|
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24322-the-fine-art-of-evictionquote:Tutors in the Fine Art of Eviction Under Fire in San Francisco They have made a career out of being utter shitbags.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24322-the-fine-art-of-eviction What sort of tricks do they do exactly? http://www.sftu.org/justcauses.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
etalian posted:What sort of tricks do they do exactly? Ellis act evictions are the most common these days, in fact SF is getting an exemption to the Ellis act for that specific reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ellis act evictions are the most common these days, in fact SF is getting an exemption to the Ellis act for that specific reason. Yeah plus the hot real estate markets means landlords can bite the bullet and get rid all of the tenants in order to convert a rental property to something like a condo. You can also do a big "rehab" project kick all the tentants and then convert over to a condo too, even though both tricks require paying a year of relocation costs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:California's conventional rail network is viable. We just use it for freight, and the Capitol Corridor. Improvements would require new track, and if we're laying new track, why not make it high speed capable, since the real world cost differences are pretty slim (few communities would allow new railroad tracks with at grade crossings). Yeah, that's fair. After browsing the HSRA site a little, I feel better about the project - though there's still the outstanding question of how much pollution and traffic it'll actually alleviate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 09:25
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Yeah, that's fair. After browsing the HSRA site a little, I feel better about the project - though there's still the outstanding question of how much pollution and traffic it'll actually alleviate. On the bright side the side has diverted some HSRA funding to projects which should work out just find such as the Caltrain modernization project. The modernization projects also have a quicker window so the benefits will be seen much sooner, while god knows how long it will take to actually finish the high speed rail project or give it the old yellow treatment due to exploding costs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
In the latest salvo in the Bay Area housing crisis, Marin County has been pushing for an exemption to their current state requirement to build 30 residences per acre as an "urban" county to a lower 20 residences per acre as a "suburban" county. (And some Marin community groups think that's still too much)
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:In the latest salvo in the Bay Area housing crisis, Marin County has been pushing for an exemption to their current state requirement to build 30 residences per acre as an "urban" county to a lower 20 residences per acre as a "suburban" county. (And some Marin community groups think that's still too much) Yeah basically Marin county is overrun with rich fucks who don't want mixed use zoning or even apartments close to their precious mcmansions quote:The bill's author, San Rafael Assembly Member Marc Levine, says it would lead to smarter growth more in-character with the county's rural nature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
etalian posted:Yeah basically Marin county is overrun with rich fucks who don't want mixed use zoning or even apartments close to their precious mcmansions Guys remember, this just sets a floor for density. The local government's would still be free to (never) zone for the current higher density requirements. I only caught about 15 minutes of the show, but it was the perfect summary of why blaming tech workers for the Bay Area's housing crisis is missing the forest for the trees.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Papercut posted:I only caught about 15 minutes of the show, but it was the perfect summary of why blaming tech workers for the Bay Area's housing crisis is missing the forest for the trees. Maybe, but that doesn't matter when said trees are the most immediately visible causes of the problems in the forest.  If I were a tech company, I'd make my busses look as generic as possible. Maybe even run-down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
huh, I've never seen one that looks like that. They usually look like this:
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
I'm just amazed how companies can break the law openly but get positive media spin because its "technology".
