Fruity Rudy posted:

I'm fascinated by the escalating microcosm of American inequality transforming San Francisco.

In just a few years it's gone from one of the most progressive cities in the United States, to this kind of oil and vinegar mix of liberal bohemia and creepy entitled racist libertarian brogrammers who cannot believe the uppity poors protesting the rising eviction and rent rates. If you've ever used the app Secret, you'll see quite a few revolting anonymous posts from wealthy transplants relishing with glee their efforts to "gentrify" the city and drive out the "lazy" underclass not blessed with their charms.

The city has already changed so much, and the most disturbing aspect of the change is that the massive tech wealth boom is leading towards a very dark Wall Street 2.0 culture emerging in the Bay Area. I would love to see it stopped before it's too late.

The Guardian has a nice piece on the subject: "Is San Francisco Losing Its Soul?"

Rah! posted:

It's a completely ignorant tourist view of SF. Wasn't thought of as a business center until recently? Yeah, I guess the city's status as a primary business center of the west coast starting in the 1850s was all a dream (and it was the primary business center of the west until the mid 1920s, when LA passed it in population). Wells Fargo, Bank of America, the Pacific stock exchange, Hearst Corporation, Chevron, Visa, Bechtel, etc, etc, etc never were founded/headquartered in SF! poo poo, before tech started booming in SF, there was no business at all! Everyone was a hippie and/or beatnik, and no one worked. And a "small" city of 825,000? Nevermind that the SF Bay Area has over 8 million people, making it the 5th largest metropolitan area in the US.

Craptacular! posted:

This Secretary Of State race is retarded, and I hate both my options. Why the gently caress would 10% of the state vote for Leland Yee?

Hog Obituary posted:

Without actually being involved in the industry, I can't tell how much is "par for the course and Sacbee just as an axe to grind" or if these are "disastrous revelations and the bridge is going to fall down tomorrow"

Bip Roberts posted:

What do you mean by this? Google buses are normal coach buses. Also MUNI buses are decent buses.

Hog Obituary posted:

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.

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.

Craptacular! posted:

MUNI buses have to be designed to be beaten the hell up. The seats have to be ready to be pissed on, not because they should be pissed on but because it's inevitable they will be. On a Google bus, pissing your pants into the seat can be rectified through disciplinary measures not available on a public bus.

...

As far as Uber, gently caress the taxi cartel. I feel this way because I moved from California to Las Vegas, where the taxis are incredibly corrupt; to the degree that even other corrupt industries like strip clubs hate them. They take long routes to drive up fares, have much higher-profile access at the airport than mass transit, clog up the road infrastructure when some political battle isn't going their way, and display varying levels of aggressiveness in to hustling. Naturally, Uber can not actually exist there, as the state government (which exists to serve the monopolistic interests that are willing to do business here, like not taxing the mining companies while they extract the state's finite resources for profit) wrote a protectionist law giving them entitlement to any for-hire driver in the state.

quote:

If the buses didn't exist, all these people would be carpooling anyway.

Trabisnikof posted:

Oh come on, companies like 3M, IBM, and Dow are able to do programs like this, but yet Silicon Valley tech companies (who often have founders that own large chunks of their stock still) have more aggressive stockholders? I don't buy that excuse one bit. This is a rather common practice including here in the Bay Area. (Also we have this thing called contracts that allows us to get over the "bad quarter, cut the program" problem)

Actually, I just learned that Genetech does allow other local employees to use their buses but doesn't advertise the fact. That's smart and I imagine might be part of the reason we don't hear as many complaints about their 56 bus routes.

etalian posted:

It's pretty sad how the original BART plan was more ambitious but got shot down since Marin, Santa Clara and San Mateo county didn't want to raise the bond money to make the service ring around the bay.

Slobjob Zizek posted:

Okay, so it's people selling off their spots when they leave. Obviously that is illegal. Interesting question: would it be illegal to remove the bidding part, but to make it social? I.e. to alert friends, goons, etc. that you will have a spot free?

on the left posted:

How could anyone disagree that inexpensive cars have transformed life as we know it?

on the left posted:

The advantages heavily outweigh the disadvantages. Who wants to live in a world where the vast majority of people never venture more than 50 miles from home?

on the left posted:

Do you feel the slightest hint of irony posting that surrounded by products (especially food) that could only exist and be delivered to you with the extensive logistical network that automobiles (trucks) enable?

Family Values posted:

Draper is a grade A poo poo head, no argument there. But can we please stop painting everyone who lives/works in SV as a lolbertarian VC investor? That's no more true than everyone in Houston is an oil baron, or everyone in Detroit is an auto exec. Yes most of the billionaires and CEOs here suck, just as they do everywhere else.

Most of SV, including most of the rank and file at the tech companies, are what D&D derisively refer to as 'center left'. Even the engineers. Check opensecrets.org and look up donations by employer. Actual data instead of lovely stereotyping; imagine that.

Family Values posted:

Right, SV hates taxes. That's why Santa Clara voted against Prop 30, which increased taxes on high income earners. Oh wait, Santa Clara county actually passed it by a solid margin. Yeah but I bet those evil fucks in San Mateo rejected it, after all that's where the real richies form SV live. Nope, they passed it by double digit margins too. But mah taxes!

HuffPo posted:

California Water Fines Loom Over Wasteful Residents Amid Historic Drought

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California water regulators voted Tuesday to approve fines up to $500 a day for residents who waste water on lawns, landscaping and car washing, as a report showed that consumption throughout the state has actually risen amid the worst drought in nearly four decades.

