Is Gentrification a Bad Thing?

NathanialG wrote:

I hadn't thought about it before, but what if the money they were spending on those private buses was just put towards improving the cities infrastructure.

It doesn't solve the problem they are trying to solve though. That being that companies in the Valley need a way of getting their employees to work without it taking them 3 hours to get there with regular commuter stops. The private infrastructure folks are trying to solve a specific problem that is not addressed on a public level.

It is easy to criticize this as "elitist", but the fact of the matter is that it does represent and address a specific transportation problem and has the added benefit of taking single occupancy drivers off already taxed road infrastructure (thus making both car and bus commuting on the public level better for all).

Criticize gentrification if you like, but this seems a very odd fight to pick.

Paleocon wrote:

Criticize gentrification if you like, but this seems a very odd fight to pick.

I agree in general, but taken together with the rest of the elements in play it seems pretty harmful.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Criticize gentrification if you like, but this seems a very odd fight to pick.

I agree in general, but taken together with the rest of the elements in play it seems pretty harmful.

Honestly not seeing the harm in it. Would you have the same level of outrage about corporate bus fleets as you would if companies in the Valley, instead, offered cash incentives to employees for carpooling? This would, in effect, do the same thing less efficiently and, arguably, add more vehicles to the very traffic that makes public transportation impracticable to many.

Edit: Additionally, I have friends at G who have and continue to use the bus as mobile meeting space in the same way they would use a conference room (generally not considered public domain). Since they are wired for wifi and voip through the corporate network, it provides an ideal method of addressing both the commute time issue as well as the issue of making such time productive. The latter, for obvious reasons, would no longer be available if this were made a public resource.

Seriously. Pick a different fight. This one is not helping.

Paleo, you're being reasonable, but fights are not won with reason. If your goal is helping, here's the question: do other people see those buses as the lesser of two evils you do? Or do they see them as potent symbols of the real problems? It's not about picking a fight. It's about picking symbols, and while you're being rational, people are rarely rational about symbolism.

By pick a different fight do you mean ignore the general gentrification issue at hand here, since I've already said my problem is with the whole thing, not just the buses?

Cuz, no.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Paleo, you're being reasonable, but fights are not won with reason. If your goal is helping, here's the question: do other people see those buses as the lesser of two evils you do? Or do they see them as potent symbols of the real problems? It's not about picking a fight. It's about picking symbols, and while you're being rational, people are rarely rational about symbolism.

I suspect you are right. It is like folks tossing bricks into the front window at Starbucks because they don't like how things are "gentrifying".

If the issue is about affordable housing, fight to get more affordable housing. If the fight is to improve public transit, fight for better public transit. If the fight is about living wages, fight for raising the regional minimum wage. But attacking a private service that is actually improving the issue of traffic at no cost or expense to those who use public transit seems to me misguided and deeply wrongheaded.

Symbols matter, I guess. But even as symbols go, this one is a pretty stupid place to make a stand.

The image shows that the buses are bad because the comparatively wealthy use them to avoid coming in contact with more established residents of the neighborhood: residents that I assume are comparatively poor. This is not really a good thing, as it does encourage a sort of segregation in the neighborhood. What's weird is that it's the inverse of every other city I'm aware of, where the comparatively poor take the bus while the wealthy drive cars.

I don't really understand the attack on buses vs infrastructure. Those buses lower traffic congestion more than any amount of additional roads would ever do. Transit is an extremely efficient part of infrastructure improvements -- especially buses that use existing pathways (vs trains or subways which do not).

My concern is that -- as Paleocon pointed out -- these buses are such perfect self contained units that they actually discourage people from exiting them and spending money in the neighborhood. A Google bus might be a perfect place for research/meetings, but so is a brick and mortar place where you spend money on stuff.