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm just amazed how companies can break the law openly but get positive media spin because its "technology". Are you referring to the lawsuit being levied against Google Bus et al? The companies are legally operating under a mayoral pilot program, paying an average of $100,000 for the privilege of using 200 MUNI stops - or $1 per stop - a price set by state profiteering laws that prohibit fees being levied in excess of the cost of providing the service. I suppose there's also the complaint about the environmental study exemption - which again is absolutely legal - but how much environmental study is really required to run buses on existing bus routes? This whole thing seems like such a tempest in a teapot. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-01/san-francisco-sued-over-google-bus-project-by-community-group.html Kaal fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Are you referring to the lawsuit being levied against Google Bus et al? The companies are legally operating under a mayoral pilot program, paying an average of $100,000 for the privilege of using the MUNI stops - or $1 per stop - a price set by state profiteering laws that prohibit fees being levied in excess of the cost of providing the service. I suppose there's also the complaint about the environmental study exemption - which again is absolutely legal - but how much environmental study is really required to run buses on existing bus routes? First, that's a retroactive deal. They were operating in those stops illegally long before that. Second, its not really about the tech buses (or the tech companies getting around zoning), its the fact that companies like Uber or AirBnB are able to actively violate the law in communities they operate in, all under the banner of the "technology increasing competition". One can argue about the usefulness of those laws, but when did breaking the law become part of a valid business model? Tesla is dealing with equally protectionist laws, but is responding in a legal fashion, but a lot of these other companies don't and they get away with it in the media. Behavior that would land the Koch brothers on the front of HufPo gets lauded on TechCrunch if a tech company does it. That's what amazes me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:First, that's a retroactive deal. They were operating in those stops illegally long before that. It's because people loving hate the incumbent taxi/hotel/bus industries. There are a ton of industries that people will cheer you on if you "loving bury" them, in the famous words of Steve Balmer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
I guess what I'd say is that technology has a habit of outpacing legislation. Napster and Audiogalaxy bent "file-sharing" rules, but now we've legalized the concepts in the form of iTunes and Netflix. Google Bus and its clones bent "common carrier" status, but now they're being incorporated into the system. Uber and Lyft have a similar story with their loose definition of "taxi driver", and I'm sure that Airbnb will eventually find its own regulatory niche as it becomes more popular. Cities are constantly working with local industries to create regulation that encourages controlled growth, and that often means reining in companies that have big ideas and then crafting socially-conscious niches for them. And the big corporations that are bankrolling these startups are typically quick to smooth out any legal problems. As long as the entrepreneurs aren't outwardly malevolent, I think that the public is generally willing to give new industries some legal leeway to see how they end up working.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I guess what I'd say is that technology has a habit of outpacing legislation. Napster and Audiogalaxy bent "file-sharing" rules, but now we've legalized the concepts in the form of iTunes and Netflix. Google Bus and its clones bent "common carrier" status, but now they're being incorporated into the system. Uber and Lyft have a similar story with their loose definition of "taxi driver", and I'm sure that Airbnb will eventually find its own regulatory niche as it becomes more popular. Cities are constantly working with local industries to create regulation that encourages controlled growth, and that often means reining in companies that have big ideas and then crafting socially-conscious niches for them. And the big corporations that are bankrolling these startups are typically quick to smooth out any legal problems. As long as the entrepreneurs aren't outwardly malevolent, I think that the public is generally willing to give new industries some legal leeway to see how they end up working. I don't think your example of Napster and Audiogalaxy works because we never changed the laws, nothing is different between nowand then except that iTunes and Netflix is an idea that people invested in after the file-sharing revolution. With Uber's valuation, its clear investors assume that laws will change to meet Uber's desires. Uber could be choosing to work within the laws in all communities it operates in. It operates legally here in CA (for now), but if a community has rules that Uber doesn't like (say, requiring commercial insurance for all commercial drivers) they often just flaunt them in the name of competition. That idea, that rules can (and should) be thrown away when they get in the way, is very much what a segment of the tech industry argues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:With Uber's valuation, its clear investors assume that laws will change to meet Uber's desires. I don't really think that's what is happening at all, actually. Maybe some investors are caught up enough in the bubble to think so, but I'd say most just plan on making money out of it before things go poof, regardless of the viability in the long-run. This is especially true when you start taking in to account the situation outside the US. I see little reason for foreign countries to not come down hard on