IMHO $27 gives the the tech workers a lot less claim to that field than the entire lives that the kids have lived there, regardless of the piece of paper.
If they didn't want to play pickup, then the right thing to do is to go and play on the dropbox campus. It's not fair or logical, but it's the right to do.
I'm sure with the billions of dollars the company has it can build it's workers their own football pitch.
If they didn't want to play pickup, then the right
thing to do is to go and play on the dropbox campus.
I agree, so it seems to bring things back full circle: just play pickup with the local kids, have a good time and make friends.
It's not fair, but it's right?
At this stage, what do those words even mean? It very much seems you have your desired outcome firmly in your mind, and are merely playing verbal gymnastics.
Why are we advocating for something that we are agreeing is unfair?
Just imagine the phrase being used for all manner of unfair acts that society at the time deemed to be "right".
It's unfair for the dropbox guys to lose $27 on the permit.
But it's also unfair to have your neighbourhood change too quickly for you to be able to adapt and continue living there.
What I'm saying is that there are moral categories to strive for beyond fairness.
IMHO, humans are too caught up on fairness. In a way nothing is 'fair'. Morality has to be situational, and trying to impose a top down moral framework is only a necessary evil.
We should strive to do the right thing in the moment.
If you want moral certainty, then you'll never get it. No one can give you that.
That's both a circular statement, and an ambiguous one. Both sides were doing the right thing at the moment.
The only party that was clearly in the wrong were the people who were renting out the space. The reason this whole thread exists is that there is not a consensus on what the "right" behavior should have been. Pretending there was one right way to go is adding to the disconnect and gap between the two parties.
Perhaps you're hung up on my using the 'right thing' in my earlier post. Hey, I'm speaking colloquially here as most of us are. I could have rewritten that using formal logic symbols perhaps, but the no one would read it.
The crux of my argument is that there was an opportunity to look beyond who had the 'right' to play on that field at that time.
Using money to push others out is poor behavior, but so is using the tired 'how long you've lived in SF' (like one of the people mentioned in that video). Once again 'techie' hate is misguided and most of the scorn should be focused on city hall for poor policy.