Seth wrote:

The image shows that the buses are bad because the comparatively wealthy use them to avoid coming in contact with more established residents of the neighborhood: residents that I assume are comparatively poor. This is not really a good thing, as it does encourage a sort of segregation in the neighborhood. What's weird is that it's the inverse of every other city I'm aware of, where the comparatively poor take the bus while the wealthy drive cars.

I don't really understand the attack on buses vs infrastructure. Those buses lower traffic congestion more than any amount of additional roads would ever do. Transit is an extremely efficient part of infrastructure improvements -- especially buses that use existing pathways (vs trains or subways which do not).

My concern is that -- as Paleocon pointed out -- these buses are such perfect self contained units that they actually discourage people from exiting them and spending money in the neighborhood. A Google bus might be a perfect place for research/meetings, but so is a brick and mortar place where you spend money on stuff.

The question I have regarding the whole issue of isolation is what the likely alternatives would be in the event that these private buses were no longer available. I can see a few, but none of them would be predictably better.

Employees could drive to work in cars. Whether single occupancy or in car pools, the addition of vehicles to already congested roadways would stress infrastructure and create greater pressure to utilize transportation dollars that could otherwise be used for mass transit.

Employees could move out of urban areas to suburbs with fewer restrictions on private transit and take their dollars with them. This would make the neighborhoods more affordable again, I guess, but I doubt blighting is the solution folks have in mind.

I know some folks will attempt to argue that another possibility is that they would utilize public transit, but anyone who has ever attempted to take the bus from SF to Sunnyvale can attest that sitting for 3 hours in a commuter bus irrespective of the company you keep is not going to be viable option. Moreover, the lack of that mobile conference space makes this so suboptimal that it is unlikely to be much utilized.

In either of the likely alternatives, the issue of "isolation" is no better addressed. More to the point, that issue appears to be unrelated to the issue of transit. I get in my car every morning to go to work and doing so insulates me from my neighbors as much as a private bus would.

If you want folks to interact with the neighborhood, improve the neighborhood and design public spaces.

Paleocon wrote:

Employees could move out of urban areas to suburbs with fewer restrictions on private transit and take their dollars with them. This would make the neighborhoods more affordable again, I guess, but I doubt blighting is the solution folks have in mind.

No, I think that would actually be exactly the solution that folks pissed at the busses would like.

The busses aren't the issue. Urban SF becoming a bedroom community for the Valley is the issue, with all the attendant knock-on effects and gentrification-related issues.

At least, that's the understanding I've gleaned from my SF peeps. I don't have a dog in this fight.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Off the top, I don't know if the money going towards the buses would really even put a small dent in the funding required to improve traffic.

Thanks to two California laws those corporate buses pay a whooping $1.06 per stop. It costs people $2.25 to use the same stop for muni buses.

And those corporate buses have been regularly seen double parking, parking in no parking zones, preempting or blocking municipal buses, and generally doing things that make the blood of any large city dweller boil.

OG_slinger wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

Off the top, I don't know if the money going towards the buses would really even put a small dent in the funding required to improve traffic.

Thanks to two California laws those corporate buses pay a whooping $1.06 per stop. It costs people $2.25 to use the same stop for muni buses.

And those corporate buses have been regularly seen double parking, parking in no parking zones, preempting or blocking municipal buses, and generally doing things that make the blood of any large city dweller boil.

Two California laws established by voter initiative you forgot to add. It sounds like your issue is with the people of California.

If there are issues with traffic violations by bus drivers, I would think the remedy to this is pretty obvious: enforcement. I would assume there are laws and prescriptive remedies for such things.

The Silicon Valley vs San Francisco fight is really interesting and pretty foreign to any claims of gentrification in my area. The real issue seems to be that evictions around those Google bus stops have increased 115% in the last few years, and apparently through unscrupulous means

“They’re trying to get us out without having to pay the eviction costs. And so they’re doing that by harassing us and calling us every day, sending us three-day notices to pay rent or quit without following through with service.”

That's a dick move, but one that seems could be handled with enforcement, similar to the buses.