The action by the State Water Resources Control Board came after its own survey showed that conservation measures to date have failed to achieve the 20 percent reduction in water use sought by Gov. Jerry Brown.

Survey results released before the 4-0 vote showed water consumption throughout California had actually jumped by 1 percent this past May compared with the same month in previous years.

The fines will apply only to wasteful outdoor watering, including watering landscaping to the point that runoff flows onto sidewalks, washing a vehicle without a nozzle on the hose, or hosing down sidewalks and driveways.

"Our goal here is to light a fire under those who aren't yet taking the drought seriously," water board Chairwoman Felicia Marcus said in an interview after the vote.

She called the vote historic, not only because the steps are unprecedented in California but because the board is trying to spread the burden of the drought beyond farmers and agencies that are trying to protect wildlife.

She said city and suburban residents are not fully aware of the seriousness of the three-year drought — the worst in California since the mid-1970s.

"We're all in this together," Marcus said. "This is our attempt to say ... this is the least that urban Californians can do."

The board estimates the restrictions, which take effect in early August, could save enough water statewide to supply more than 3.5 million people for a year.

Cities and water districts were given wide latitude on how the fines will be implemented. The full $500-a-day fine, considered an infraction, could be reserved for repeat violators, for example. Others might receive warnings or smaller fines based on a sliding scale.

The rules include exemptions for public health and safety, such as allowing cities to power-wash alleyways to get rid of human waste left by homeless people, to scrub away graffiti, and to remove oil and grease from parking structure floors.

If fines fail to promote conservation, Marcus said the board would consider other steps such as requiring water districts to stop leaks in their pipes, which account for an estimated 10 percent of water use, stricter landscape restrictions and encouraging water agencies to boost rates for consumers who use more than their share of water.

Even with the leeway granted to local governments and water districts, some managers were unhappy with the board's action.

Mark Madison, general manager of the Elk Grove Water District south of Sacramento, said the steps will unnecessarily punish customers who already have reduced consumption. Residents in his district have cut water use by more than 18 percent since last year.

"What you're asking me to do right now is to thank them with a sledgehammer," he told the board.

The increased usage noted in the report is attributable to two regions of the state: Southern California coastal communities and the far northeastern slice of the state. It was not immediately clear why consumption had increased in those areas.

No region of California met Brown's request for a 20 percent reduction, but some came closer than others. Communities that draw from the Sacramento River reduced consumption the most, by 13 percent, while those along the North Coast reduced consumption by 12 percent.

San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California cities that draw from the Colorado River decreased water use by 5 percent.

Cities and suburbs use about 20 percent of the state's water, with about half going outdoors. Agriculture is by far the greatest water user, accounting for 75 percent of consumption in the state.

California farmers are just as guilty of using too much water as their urban neighbors, according to a separate report released Tuesday. The study by the University of California, Davis, found that some farmers could see their wells run dry next year unless the state sees a wet winter.

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

I mean sure, you can make some gains by getting households to conserve, but even if you halve overall residential use you've still got agriculture's huge portion of the water demand to handle. There doesn't really seem to be much addressing agricultural water waste or regulations requiring or even encouraging efficiencies like drip irrigation systems.

GhostofJohnMuir posted:

Yeah, but it is a sign of a new budget pressure. The cost of fighting fires is only going to go up as the climate changes and more and more sprawl rubs up against fire prone areas.

FMguru posted:

My usual rule-of-thumb is to vote "no" on propositions unless they're really, really good ideas.

But it seems like all the props this cycle are worth passing.

Am I reading this right? Did I wake up in in opposite-land this morning?

RedQueen posted:

My picks after a few hours of research on Monday night...

• Prop 48: No. I have mixed feelings on this, but building casinos off reservation land closer to cities/freeways seems like a slippery slope.
  

Rah! posted:

I wasn't implying that every city has rent control, I know it's relatively rare. But I take issue with the fact that lists like that one constantly get published with the title "median rent", but without making it clear what's actually getting measured, and without taking something like rent control into account (which is a huge oversight in a city like SF, where half the population does not pay market rate prices). And then people get the wrong idea after seeing said lists, and say dumb things like "wow, poor people can't afford to live in San Francisco!"

drilldo squirt posted:

I live in LA and having to use paper bags to carry poo poo is super lovely especially when your car is far away from your place.

drilldo squirt posted:

Plastic doesn't rip if I hold it wrong.

drilldo squirt posted:

What if I dont wana buy a loving bag when they used to be free.

drilldo squirt posted:

I gotta pay 10 cents for the paper ones also.

enraged_camel posted:

In other news, San Francisco landlord finds and exploits legal loophole to raise tenant's rent from $2,145 to $8,900:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153190864139878

Here's her explanation:


Here's the letter she got:

quote:

Update: Jeremy Pollock, a legislative aide for supervisor John Avalos, sent The Bold Italic the following email: “It seems pretty clear to me that if the landlord did remove the downstairs apartment, they didn’t get a permit for it, which makes it an illegal merger. There’s no record of any merger permits in Planning’s system. We’ve asked Planning Department staff to look into this.”

pathetic little tramp posted:

some independent research

Shbobdb posted:

It happens all the time. Especially in states with poor tenant's rights. In my experience, the poorer you are the more likely you are to encounter that clause. It's basically a way of loving over the poor.