Apple, Google Shuttles to Pay to Use Public Bus Stops in San Francisco

[ptb42]

It’s an analogy, not an invention. I’m perfectly aware of how the system works.

Then you already knew that the concept of "paying back taxes" is a complete fiction, but tried to invent a flawed analogy to make yourself feel better. You may be fooling yourself, but not anyone else.

My point is, a system like that (people pay into a pool of money or an organization so other people can receive help from that pool of money or organization, who are then required to pay into that pool or organization in turn), if managed properly, can work very well, for the benefit of many individuals and the economic strength of the organization or group in question.

That doesn't describe any of current government income transfer programs. Any benefits received do not result in a require for future taxes to be paid. And any taxes paid now or in the past do not legally obligate the government to pay any future benefits.

For instance, if you think your Social Security tax payments create a contractual obligation to pay you benefits, you would be wrong. See Flemming v. Nestor. If you don't believe my interpretation, maybe you'll believe the Social Security Administration:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

Entitlements are subject to Congressional authorization. The law could be changed at anytime. And if it's not, Social Security is currently authorized to spend no more than it collects in taxes, once the Trust Fund is exhausted around 2033. Current projections say that revenues will only be able to pay 75% of the benefits that retirees are expecting at that time.

 

[MattInOz]

The government doesn't have any money, as such. All of the money it spends is either the taxpayer's money or money borrowed from lenders. The former is forcibly taken, and the latter is debt. At least with a company they mostly get their money from people willingly handing it over because the company makes a product that they want.

Should be noted before this we had kingdoms. Where the money was taken by force to the coffers of the Monarch who had no requirement to provide services to anyone but themselves. Then we revolted to make the current situation thinking it would be an improvement.

Oh wait... both you and I still live in a hybrid Monarchy Government.

 

[kas23]

Paying taxes towards something doesn't mean you can appropriate it for your own means. You have to share it, fairly. Some people believe that running your own segregated service off those facilities is not fair sharing.

Are they not sharing the stop with other passengers waiting for the municipal bus system? Are they disallowing these buses to pick up city passengers and function? If so, then I fully agree with you.

 

[rdlink]

You didn’t pay for that. My parent did, by paying their taxes. I’m paying for it now, by paying taxes. That’s how these systems are (supposed) to work. You get help when you’re young and just starting out so that you get a good job, become a productive member of society, and then pay it all back later in taxes. Now, the system is sort of garbage, as the way they have it set up most people who get the money don’t become productive member of society and don’t pay it back in taxes. But like I said originally, I agree with you that these systems aren’t working properly. Does that mean that anyone who uses them is a freeloader? No.

So no, you didn’t pay for me. You never have, and you never will. I don’t want your money. I just needed a loan, that I am paying back and will continue to pay back for decades. To assume that anyone who accepts help from one of those programs, when they need it, is operating under a sense of entitlement simply because they accepted the help is close-minded and categorically false. Do the programs need to be revised to eliminate freeloaders? Sure. But should the government get rid of them all together? There is where I disagree with you, as I said originally. No.

Oh, and having children was a choice. Best choice I ever made. And thanks to programs designed exactly for those cases, I didn’t have to pay for it with my career or wait seven to ten years. Don’t judge the programs, judge the individuals abusing them. Sweeping accusations are never correct.

I'm likely as old as your parents. I'm sure you love your children, and I am happy you do. But again, you made a choice to have children when you were not financially viable. What you did was irresponsible and inconsiderate of me and other taxpayers. It was not a loan. A loan is when you go to an institution whose investors have willingly made capital available as an investment, and they expect a return on their money.

Knowingly making poor life choices when a likely result is that you will use money taken from me as a taxpayer to fund it is just irresponsible and inconsiderate, and is what inevitably happens in any society that becomes overly socialistic, such as ours.

 

[C DM]

Should be noted before this we had kingdoms. Where the money was taken by force to the coffers of the Monarch who had no requirement to provide services to anyone but themselves. Then we revolted to make the current situation thinking it would be an improvement.

Oh wait... both you and I still live in a hybrid Monarchy Government.

The current situation is totally not an improvement in any way.

 

[ManhattanBeach]

$1 a stop? what a joke

 

[GeneralChang]

I'm likely as old as your parents. I'm sure you love your children, and I am happy you do. But again, you made a choice to have children when you were not financially viable. What you did was irresponsible and inconsiderate of me and other taxpayers. It was not a loan. A loan is when you go to an institution whose investors have willingly made capital available as an investment, and they expect a return on their money.

Knowingly making poor life choices when a likely result is that you will use money taken from me as a taxpayer to fund it is just irresponsible and inconsiderate, and is what inevitably happens in any society that becomes overly socialistic, such as ours.