The underlying concern -- the rights of property owners to charge market prices for domiciles vs the rights of tenants to be protected from unforeseen cost increases -- that concern is a lot deeper and more complicated.

Paleocon wrote:

Two California laws established by voter initiative you forgot to add. It sounds like your issue is with the people of California.

By "people" you really mean the California Chamber of Commerce, the infamous Americans for Tax Reform, Chevron, Philip Morris, and dozens of other large corporations and trade groups. They were the proposition's creator and promoter.

And, yes, my decade living in California taught me that voter initiatives aren't such a good idea after all. They were the root of California's ongoing budgetary woes (f*ck you, Norquist), can easily be gamed by groups for very little money, and just might require seriously f*cked up things to be put on the ballot.

Paleocon wrote:

If there are issues with traffic violations by bus drivers, I would think the remedy to this is pretty obvious: enforcement. I would assume there are laws and prescriptive remedies for such things.

Yes, I'm sure a $270 traffic citation--or hundreds of them--is going to stop tech companies from having their corporate buses break the law. Not to mention requiring the city to dedicate enforcement resources just for corporate buses.

Perhaps if the traffic fine scaled according to the revenue of the company that hired the bus...

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Two California laws established by voter initiative you forgot to add. It sounds like your issue is with the people of California.

By "people" you really mean the California Chamber of Commerce, the infamous Americans for Tax Reform, Chevron, Philip Morris, and dozens of other large corporations and trade groups. They were the proposition's creator and promoter.

And, yes, my decade living in California taught me that voter initiatives aren't such a good idea after all. They were the root of California's ongoing budgetary woes (f*ck you, Norquist), can easily be gamed by groups for very little money, and just might require seriously f*cked up things to be put on the ballot.

Paleocon wrote:

If there are issues with traffic violations by bus drivers, I would think the remedy to this is pretty obvious: enforcement. I would assume there are laws and prescriptive remedies for such things.

Yes, I'm sure a $270 traffic citation--or hundreds of them--is going to stop tech companies from having their corporate buses break the law. Not to mention requiring the city to dedicate enforcement resources just for corporate buses.

Perhaps if the traffic fine scaled according to the revenue of the company that hired the bus...

Not a huge fan of ballot initiatives myself and have actually participated in manipulating public opinion in California (for fun and profit) so I am pretty aware of how easy it is. That said, it is still up to the electorate to change it. If they desire change, the mechanism is available to them.

As for the idea that a company, much less a tech company that trades very heavily on its reputation, can not be motivated to behave well through enforcement, I think that is also misguided. I don't doubt that violations happen, but would need to see data for how rampant this problem is, whether it is statistically anomalous from other drivers, and if it represents the characterized culture of impunity you seem to be hinting at. I strongly suspect the answer is no.

Paleocon wrote:

As for the idea that a company, much less a tech company that trades very heavily on its reputation, can not be motivated to behave well through enforcement, I think that is also misguided.

They can be motivated to behave well. It's just that the penalty for misbehaving has to be rather significant--something that's dependent on the size of the corporation--before they'll do the "right" thing. That because companies are managed by spreadsheets, not morals. Until the actual financial cost of misbehavior outweighs the perceived benefit they get, they won't change anything.

Paleocon wrote:

I don't doubt that violations happen, but would need to see data for how rampant this problem is, whether it is statistically anomalous from other drivers, and if it represents the characterized culture of impunity you seem to be hinting at. I strongly suspect the answer is no.

What the data is on corporate bus violations vs. the general public doesn't matter to people who live in the city. That's because perception is reality.

People remember the time that a corporate bus cut them off /made them late for work / made them miss their next public transportation connection / forced them to drive around looking for another, much less convenient parking space. All of those things are infuriating. And if those things didn't directly happen to them, it happened to someone they know.

Drivers who cause the about things are anonymous assholes. You hate them, but you don't know them, and you really can't do anything about them. They're just part of the background of the city.

