It is just as easy for a CEO to ask the city to accommodate affordable housing as it is for them to demand tax rebates.
I guess this isn't even suppose to be relevant to Google - a CEO may the influence to demand tax rebates in the city where the company is located, but obviously they don't have the sway to demand anything where the company only has employees living. And that's the issue here - that the employees are living some distance from the offices and require resources to commute. I wonder how many of the other tech companies at issue have offices in S.F.
"The employees who ride the buses could put up simple signs"
Putting up the sign is easy. Would anyone believe them? How many tech workers, especially those with long commutes, would have the time to give? How would you convince them to do so?
"which provide deluxe on-site benefits could extend their daycare, meal and on-site walk-in health care to people who have WIC or EBT cards and can show that they live in the neighborhood"
That seems weirdly naive to think any tech company would do it. The hassle of dealing with the issue of outsiders wandering around the building alone seems like it would be enough to prevent it, and I can't see the tech employees mingling with locals, nor hiring anyone that way, either.
The primary problem is that these solutions seem to be premised on the idea that there are two populations in these areas - the wealthy tech employees and unemployed people on welfare; the whole middle and working class group that are getting pushed out because they aren't making (high-end) tech company salaries is being ignored. They're the ones making the real noise. They're not going to be particularly mollified by tech workers or companies helping the homeless.