Ha, um, you’re probably not, actually. Of course, that’s based solely on the fact that you are apparently perusing the pages of a technology site. Beyond a certain age that becomes fairly uncommon.

And yes, I’m aware it’s not actually anything like a loan. You aren’t educating me as to any viewpoints I haven’t already heard and considered dozens of times before. I understand how the system works quite well. I also understand what being in the debilitating crush of finacial ruin is like. Do you? When you work all day, do homework all night, and can’t sleep because you’re worried sick over how you’re going to pay rent in three days? I sincerely and honestly appreciate the insurance that was given to my wife during that period so that I could continue to buy food and provide for a roof. Having children is beside the point. I didn’t have insurance of my own at the time, and had I been in an accident that required hospitalization, that would have broken me every bit as much as my wife’s pregnancy would have. But thank heavens there are programs out there to cover those less fortunate than us when they need it. It’s an evidence of the milk of human kindness still at work in society.

I’ll say again that the system as it’s run now is flawed, and needs to be changed drastically to reduce the number of people benefiting without cause and without promise of any production in the future. But I firmly believe that such programs have great merit, and I’m happy to pay into them to help others. And if you honestly don’t think that programs like that should exist, then we have nothing to talk about. I think you’re wrong, you apparently think I was a freeloader, and nothing either of us says on an internet forum is going to change that.

 

[rdlink]

Ha, um, you’re probably not, actually. Of course, that’s based solely on the fact that you are apparently perusing the pages of a technology site. Beyond a certain age that becomes fairly uncommon.

And yes, I’m aware it’s not actually anything like a loan. You aren’t educating me as to any viewpoints I haven’t already heard and considered dozens of times before. I understand how the system works quite well. I also understand what being in the debilitating crush of finacial ruin is like. Do you? When you work all day, do homework all night, and can’t sleep because you’re worried sick over how you’re going to pay rent in three days? I sincerely and honestly appreciate the insurance that was given to my wife during that period so that I could continue to buy food and provide for a roof. Having children is beside the point. I didn’t have insurance of my own at the time, and had I been in an accident that required hospitalization, that would have broken me every bit as much as my wife’s pregnancy would have. But thank heavens there are programs out there to cover those less fortunate than us when they need it. It’s an evidence of the milk of human kindness still at work in society.

I’ll say again that the system as it’s run now is flawed, and needs to be changed drastically to reduce the number of people benefiting without cause and without promise of any production in the future. But I firmly believe that such programs have great merit, and I’m happy to pay into them to help others. And if you honestly don’t think that programs like that should exist, then we have nothing to talk about. I think you’re wrong, you apparently think I was a freeloader, and nothing either of us says on an internet forum is going to change that.

One thing we can agree on is that we won't agree on this. But to address your other points...

Nice way to assume my age based on the fact that I am on a tech site. What a ridiculous statement. To give you an idea I have worked in the IT industry for nearly 25 years.

As far as whether I have ever had to worry about paying my bills, and studying, etc., yes. In fact, when I was in school and working a full time job (10 hours a day of construction) while being married, and going to school three nights a week, I was struggling mightily to pay my bills. But I kept my insurance paid up, because I knew it was my responsibility.

You can paint this picture of how our society is only good if it allows you to engage in acts that are irresponsible all you want. That won't make it true.

Have a great day.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Oh wait... both you and I still live in a hybrid Monarchy Government.

Oligarchy, not monarchy.

 

[SoAnyway]

Why are so many people on here defending these large corporations that have so much money, enough money to make a significant impact on world hunger if they so choose?

----------

Privacy, peace and quiet, comfort, and safety (from others).

The first three I get as selfish reasons for avoiding public transportation. However, safety has never been an issue in my experience with taking public transportation in any city I've been in.

 

[mrsir2009]

The first three I get as selfish reasons for avoiding public transportation. However, safety has never been an issue in my experience with taking public transportation in any city I've been in.

In one way public transport is more safe than driving a car, because in the event of a crash you're more likely to survive in a large bus than a small car. And in the case of trains, crashing/derailing is pretty rare (and even when it happens it isn't usually fatal).

 

[OLDCODGER]

Why are so many people on here defending these large corporations that have so much money, enough money to make a significant impact on world hunger if they so choose?

----------




The first three I get as selfish reasons for avoiding public transportation. However, safety has never been an issue in my experience with taking public transportation in any city I've been in.

I'm old, very old, and have both seen and encountered thuggish behaviour on public transport (taxis excluded) in various parts of the world. Obviously it depends upon several factors - including night-time, but, to me, it is yet another selfish reason why I should not put myself under the whims of the hoi-poloi.

As for being selfish, if I don't look after my own best interests, no-one else will.