But corporate buses aren't anonymous. They drive around with the logo of multi-billion company on them. They're branded assholes.

So when a tech giant's bus double parks and screw up traffic it's not some nameless jerk being a selfish dick, it's a publicly traded company saying "f*ck you, peasants, my handful of employees are literally more important than all you."

Add in those same workers driving up rents and changing neighborhoods in ways a lot of people don't like and you can see why those buses are the symbols they are.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

As for the idea that a company, much less a tech company that trades very heavily on its reputation, can not be motivated to behave well through enforcement, I think that is also misguided.

They can be motivated to behave well. It's just that the penalty for misbehaving has to be rather significant--something that's dependent on the size of the corporation--before they'll do the "right" thing. That because companies are managed by spreadsheets, not morals. Until the actual financial cost of misbehavior outweighs the perceived benefit they get, they won't change anything.

Paleocon wrote:

I don't doubt that violations happen, but would need to see data for how rampant this problem is, whether it is statistically anomalous from other drivers, and if it represents the characterized culture of impunity you seem to be hinting at. I strongly suspect the answer is no.

What the data is on corporate bus violations vs. the general public doesn't matter to people who live in the city. That's because perception is reality.

People remember the time that a corporate bus cut them off /made them late for work / made them miss their next public transportation connection / forced them to drive around looking for another, much less convenient parking space. All of those things are infuriating. And if those things didn't directly happen to them, it happened to someone they know.

Drivers who cause the about things are anonymous assholes. You hate them, but you don't know them, and you really can't do anything about them. They're just part of the background of the city.

But corporate buses aren't anonymous. They drive around with the logo of multi-billion company on them. They're branded assholes.

So when a tech giant's bus double parks and screw up traffic it's not some nameless jerk being a selfish dick, it's a publicly traded company saying "f*ck you, peasants, my handful of employees are literally more important than all you."

Add in those same workers driving up rents and changing neighborhoods in ways a lot of people don't like and you can see why those buses are the symbols they are.

All pretty petty and shortsighted.

They get pissed at the very existence of the buses without taking the time to consider that they take dozens of single occupancy vehicles off the roads. More importantly, they take them off the roads in the most congested corridors and relieve pressure on the very infrastructure these upset city occupants depend upon.

Do these residents get equally pissed at private automobile ownership? Taxi cabs? Airport shuttles? Tour buses? All of these are equally, if not more, exclusive. And almost certainly negatively affect their lives and commutes far more than private bus fleets.

Hahaha paleo. You just accurately described every motorist commenting on a news story ever. When I don't take time to inhale I start to assume motorists get furious at literally everything that prevents them from flooring it to their destination, from kids and cops to stop lights and sharp curves.

Seth wrote:

Hahaha paleo. You just accurately described every motorist commenting on a news story ever. When I don't take time to inhale I start to assume motorists get furious at literally everything that prevents them from flooring it to their destination, from kids and cops to stop lights and sharp curves.

Yeah. Beginning to think that this anti-bus rage is really just a personal problem.

Paleocon wrote:

Yeah. Beginning to think that this anti-bus rage is really just a personal problem.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you've never lived in a large city before.

Not the "I live in a nameless suburb of a large city and never actually go downtown except for maybe a couple times a year," but the "I actually live and work in a large city." Large being defined as, well, at least as big and as developed as San Francisco.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Yeah. Beginning to think that this anti-bus rage is really just a personal problem.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you've never lived in a large city before.

Not the "I live in a nameless suburb of a large city and never actually go downtown except for maybe a couple times a year," but the "I actually live and work in a large city." Large being defined as, well, at least as big and as developed as San Francisco.

Hmm. From my perspective, it's the suburbanites who tear their hair out when they can't floor it from one downtown destination to another and park for free within 5 feet of said destination. The actual city dwellers are actively searching for ways to get cars the hell out of their space.

