Google Bus Stops Now Have Security Guards?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
First of all, it's a damn shame people need security at Google bus stops. Secondly, how does blocking people from taking the bus to work solve the rising cost of rent?

In recent days, men with earpieces have closely monitored passengers boarding Google commuter buses at the site of at least one bus stop in San Francisco's Mission District. Their presence comes a few weeks after Google buses were targeted by protesters who blame tech-industry employees for rising city rents.
Click to expand...
 
The incredibly lame argument is that the employees taking the busses are the ones causing rent to go up as more of them move to SF to live there and then commute elsewhere.
 
I love the increase price of housing in the area due to all the "tech stuff", means I have a house valued at over $600k, which basically means if I really want to move I can go just about anywhere else in the country (including Hawaii) and still have money left over. I am upset though about 10 years ago it was valued at 850k
 
Increased demand for rentals + people with a lot more money to spend on housing leads to increased rental costs.
 
Supply meet demand. Demand meet supply. You guys will not be friends.

Typically liberals complain about job creation and the effects thereof.
 
LOL, this is a hilarious seeing a "oh great, there goes the neighborhood" because of INCREASING property values instead of decreasing them.

Personally, the only reasonable long term solution to this is to cull the local population with a few ED-209s.
 
Why do they need armed guards, when California has tough gun control laws?
 
Roth said it was highly unlikely that anyone working on the bus detail would be armed.

"As a security company you really take on a liability if your officers are armed," he said. :eek:

I know a lot of Police Officers... who barely qualified on their yearly shooting test, some would do better throwing their handgun at the threat than trying to shoot at them, especially older officers, who can not see as well as some of the younger officers. And, if you think the good ole boy system doesn't fudge shooting scores to qualify their police "buddies" - so they can keep their jobs... you are all naive. :eek:

Public officials should consider hiring an outside civilian contractor trained in weapons qualifications to conduct yearly municipal police officers firearms qualification test. The politicians will see honest transparency which police officers can and can not maintain weapons proficiency with test results. No more good ole boys fudging weapons qualification test results. ;)

Revise Police Officers pay and hire additional younger officers with the pay difference. Sure... this will never happen, but corporations do it all the time. They lay off older more experience workers for younger less experienced workers for less wages and get more work done. Think... Police get paid 65,000 to 85,000 per year. Split that salary in half and hire twice as many police to do more protecting and serving. Besides, your not loosing an senior Police Officer when they can easily be hired as an armed security guard, they can work two or three jobs to make up the difference in pay, like every other hard working American. :p
 
It doesn't matter if they are good marksman really, because 95% of all police officers have never fired their weapons in anger, and bystander shootings are virtually unheard of considering how huge the US population is and how many active police there have been over the decades.

The importance of the weapon is far more as a deterrent to escalation. Someone is far more willing to violently attack an unarmed security guard than an officer with a twelve gauge shotgun or 17 rounds of +P+ 9mm in his glock. It also acts as "lead courage", where a security guard is far more willing to stand his ground against multiple assailants, someone larger than him, or someone that is armed (even with a knife). You notice this problem in the UK for example, where police have simply accepted that they aren't paid enough to die for their profession and avoid the really bad neighborhoods entirely and only enter when something really bad happens in large numbers where they can feel safe. And as such, while the violent crime rate in the United States has fallen every year for the last four decades, it has steadily increased in the UK, ranking as the most violent country in Europe, and at roughly four times the US rate (which is saying something, as we have a large population of poor people and drug related gang wars).
 
Merc1138 said:
The incredibly lame argument is that the employees taking the busses are the ones causing rent to go up as more of them move to SF to live there and then commute elsewhere.
Click to expand...

it is a lame argument which is why no one is arguing that. There is no argument it's a protests of complaint around mostly tech companies and san fran being enablers of tech companies who tend to bring people who wish to live in the city and the company buses are a symbol of that. There are also some complaints about the buses themselves for being just assholes blocking places off for long periods of time taking up the road etc. Why tech companies in and around SF so bad well for the poor and lower class who live in SF the tech people who make alot more money push up the price of rent and encourage people/companies to pull shady practices to get around rent control. In general it's people against gentrification, you seen this in many major cities over the years.
 
This has long been an issue where large successful tech companies are located. Yes, when there's a concentration of people with money in an area, stuff gets expensive. Econ 101.
 
Odnocer said:
Roth said it was highly unlikely that anyone working on the bus detail would be armed.

I know a lot of Police Officers... who barely qualified on their yearly shooting test, some would do better throwing their handgun at the threat than trying to shoot at them, especially older officers, who can not see as well as some of the younger officers. And, if you think the good ole boy system doesn't fudge shooting scores to qualify their police "buddies" - so they can keep their jobs... you are all naive. :eek:
Click to expand...

Maybe in some hick town that is true... Police are required a certain amount of range practice, surely the old folks are out of shape but how physically demanding is it to pull a trigger?
 
MRAB54 said:
Police are required a certain amount of range practice
Click to expand...
I have never heard of a department requiring range practice, and many officers complain that its not freely available (have to do it on their time, their dime). Most departments merely require a qualifying test, stationary target, no time pressure, either once or twice a year for basic competency (once if doing both pistols and shotguns consecutively, otherwise separated six months). Its basically just a test of whether or not if you try really hard you can shoot something about 5-15 yrds away.

