distributed manner already. They also have offices all over the world. None of that will change the fact that there are people working there who wish to live in a city that they love. Do you think that if these employees did not have to physically be in a building in Mountain View, they would go live in Lincoln, Nebraska?
At what point would Google charter flights? Obviously not for one employee, but hypothetically, would they do it if 1,000 employees moved today to San Diego? Or Maui? I think they would.
I ask because it's obvious that Googlers get to have their cake and eat it, only because their employer has the resources to pander them. This may be a reflection of how hard it is to find and retain tech talent.
Free food, free laundry(?), free child-care(?), free transport, etc. At what point does a company say enough is enough? How long can this party last for?
When they feel they're no longer getting value from it?
How is this any different the the "pandering" you describe?
"The City of Mountain View [...]expressly rejects housing as an allowable use in the area."
IIRC there was another rejection late last year, but I can't find it.
As to the SF vs suburb debate, it's definitely one of preference, and SF appeals to a lot of people. It's not that the employees are too lazy to drive, it's that the company doesn't want them working for trendy SF startups.
Could Google, FB etc attract the same level of talent if said talent couldn't live in a hip, young city instead of the dreary strip-mall suburbs of Silicon Valley? I doubt it. Also, there are a lot of jobs in SF, and many people might be in families or relationships where one partner works up in the city.
(Aside: As someone who used to commute via Googlebus, moved to MTV, and is now looking for housing in SF while not being at Google, I have to say I'm not quite sure where I stand on the whole issue. It's somewhat bittersweet to get off the Caltrain in the morning and walk straight past a Googlebus, or worse, see an empty one heading back down south in the evening!)
Better public transit would obviate the need for google busses. Caltrain, a low-frequency train operator with a limited route, is not the answer.
Allow RE developers to increase housing stock in SF as well as the Peninsula.
The alternative at the other extreme is Detroit. I'm sure all the 'have nots' are enjoying the fruits of the exodus of the haves from the city. Now that they have the city all to themselves, it's surely a blue collar paradise.
SF in the 80's was not a pretty place. Well, unless 'rust-belt'-city syndrome is pretty. Tech pulled SF (and SJ) out of their doldrums and slow decay.
Having a bus (or a guard) doesn't take away from the "have-nots" at all.
But money is the power to obtain goods that you want, even if other people want those same things. In this case, it is living in SF. Googlers have the right to spend their money as they see fit. The government will always be there to take taxes and use them for the public good. But what is left in the employees paycheck is for them to spend.
I am much more concerned about the power of mobs, than the power of money (at least the money of small players like Google employees - billionaires like George Soros do concern me). This is actually a positive step in protecting an under-privileged group (nerds) from left wing thugs.