As for your opening question: feed the world's hungry, until you run out of money, and they'll still be hungry the next day - and have done nothing to warrant being fed. I started getting this crap during WWII, and it hasn't changed one iota - there are simply those who are of no use, even to themselves.

 

[Going Digital]

Empire building

"the program is expected to earn the city approximately $1.5 million over the course of 18 months, which will be used to cover enforcement of the program and evaluations on its efficiency,"

In other words the money is going to be used to add more pointless staff to the local government. This is THE purpose of local government, to simply justify its own existence.

The vehicles are taxed to use the roads, the residents pay their taxes to maintain the roads, so it makes no sense at all that they should pay again to use something that has already been paid for.

I hope they companies arrange alternative pick-up points that don't use the city bus stops so they can give the city the finger.

 

[knightlie]

Exactly why does it cost money to use a bus stop? I don't get it. And isn't it a public bus stop, where people in the public wait for a bus. That doesn't cost money either. You pay to ride the bus, not wait for it. I guess this is what happens when poor people complain, who, ironically, likely don't pay enough taxes to run these buses.

You think bus stops build, operate and maintain themselves for free? Really, do you actually think that?

 

[diazj3]

That is the most loopy comment I've read in awhile.

But still, I don't see a problem with corps paying a bit to use public space. This usage is not covered under other taxes, whether some of you approve or not. This private bus using public bus stops is not an intended use, so writing a specific new rule/law about it makes sense. The debate should be over the amount. I don't really have an opinion about that.

Not loopy at all - although it was quite late when I wrote it. What I mean is that, for some public services to be viable, such as transportation, sometimes it's necessary to keep them public. When private corporations compete with them, or establish their own for their private use, they get debilitated by having less users while having to keep the same routes and service for everyone else. In this case, while Google and Apple employees use their private buses to go to work, they still need public buses to get around elsewhere, thus, keeping the need for public buses, routes, stops and other infrastructure.

So yes, I agree that these corporations must at least pay for some of the infrastructure if they want to use it and be treated as public transportation. And then some, to offset the lost revenue from the users of the routes they are privatizing to keep the public ones operational for everyone else. Because in the end, it's the same thing as going into any other city and establish a private transportation service - as a private business - that competes with the public city run one. I'm not sure that's even legally possible in any city. The fact that only employees of a certain company use them is anecdotical.

If we expect quality public services to be accessible to everyone, regardless of where they work, how much money they have, or who's their daddy, keeping selective private services in check it's a good idea. This idea that the private enterprise and capital is the best thing to happen to anything, is mistaken. Just look at the path that education, healthcare and politics are taking lately. Plus, these interventions later develop into arguments of why these companies shouldn't pay any taxes, of offer a living wage, since they are somehow "paying" for public services... and leaving part of the community out of those benefits.

Anyway, charging them nothing would lead to a bigger mess in the future.

Hopefully this is less loopy. Cheers!

 

[SoAnyway]

I'm old, very old, and have both seen and encountered thuggish behaviour on public transport (taxis excluded) in various parts of the world. Obviously it depends upon several factors - including night-time, but, to me, it is yet another selfish reason why I should not put myself under the whims of the hoi-poloi.

As for being selfish, if I don't look after my own best interests, no-one else will.

As for your opening question: feed the world's hungry, until you run out of money, and they'll still be hungry the next day - and have done nothing to warrant being fed. I started getting this crap during WWII, and it hasn't changed one iota - there are simply those who are of no use, even to themselves.

I'm glad I still have my youth and have a rather progressive and selfless outlook on life. I think these two things have saved me from being a self-obsessed and self-absorbed fool. I really hope I don't grow weary, selfish, loathsome, fearful, and paranoid in my old age 40 years from now.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Why are so many people on here defending these large corporations that have so much money, enough money to make a significant impact on world hunger if they so choose?

I can't speak for others, but I'm not defending any company here, I'm excoriating the idea that the concept of a company offering a free shuttle to employees at a public bus stop is a manifestation of greed. The stop's existence and maintenance is subsidized by taxpayers (bus fares do not reflect the true cost of public busses) including those who use these shuttles. The stop is a safe and logical place for pickup and as long as these shuttles do not interfere with scheduled bus service what difference does it make to SF? SF should be happy its citizens are gainly employed and encourage this type of private mass transit for environmental reasons rather than add some penny ante fee to stop it.

And the fact companies could have an impact on world hunger is rather a non-sequitur. Whether they do or don't is not at issue in the matter being discussed here. But many companies do donate a lot of money and resources to that end, and other causes. But hunger is a larger, more complex issue than money. The U.S. puts billions into the U.S. AID budget every year along with other countries who have there own program and the U.N. and still progress is very slow. So blaming companies for world hunger is misguided and plain wrong. Here is the truth though -- companies are the #1 reason people don't starve and are sheltered because they pay their employees so they can eat and pay rent or a mortgage.