It's a fight I've been having regularly for the last year, as I actively press for less street parking downtown in favor of expanded sidewalks, buses, and bike lanes. I don't have the hubris to compare my tiny city to NYC or San Francisco, it's just surprising to me that the roles seem to be reversed.

Paleocon wrote:

Not a huge fan of ballot initiatives myself and have actually participated in manipulating public opinion in California (for fun and profit) so I am pretty aware of how easy it is.

As a native Californian, "f*ck you" would be appropriate here, but I get the inkling I might get modded.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Yeah. Beginning to think that this anti-bus rage is really just a personal problem.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you've never lived in a large city before.

Not the "I live in a nameless suburb of a large city and never actually go downtown except for maybe a couple times a year," but the "I actually live and work in a large city." Large being defined as, well, at least as big and as developed as San Francisco.

San Francisco is the 14th largest city in the US, so that pretty well narrows down the field to the following:

New York 8.4M
Los Angeles 3.9M
Chicago 2.7M
Houston 2.2M
Philadelphia 1.6M
Phoenix 1.5M
San Antonio 1.4M
San Diego 1.4M
Dallas 1.3M
San Jose 1M
Austin 885T
Indianapolis 843T
Jacksonville 843T
San Francisco 837T

As you can tell, there is a HUGE delta between the top 9 on that list (none of which are SF) and the rest below. And the transportation challenges are completely different for each of those as well as cities in which I have lived.

Seattle 652T
DC 646T
Baltimore 622T (technically never lived there, but do own a downtown business which I have been to pretty much everyday).

So, yes, I do know more than a bit about urban living as well as the manufactured outrage that hipsters create to make themselves feel superior. Mostly, I find that that has to do with romanticizing urban blight and demonizing chain restaurants with clean bathrooms.

Seth wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Yeah. Beginning to think that this anti-bus rage is really just a personal problem.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you've never lived in a large city before.

Not the "I live in a nameless suburb of a large city and never actually go downtown except for maybe a couple times a year," but the "I actually live and work in a large city." Large being defined as, well, at least as big and as developed as San Francisco.

Hmm. From my perspective, it's the suburbanites who tear their hair out when they can't floor it from one downtown destination to another and park for free within 5 feet of said destination. The actual city dwellers are actively searching for ways to get cars the hell out of their space.

It's a fight I've been having regularly for the last year, as I actively press for less street parking downtown in favor of expanded sidewalks, buses, and bike lanes. I don't have the hubris to compare my tiny city to NYC or San Francisco, it's just surprising to me that the roles seem to be reversed.

But you have the hubris to compare your experience with what OG is trying to highlight? The irony of a privately owned bus system that was designed to help with city traffic actually causing more issues (and getting city tax breaks) is the point that OG keeps trying to hammer down, but you and paleo seem either oblivious or just don't care.

nel e nel wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Not a huge fan of ballot initiatives myself and have actually participated in manipulating public opinion in California (for fun and profit) so I am pretty aware of how easy it is.

As a native Californian, "f*ck you" would be appropriate here, but I get the inkling I might get modded.

Back in the 90's I worked for a beltway bandit group that ran phone banks, wrote push polls, and tracked "research" for conservative causes. California and South Carolina were particularly easy targets. California because of the whole ballot initiative process and how ill informed most voters anywhere are (seriously, folks, that is why you elect officials. Being informed is their only job). South Carolina because they were so easily roused by race baiting. I wasn't personally involved with the John McCain secret black love child thing, but that was precisely the sort of thing that company did.

Paleocon wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Yeah. Beginning to think that this anti-bus rage is really just a personal problem.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you've never lived in a large city before.

Not the "I live in a nameless suburb of a large city and never actually go downtown except for maybe a couple times a year," but the "I actually live and work in a large city." Large being defined as, well, at least as big and as developed as San Francisco.

