Less, and less:
I Was Assaulted For Wearing Google Glass In The Wrong Part Of San Francisco
[...] If those people hadn't moved to San Francisco, people wouldn't be priced out of their neighborhoods, rental properties wouldn't be purchased by wealthy young millionaires, and tenants wouldn't be evicted from the homes they've lived in for several decades.
My love for gadgets makes me look and sound like one of the people whom residents of the city have come to feel oppressed by.
The individual who smashed my Google Glass on Friday — because of political beliefs or a personal impact that has been made by the tech industry — felt that it was appropriate to destroy my personal property in protest against what I seemed to stand for, based on my appearance; never mind the irony in choosing to assault someone based on their appearance as a way to preserve San Francisco's culture.
It's important to note that not everyone protesting the tech industry's impact on the city has taken such an oppositional stance.
At the march we covered on Friday, teachers, tenant rights activists, and other concerned citizens carried banners and chanted slogans that specifically asked Google to live up to the famous "Don't be evil" motto and step in where its employees were displacing longtime San Franciscans:
You don't see a crowd of more than a hundred people go to an investment banker's house when he evicts longtime tenants, to publicly ask his or her employer for help, because of course no investment bank would do something like that.
Google, for all the backlash it's gotten over gentrification, last year's NSA revelations, and personal data collection for ads, still looks like a company that gives a damn.
The company has taken some steps to address concerns of protestors and people's negative reactions to Google Glass. It started paying the city for the use of its bus stops. It has put out guides for Glass users on the behavior that should be avoided so that you don't look like a "Glasshole."
But those don't do anything to address the underlying issues. Something clearly needs to be done to address rising housing costs and gentrification in the city — people on all sides are being forced from their homes and made to feel unsafe on the streets and on their commutes to and from work. [...]
It's delusional for any renter to think they have the same rights as property owners. But then San Francisco is full of delusional people. Many of them think ownership of property is evil.
I lived there for 24 years, as a renter for 14 of those years. After being forced to move several times, we decided we wanted more control over our lives, so we eventually bought a house.
Many people were envious that we were "lucky" enough to buy a house. But luck had nothing to do with it. We scrimped and saved for years, forgoing vacations, eating out in restaurants, nice clothes and cars, gagets, and many of the other things that San Franciscan's typically spend their money on.
It amazes me how easily that those that make no sacrifices to save and buy property complain that other people who buy homes are "lucky", and that it's not fair; they believe that they themselves should somehow have the same thing, without the effort and sacrifice.
People aren't being displaced from THEIR homes. If they don't OWN the home, it isn't THEIRS. That's why it can be sold out from under them. It's not THEIRS. It belongs to someone else.
When renters have the same rights as property owners, then the concept of private property ceases to have any meaning. But of course that's fine with many San Franciscans, it's what they want. And one of many reasons why I left. Too many delusional people, wanting reality to change to suit them.
I thought it was funny that the author thought it was ironic that San Franciscan's would attack someone based on their appearance, as a way of preserving San Francisco. It makes perfect sense. Delusional people often have no sense of irony. It's one of the perks of being delusional.
Labels: private property, property rights, San Francisco