There's a reason that for moving targets like a truck driver rolling at 10mph with police officers around you read about hundreds of shots being fired without a single hit on the driver. The majority will go their whole career without firing their weapon so its a bit moot, and have the common sense not to open fire in a crowded area and instead usually go for their taser.
 
MRAB54 said:
how physically demanding is it to pull a trigger?
Click to expand...

Depending on gun, 6-3lbs of pull is pretty normal. But that is not the point, however, in a fast reaction, with other people around and moving etc etc. Real life is not a shooting range standing still with a static target. Also, many LEO could care less about guns and some know very, VERY little about them. Older LEO are older people, nothing special about them, steady hands, eye sight etc etc all take a hit with age, and contrary to what most people think about shooting, hitting a moving target, while moving yourself is very hard to do, go take a good armed defensive class and you will see it first hand.
 
supply and demand... cause google has good paying jobs, working folks want to have those jobs so they have to live near the location and so landlords jack up the price of housing... see jobs is bad for poor people. welfare good jobs bad!!
 
BettiePage said:
supply and demand... cause google has good paying jobs, working folks want to have those jobs so they have to live near the location and so landlords jack up the price of housing... see jobs is bad for poor people. welfare good jobs bad!!
Click to expand...

This isn't exactly the case. Google has good paying jobs and the people who work there don't live near the location. They live in San Francisco which is still a reasonable commute to Mountain View. Any of those people could live in Mountain View, Redwood City, Palo Alto, San Mateo, etc. San Francisco has its own unique style of living.
 
gordon151 said:
Increased demand for rentals + people with a lot more money to spend on housing leads to increased rental costs.
Click to expand...

It's more due to rent control. Any building older than 1980 is essentially rent controlled, meaning the increases are dictated by the city, and since most places were built before 1980 that's a lot of rent controlled locations. The way landlords can combat this is by having the rent start out high, which many do and keep their places vacant because the trouble of removing someone is not worth whatever paltry sum they'll get. Enter Google employees with good salaries who are willing to pay these increased amounts... landlords happily rent because they're willing to pay.

Although I will say reminds me of my friends during the dot-com era who actually worked in that bubble. They spent money like it grew on trees, hardly anyone had a modest home, they all wanted the nice home, in a nice neighborhood, that cost a ton of money to rent, expensive toys, audio, video, etc...
 
Yea, rent control caused a lot of problems in CA, especially SF. For comparison, Seattle rent prices are, on average, less than half that of those in SF.
 
MRAB54 said:
Maybe in some hick town that is true... Police are required a certain amount of range practice, surely the old folks are out of shape but how physically demanding is it to pull a trigger?
Click to expand...

Few, if any, departments require range time and yes this is a HUGE problem.

This is a large part of why officers who need to use their weapon tend to fire a large number of shots.

If you pay attention there has been a constant stream of stories where one or more officers fire a dozen or more shots at a suspect 5-10 feet away and many, if not most, of the rounds miss. A few of these have even been caught on video. I'll never forget the one where an officer emptied his berretta at a stationary criminal from around 10 feet away and never hit them once.

Google "Kathryn Johnston shooting" for a perfect example, three officers fired 39 shots at the elderly woman and only hit her 5 or 6 times but each of the three were wounded by friendly fire.


Ducman69 said:
I have never heard of a department requiring range practice, and many officers complain that its not freely available (have to do it on their time, their dime). Most departments merely require a qualifying test, stationary target, no time pressure, either once or twice a year for basic competency (once if doing both pistols and shotguns consecutively, otherwise separated six months). Its basically just a test of whether or not if you try really hard you can shoot something about 5-15 yrds away.

There's a reason that for moving targets like a truck driver rolling at 10mph with police officers around you read about hundreds of shots being fired without a single hit on the driver. The majority will go their whole career without firing their weapon so its a bit moot, and have the common sense not to open fire in a crowded area and instead usually go for their taser.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Police pistol qualification is a joke and basically only shows they know how to shoot their weapon and sort of being able to hit a stationary target.


Riddlinkidstoner said:
This isn't exactly the case. Google has good paying jobs and the people who work there don't live near the location. They live in San Francisco which is still a reasonable commute to Mountain View. Any of those people could live in Mountain View, Redwood City, Palo Alto, San Mateo, etc. San Francisco has its own unique style of living.
Click to expand...

And a large number of whiney assholes!
 
Merc1138 said:
The incredibly lame argument is that the employees taking the busses are the ones causing rent to go up as more of them move to SF to live there and then commute elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Not really that lame. If they had to drive it, they wouldn't live in SF or Oakland. It'd be like moving to the NYC and Commuting to somewhere 30 miles into NJ. Nobody does that, but if you have an express transportation to take you there and back, then it's worth buying/renting property in the city. Work on your way to work and on your way home. Win/Win. So yeah, I can see how the bus is at least partially responsible for rents going up. If you've got to do an hour (or more) commute to work, you might live closer to work (I know I would).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top