 

[OLDCODGER]

I'm glad I still have my youth and have a rather progressive and selfless outlook on life. I think these two things have saved me from being a self-obsessed and self-absorbed fool. I really hope I don't grow weary, selfish, loathsome, fearful, and paranoid in my old age 40 years from now.

Two points:

First; on your "progressiveness" - do it on your own dime, not mine!

Second; if you ever attain the wisdom that can only come from having lived life for a long time, you will veer sharply towards my way of thinking, as you grow weary of trying to justify a pipe-dream.

Ultimately, you only have one life, and you either live it for yourself, or let others live it for you.

 

[ptb42]

Second; if you ever attain the wisdom that can only come from having lived life for a long time, you will veer sharply towards my way of thinking, as you grow weary of trying to justify a pipe-dream.

“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” -- Winston Churchill.

"The older I get, the smarter my parents were." -- Mark Twain (although attribution is not clear)

 

[OLDCODGER]

“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” -- Winston Churchill.

"The older I get, the smarter my parents were." -- Mark Twain (although attribution is not clear)

Never had a heart - only a brilliantly engineered, but poorly maintained pump.

 

[gnasher729]

I can't speak for others, but I'm not defending any company here, I'm excoriating the idea that the concept of a company offering a free shuttle to employees at a public bus stop is a manifestation of greed. The stop's existence and maintenance is subsidized by taxpayers (bus fares do not reflect the true cost of public busses) including those who use these shuttles. The stop is a safe and logical place for pickup and as long as these shuttles do not interfere with scheduled bus service what difference does it make to SF? SF should be happy its citizens are gainly employed and encourage this type of private mass transit for environmental reasons rather than add some penny ante fee to stop it.

I find this whole discussion fascinating and bizarre.

San Francisco built public bus stops, bought busses, and hired drivers. All that costs money. People who use both the bus stops and the busses pay for it. What argument would there be that a company using the bus stops shouldn't pay for it? Now if citizens were allowed to use the busses for free, that would be a good argument that companies using the bus stops should also be allowed to use them for free. But they are not.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I find this whole discussion fascinating and bizarre.

San Francisco built public bus stops, bought busses, and hired drivers. All that costs money. People who use both the bus stops and the busses pay for it. What argument would there be that a company using the bus stops shouldn't pay for it? Now if citizens were allowed to use the busses for free, that would be a good argument that companies using the bus stops should also be allowed to use them for free. But they are not.

As I said earlier, if this was a for-profit shuttle then I see that point. But that is not what is going on here. Also the employees (SF citizens BTW) waiting for the shuttle are not using city resources (their city) in a manner that incurs extra cost on the city. If that were the case, then, yes, I would expect the company to make the city whole. But people can legally hang out at a bus stop all day if they want; put trash in the trash can, play bongos and take "donations." The only difference here is that a company shuttle swings around, stops for a minute and moves on. Where is the cost to the city if such a stop doesn't interfere with regular bus service? SF has not provided a legitimate rationale for the fee other than it's the government and it can levy a fee. It has given a rationale, but it reads like something from Catch-22.

Bottom line: your point about bus rides not being free is moot. It doesn't cost anything to sit at a bus stop even if one has no intention of riding a bus. Also don't forget that any shuttle service, profit or not, has to be licensed by the city and pay the license fee so it's not like they are getting a, pardon the pun, free ride.

Again, it seems to me its of a greater benefit for a congested city like SF to encourage ride sharing than to discourage by some two bit $1 per stop fee that will cost SF more than a $1 per stop to administer but could result in few shuttle stop locations, resulting in people using their car to get to work instead.

 

[rdlink]

I find this whole discussion fascinating and bizarre.

San Francisco built public bus stops, bought busses, and hired drivers. All that costs money. People who use both the bus stops and the busses pay for it. What argument would there be that a company using the bus stops shouldn't pay for it? Now if citizens were allowed to use the busses for free, that would be a good argument that companies using the bus stops should also be allowed to use them for free. But they are not.

If my friend and I carpool, and he meets me at the bus stop outside of his apartment, should I have to pay the city for pulling into that bus stop and picking him up?

 

[G51989]

Er..... there isn't one on this planet. ALL run at a loss!

Um, do you have any actual idea what your talking about? At all? Any PROOF that no nationalized transit system in the entire world is not profitable?

 

[OLDCODGER]

Um, do you have any actual idea what your talking about? At all? Any PROOF that no nationalized transit system in the entire world is not profitable?

The answer is in your question.