San Francisco is the 14th largest city in the US, so that pretty well narrows down the field to the following:

New York 8.4M
Los Angeles 3.9M
Chicago 2.7M
Houston 2.2M
Philadelphia 1.6M
Phoenix 1.5M
San Antonio 1.4M
San Diego 1.4M
Dallas 1.3M
San Jose 1M
Austin 885T
Indianapolis 843T
Jacksonville 843T
San Francisco 837T

As you can tell, there is a HUGE delta between the top 9 on that list (none of which are SF) and the rest below. And the transportation challenges are completely different for each of those as well as cities in which I have lived.

Seattle 652T
DC 646T
Baltimore 622T (technically never lived there, but do own a downtown business which I have been to pretty much everyday).

So, yes, I do know more than a bit about urban living as well as the manufactured outrage that hipsters create to make themselves feel superior. Mostly, I find that that has to do with romanticizing urban blight and demonizing chain restaurants with clean bathrooms.

San Francisco is also on a peninsula, so that many people in that small of a space is much different than Seattle, DC or Baltimore.

Paleocon wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Not a huge fan of ballot initiatives myself and have actually participated in manipulating public opinion in California (for fun and profit) so I am pretty aware of how easy it is.

As a native Californian, "f*ck you" would be appropriate here, but I get the inkling I might get modded.

Back in the 90's I worked for a beltway bandit group that ran phone banks, wrote push polls, and tracked "research" for conservative causes. California and South Carolina were particularly easy targets. California because of the whole ballot initiative process and how ill informed most voters anywhere are (seriously, folks, that is why you elect officials. Being informed is their only job). South Carolina because they were so easily roused by race baiting. I wasn't personally involved with the John McCain secret black love child thing, but that was precisely the sort of thing that company did.

This is supposed to absolve you?

nel e nel wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Not a huge fan of ballot initiatives myself and have actually participated in manipulating public opinion in California (for fun and profit) so I am pretty aware of how easy it is.

As a native Californian, "f*ck you" would be appropriate here, but I get the inkling I might get modded.

Back in the 90's I worked for a beltway bandit group that ran phone banks, wrote push polls, and tracked "research" for conservative causes. California and South Carolina were particularly easy targets. California because of the whole ballot initiative process and how ill informed most voters anywhere are (seriously, folks, that is why you elect officials. Being informed is their only job). South Carolina because they were so easily roused by race baiting. I wasn't personally involved with the John McCain secret black love child thing, but that was precisely the sort of thing that company did.

This is supposed to absolve you?

Nope. Just pointing out that your system is broke.

The whole voter initiative thing is a ridiculous bit of fantasy which posits that giving the electorate direct control, you have better, more democratic governance. What you really end up with is a high degree of susceptibility to manipulation from astroturfing.

nel e nel wrote:

But you have the hubris to compare your experience with what OG is trying to highlight? The irony of a privately owned bus system that was designed to help with city traffic actually causing more issues (and getting city tax breaks) is the point that OG keeps trying to hammer down, but you and paleo seem either oblivious or just don't care.

I guess that's where the "issue" is. An illegally parked bus that makes you walk a few extra blocks is not worse than the human contents of that bus taking up roadspace. But -- I also believe automobiles are a detriment to urban life and should be reduced as much as possible, so I naturally favor any option that does that, even if it causes frustration to motorists.

Seth wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

But you have the hubris to compare your experience with what OG is trying to highlight? The irony of a privately owned bus system that was designed to help with city traffic actually causing more issues (and getting city tax breaks) is the point that OG keeps trying to hammer down, but you and paleo seem either oblivious or just don't care.

I guess that's where the "issue" is. An illegally parked bus that makes you walk a few extra blocks is not worse than the human contents of that bus taking up roadspace. But -- I also believe automobiles are a detriment to urban life and should be reduced as much as possible, so I naturally favor any option that does that, even if it causes frustration to motorists.

pretty much. And again, I would like to see the data on these issues.

Ugh. Every time I see "eviction free SF", all I can think of is
IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Pacific_Heights_DVD_Cover.jpg)