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