Uber once there's more money at play (post-IPO/purchase), since the existing power structures aren't getting their cut. Uber might find a good fit in the US and some other places and continue to exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I don't think your example of Napster and Audiogalaxy works because we never changed the laws, nothing is different between nowand then except that iTunes and Netflix is an idea that people invested in after the file-sharing revolution. With Uber's valuation, its clear investors assume that laws will change to meet Uber's desires. Uber could be choosing to work within the laws in all communities it operates in. It operates legally here in CA (for now), but if a community has rules that Uber doesn't like (say, requiring commercial insurance for all commercial drivers) they often just flaunt them in the name of competition. That idea, that rules can (and should) be thrown away when they get in the way, is very much what a segment of the tech industry argues. With Uber specifically, it's very likely that they are flaunting the rules with the express desire for an eventual crackdown on such behavior. The hope is that Uber will be able to transition to automated cars that neatly sidestep the rules regulating human drivers from picking people up. Their undercapitalized competitors will be shut down by the newly enforced laws, while still leaving them a huge competitive advantage against traditional industry that will allow Uber to destroy them. Pervis posted:I don't really think that's what is happening at all, actually. Maybe some investors are caught up enough in the bubble to think so, but I'd say most just plan on making money out of it before things go poof, regardless of the viability in the long-run. This is especially true when you start taking in to account the situation outside the US. I see little reason for foreign countries to not come down hard on Uber once there's more money at play (post-IPO/purchase), since the existing power structures aren't getting their cut. Uber might find a good fit in the US and some other places and continue to exist. Other countries have their own tech startups more and more. I predict creeping protectionism so that countries don't have to watch a bunch of Americans in California cripple traditional blue-collar employment and slow growth of domestic industry by poaching the best technical talent. You can already see it in action with various countries attempting to cripple Google with bullshit court rulings that try to impose bizarre rules. Just today Canadian courts have asserted a right to dictate what websites Google can keep in its database worldwide. on the left fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
I like Uber and use it regularly, but I feel conflicted about it. For one, I avoid Uber X/Lyft/Sidecar/etc. because I have a hard time believing that anyone would really contract out their own vehicles and time if they had any other viable economic alternatives. So I only use Uber taxis or black cars. Maybe that's an uninformed way of looking at it, but I feel like doing otherwise contributes to the creation of some underclass of service workers who are somehow even worse off than cabbies were before. Second, I hate how all of this "sharing economy" bullshit is essentially upper-middle class white services for upper-middle class white people. In almost all cases, a smartphone and a Facebook account are required to gain access. In Uber's case in particular, riders are rated on a five-star scale. I can't help but feel that the price of all this convenience is the resurgence of social problems that regulation was originally meant to address: Racism, avoiding undesirable areas and poor people, using profitable routes to socialize less profitable routes, etc. Which leads me to the Google busses. Those things are roving fortresses. To see one of them at a stop next to a Muni bus is depressing. It's a striking visual of disparity. It's sad that the there's essentially a bus (often literally painted white) for white people and a bus for poor people. I don't blame Google or Apple or EA per se, but the busses are symptomatic of much deeper issues. They're illustrative of a nearer-than-we-think future dystopia. Uber and Google busses are just the most visible examples -- there are much more obscene startups popping up every day. This kind of "gently caress you I'm rich / poor people get out" attitude is everywhere in SF right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I don't think your example of Napster and Audiogalaxy works because we never changed the laws, nothing is different between nowand then except that iTunes and Netflix is an idea that people invested in after the file-sharing revolution. I don't want to debate the point too heatedly, but I remember when the RIAA was adamantly supporting the idea that music should only be sold in complete albums the way
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Which leads me to the Google busses. Those things are roving fortresses. To see one of them at a stop next to a Muni bus is depressing. It's a striking visual of disparity. It's sad that the there's essentially a bus (often literally painted white) for white people and a bus for poor people. I don't blame Google or Apple or EA per se, but the busses are symptomatic of much deeper issues. They're illustrative of a nearer-than-we-think future dystopia. What do you mean by this? Google buses are normal coach buses. Also MUNI buses are decent buses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:This kind of "gently caress you I'm rich / poor people get out" attitude is everywhere in SF right now. Which is why it's going to be really funny when the bubble pops and everyone loses their shirts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:What do you mean by this? Google buses are normal coach buses. Also MUNI buses are decent buses. This is a Google bus: This is a Muni bus:  Now granted, Muni is currently replacing their fleet, but the difference in