At the same time, these tech companies moving in tend to drive rents up unsustainably, causing huge problems for the many citizens of those cities that aren't wealthy land owners.

> Yep, wealthy land owners, clearly the group that needs protecting.

Wealthy land owners = citizens who have most of their personal wealth/retirements savings tied up in the equity of their home that has slowly appreciated over years or decades.

How terribly different than tech companies and employees using copyright (source code) and vast quantities of data to reap enormous returns and salaries (respectively).

This isn't David vs Goliath. This is New Boss vs Old Boss. Big Tech needs to get over itself. It's the new bad guy.

"wealthy landowners" is also a key phrase; they're the first (and for awhile, the only) people with a vote in democracies.

I'm not disagreeing that this is New Boss vs Old Boss. I'm disagreeing that Old Boss needs empowerment.

An interesting example is comparing Venice, CA to the "classic" gentrification: In Venice, most of the people responsible for the local culture (aka, why tech wants to be here) also own their homes; thus, as the property values rose dramatically, they benefitted. Contrast with "typical" gentrification, which just screws renters.

Hence why I'm on you about landowners versus "locals". There's a difference, and it's significant.

So NYC aside, what is your answer for cities?

How does a city improve itself without bringing in new jobs and tax revenue?

Should a city just let buildings sit there and rot instead of selling them to a company that wants to create hundreds or thousands of jobs?

No tax credits for businesses (See: Amazon). You pay a tax per head of employee you intend to employee onsite that covers infrastructure and subsidizing affordable housing.

If you're a going concern, affordability should not be an issue. Otherwise, you're straining infrastructure and housing with marginal benefits to the host city. Hire remote instead.

So you would discourage businesses from coming to your city. I suspect your reelection campaign is going to be a difficult one.

General population voters > Tech voters making $100k/year+. Easy win when people who can't make tech salaries are barely scraping by, unable to afford food or meds sometimes because they have to make rent.

How do you improve the quality of life for the current residents without bringing in modern jobs? Many of these cities were built around industries that just aren't relevant any more, how does a city continue to thrive without new industries to replace the ones they have lost?

Attracting diverse employers from multiple industries who pay above median (but not too far above) wages. That is how you drag quality of life up for your citizens.

You don't throw gasoline on a fire. You slow stoke it while continually adding fuel.