How techies can be part of the solution in San Francisco

[hallam]

@Elusis

In a word: No.

But somebody still has to make burritos at the taquerias, run the cash register at the overpriced boutique clothing stores, make the artisanal-roast coffee at the twee cafes where the elite go to network, and clean the locker rooms at the gym, whether that gym is located inside or outside their workplace. Somebody still has to bag the groceries at Whole Foods, operate the dry cleaner’s, and run coat check at the clubs. And when those folks lose their housing, they have nowhere else in the city to go.

In other news: 40% of shuttle riders say without the shuttles, they’d move closer to work.

The report explains the problem with public transport here, the employers have stepped in because the public transport options are broken:

The need for these shuttles is in part a reflection of the region’s fragmented transit services. The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) operates in four counties but does not currently serve Silicon Valley (San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District 2009). From San Francisco, Caltrain offers rail service to 32 stations between San Francisco and southern Santa Clara County, but many users require a lengthy access trip to reach Caltrain (Caltrain n.d.). The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), which operates Muni, the public transit system for San Francisco, does not offer services outside of the city. SamTrans offers an express bus between Palo Alto and San Francisco, but the route serves only the Financial District in San Francisco and runs hourly (San Mateo County Transit District 2012). The region’s inability to better integrate its transit services has created gaps that the corporate shuttles are now filling.

Suggesting people move closer to their work is silly because without new construction that merely moves the issue of displacement from San Francisco to other parts of the valley. There is of course plenty of scope for new construction but that is being blocked by existing residents in Mountain View, Palo Alto, etc. And building high is very expensive in an earthquake zone.

There are of course underpaid service jobs that are essential for the city to function. Which is why the primary concern for SF public transport has been getting people into and out of the city center at rush hour.

The other major factor that distorts the whole California property market is the idiocy that people who have owned a house a long time are practically exempt from property taxes while people who buy recently get slammed. Blame Ronnie Reagan for that. Nobody will sell in SF unless they are absolutely sure they will never want to return. I have a lot of colleagues here in Boston who own condos and flats in SF that they rent out rather than sell because of that. There are more places that are underutilized or empty.

Low property tax income combined with high taxes on new properties means poor public schools and no money for infrastructure. It is a setup very similar to the one that the french aristocrats set up for themselves before the revolution. In pre-revolutionary france, only the poor people paid taxes. The aristocrats were exempt.