cleanliness and amenities is striking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:What do you mean by this? Google buses are normal coach buses. Also MUNI buses are decent buses. Plus, there are tons of people who would love to pay a reasonable amount for access to the tech employee only bus network. So yeah, when the "young, white, male, elites only" bus rides up and blocks traffic and the entire bus stop for their passengers the classism is palpable. But they're tipping the city a dollar now, so that makes it all better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Plus, there are tons of people who would love to pay a reasonable amount for access to the tech employee only bus network. So yeah, when the "young, white, male, elites only" bus rides up and blocks traffic and the entire bus stop for their passengers the classism is palpable. But they're tipping the city a dollar now, so that makes it all better. The effect on housing prices (the whole housing crisis in general) is notable too. On one hand, it's nice you don't have thousands more people commuting in their BMWs, but, in a lot of ways, it's made San Francisco a weird reverse commuter city. Where do you even begin to fix something like that? Also, I think google agreed to help compensate rising muni passes for the disadvantaged or something recently....because they can afford to just drop a few million...doesn't really help, but I'm sure the city could tax those buses more aggressively, since it'd all be eaten by these massive corporations anyway. hell astro course fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:This is a Google bus: Right. Muni buses are fine. Also muni buses run local routes are completely different than the google buses. I'm not sure what you're on about. Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:On one hand, it's nice you don't have thousands more people commuting in their BMWs, but, in a lot of ways, it's made San Francisco a weird reverse commuter city. Where do you even begin to fix something like that? Can we please kill this increasingly common, and very wrong misconception? Are there more tech workers commuting south now than in the past? Yes. Do they represent even close to a majority of SF's workforce? Hell no. Of employed SF residents, 85% work within SF, according to the latest census stats. Only 15% commute out of the city, and they're definitely not all tech workers either. In addition, the city gains 200,000+ commuters every day from the suburbs. And for those interested: Oakland takes in 40,000 commuters every weekday, and SJ actually loses 5% of it's population to suburban job centers during the day...so if anything, San Jose is the weird "reverse commuter" big city of the Bay Area.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
^ You're right, but the number of reverse commuters in SF is ~100k a day. So about 1/2 the amount of those commuting into the city. However, all those people commuting into the city have jobs that support the SF payroll tax, while those commuting out don't. Bip Roberts posted:Right. Muni buses are fine. Also muni buses run local routes are completely different than the google buses. I'm not sure what you're on about. Right, the elite gets nice coach buses. Also there are plenty of MUNI long haul commuter lines for pleabs that are quite similar to the google buses. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Right, the elite gets nice coach buses. Also there are plenty of MUNI long haul commuter lines for pleabs that are quite similar to the google buses. No there isn't, unless something changed recently that I never noticed. AC transit and Golden Gate transit have some buses like that though, which have service to SF. Muni operates only within the city of SF (aside from a weekends-only line that goes to the Marin headlands, and the 14-mission line, which ends just past the SF border, in Daly City), so there's no need for them to run fancy commuter buses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Rah! posted:No there isn't, unless something changed recently that I never noticed. AC transit and Golden Gate transit have some buses like that though, which have service to SF. Muni operates only within the city of SF (aside from a weekends-only line that goes to the Marin headlands, and the 14-mission line, which ends just past the SF border, in Daly City), so there's no need for them to run fancy commuter buses. You're right. I should have said AC Transit instead of MUNI, but the entire point still stands. Plebs have to use worse buses to try to make the same commutes that the tech elite buses cover.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
classy people ride the Caltrain 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:^ That doesn't sound right, where did you find that number? SF has around 450,000 employed residents according to the census. 15% work outside of SF, which means there are more like 67,000 "reverse-commuters" living in SF, not 100,000. SF would have to have 670,000 employed residents for 15% of them to equal 100,000. Trabisnikof posted:You're right. I should have said AC Transit instead of MUNI, but the entire point still stands. Plebs have to use worse buses to try to make the same commutes that the tech elite buses cover. Agreed that it's kind of screwed up how the transplant techies have created their own exclusive public transit system that operates at the expense of everyone else (it's frustrating as gently caress to get stuck behind one of those as they take up the bus stop meant for the Muni bus that you're on, making you late for an appointment in the process  ). Though you have to wonder what kind of horror liquids would seep into the nice cloth seats on a Muni-run commuter bus. Rah! fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Rah! posted:That doesn't sound right, where did you find that number? SF has around 450,000 employed residents according to the census. 15% work outside of SF, which means there are more like 67,000 "reverse-commuters" living in SF, not 100,000. SF would have to have 670,000 employed residents for 15% of them to equal 100,000. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/cb13-r22.html census.gov posted:San Francisco County, Calif., has among the highest number of commuters coming from another county in the nation, the U.S. Census Bureau reported today in new estimates released from the American Community Survey. Nationally, 27.4 percent of workers commute outside the county where they live. The interesting point there is how few make it down to Santa Clara, however 20k units in the SF housing market is still a serious impact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Plus, there are tons of people who would love to pay a reasonable amount for access to the tech employee only bus network. So yeah, when the "young, white, male, elites only" bus rides up and blocks traffic and the entire bus stop for their passengers the classism is palpable. But they're tipping the city a dollar now, so that makes it all better. Tech companies aren't young white men only. Google specifically has only 60% white workers, compared to 80% white in the broader workforce. It seems really far-fetched to complain about companies providing high-income jobs and then turn it into some kind of race war because they treat their employees well. Such crab mentality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
on the left posted:Tech companies aren't young white men only. Google specifically has only 60% white workers, compared to 80% white in the broader workforce. Yeah well it's 90% white+Asian, which in America is basically shorthand for "white." Also, the overall ethnic breakdown of Google proper is not necessarily the same as the Google bus ridership, or other private busses. Plus, gender and age contribute the stereotype too. Finally, I don't think there's been a lot of "crab mentality" in this thread. For the most part, people are pointing out what an enormous symbol of inequity these busses represent. I mean, public transit in general is considered the purview of the poor, and now you've got these giant representations of wealth pulling up to the bus stop. If nothing else, it's bad optics. Even so, I wish there was a way the rising tide could lift all boats. Like, for every bus stop these companies use, they have to buy a new car for BART or something. $1 per stop per day is ridiculous (though I understand SFMTA may be limited in the fees they can impose).
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/cb13-r22.html Interesting. My bad, I screwed up when getting my numbers from the census, and equated "principal city" with SF, when really there are multiple principal cities in the metro area.  About 85% of SF's workers work in a "principal city" but not necessarily SF itself.So 20% of employed SF residents work outside the city, rather than 15%...which is still a far cry from the "SF is now a silicon valley bedroom community" BS that I've seen more than a few people claim in recent years, especially when considering that SF has so many commuters coming into it everyday as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
on the left posted:Tech companies aren't young white men only. Google specifically has only 60% white workers, compared to 80% white in the broader workforce. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're right. I should have said AC Transit instead of MUNI, but the entire point still stands. Plebs have to use worse buses to try to make the same commutes that the tech elite buses cover. Tech shuttles are a replacement for private point-to-point automobile travel, not the sort of general mobility that public transit is meant to provide. Are you really in that much of a hurry to further subsidize the commute of tech workers? Tech shuttles are literally the only form of non-subsidized mass transportation going in the bay area right now, and they're doing it at no cost to the public. I get that you're riled up about the optics of the situation, but I don't think you have a proper appreciation for the cost or political capital associated with expanding public transit. Both resources are pretty damned hard to come by for transit, and it sounds like you're suggesting it would be a good to burn them in order to replace something that's already working at no public expense. e: check out the Caltrain numbers: http://www.caltrain.com/about/news/Who_Rides_Caltrain__Passenger_Count___Survey_Important_Source_of_Info.html quote:The survey, which is conducted every three years, shows that the average Caltrain rider is a young white man who has graduated from college and earns an annual income of $117,000. He takes Caltrain to work to avoid traffic congestion. He uses the internet to get information about Caltrain. gonger fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
gonger posted:Tech shuttles are a replacement for private point-to-point automobile travel, not the sort of general mobility that public transit is meant to provide. Are you really in that much of a hurry to start subsidizing the commute of tech workers? Tech shuttles are literally the only form of non-subsidized mass transportation going in the bay area right now, and they're doing it at no cost to the public. I get that you're riled up about the optics of the situation, but I don't think you have a proper appreciation for the cost or political capital associated with expanding public transit. Both resources are pretty damned hard to come by for transit, and it sounds like you're suggesting it would be a good to burn them in order to replace something that's already working at no public expense. I think everyone knows the buses themselves aren't the problem. They've just become the symbol of the problem, however misguided. I think most people understand it's not the buses themselves, right? It's like, you know, like how SF has like the highest income inequality in the country, and median market rent for a studio apartment is above 2.2k a month.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 02:00
|
|