Upzoning might seem like an obvious preference for tech companies and sometimes they act on this preference. It's useful to remember, though, that they have countervailing short-term preferences for single-family zoning.

Tech companies themselves have many internal constituencies (managers, line programmers, service workers). Since these companies are extremely not democracies, it's very easy for the preferences of a small valuable constituency (executives and managers) to override the preferences of a larger commoditized constituency (new grad engineers and janitors). Valuable internal constituencies are already compensated enough to buy a single-family home and generally don't want density.

It would be difficult for e.g. Facebook to publicly support upzoning in Menlo Park when half the NIMBYs in the room are relatively valuable mid-level engineering managers at Facebook. So we don't see these tech companies in general putting big resources behind really transformative upzoning projects.

NIMBYs and all the regulations that prevent building are far far more powerful than anything else. Not even god himself could get anything built here. I suspect it's because there are multiple layers of regulation, it's not just one ruleset, it's many many things: CEQA, zoning, NIMBYs, lawsuits against developers, etc, etc.

Not to mention, stopping construction is a majority held opinion. In voting pamphlets, politicians actually brag about how much construction they've stopped: I can only imagine it's because the majority agrees with that.

> Not even god himself could get anything built here.

Approximately 64,000 housing units, 31 million sq.ft. of commercial space & 25 hotels with 4685 rooms are now in the SF new construction pipeline - with 5700 units, 10 million sq.ft. and 5 hotels currently under construction. https://www.paragon-re.com/trend/new-housing-construction-in...

I live in Mountain View and it's been very interesting to watch the fight between Google and MTV play out. Google very much wants to build more and denser housing (and more office space) and it's just a constant fight with the city.

Google owns some land that had previously been developed for dense residential until the city council changed their minds. They've just been sitting on it for the last few years. Finally, the city council is approving 10-12 story residential (which is unheard of in the Bay Area), but they're still bickering over the details.

The crazy part is that Google wants Google employees to live in Google-owned housing next to Google. This should be a no brainer. Every Google employee that lives next to their place of employment takes another car off the road, has another person walking to work. But people are arguing it would create more traffic.

  This should be a no brainer.

But do fair housing laws allow a developer to limit rental property to its employees? I presume they could use an "includes room and board" salary model, but that would mean eviction upon a break in employment.

We're not in China where the Government can decide to do whatever it wants. People in the community will vote on issues and elect officials into office who they think serve their interests. It is a common attitude of "I'd rather have no housing than more housing for people like them". Despite all the media the majority of people in Bay Area communities don't work in tech.

My landlord actively seeks people from the Bay Area to rent to and if they're not from here they're going to pay more rent especially if they work in tech. You're paying the tech transplant tax.

People in the community probably want their slummy airbnb's and garages to rent keep renting for astronomical rates.

Also, we're not in China but the population density issue is the same. If the jobs are in one location, you don't actively prevent new housing or better public transportation.

Because, even if we're in favor of the result, the idea that a big company can just muscle in and do what it wants is awful for everything else.

The question you're really wanting to ask is "why don't tech companies want to be good corporate citizens?"

It's because of profit. Amazon opposing the per-employee tax that would provide critical city services should help explain exactly where their priorities lie.

Ed Lee proposed a plan a while back to not base business tax on what we pay our employees but to look at company's revenue/sales amount, and sector. For example schools would have a lower business tax.

He also proposed instead of a flat tax, it would be progressive like income tax. Larger companies would pay a higher effective rate than small ones in the same sector but the Board of Supervisors didn't approve.

The City of SF has trust of over $24 billion and also administers a defined benefit retirement plan for ~65,000 current & retired employees of SF. And the President of the Retirement board who manages 24 Billion I believe is not someone from Goldman or finance background but a police officer?

SF priorities: Get electric bikes and scooters out of SF but create an unsafe city and homeless to walk around naked and dropping their poop and needles everywhere is okay

Did you read the response of Amazon and other companies? It was less "we want higher profits" and "you have enough money, you're just spending it in the wrong places".

Ahhh yes. And Amazon has no incentive to mis-characterize the reason they want to lower their tax burden. I dislike the waste of tax money on defense boondoggles. I still pay my taxes.

And so does Amazon. This was a debate over a new head tax for companies.

I would hesitate to say tech companies unduly influencing local elections is anywhere near "good corporate citizenship".

I would think having their employees in the office for an extra 2 hours per day because of reduced commute would be more beneficial.

Yes, which is why Google was aiming to build nearly 10k homes in Mountain View - which was mostly opposed by local homeowners.

  mostly opposed by local homeowners

Source? (Hint: how many "local homeowners" even exist on the Bay side of 101?)

Which is not even enough homes to begin with. Doesn't google have like 20K employees at HQ, with plans to double or triple that?

>Why can't tech companies out-muscle

Haven't SF tech companies, their employees and their voting habits done enough damage to SF as it is? One can only hope other cities with emerging tech industries act proactively to prevent current-Californian tech residents flocking from the problems they've caused to cause the same problems in these new cities.

They haven't done enough "damage". That's why the problem leaked from the traditional 'silicon valley' (south bay) area, crept into SF, and now 700 sq ft apartments in fucking orinda and richmond are $2000+. We can't wait for the nimby's to die off -- get rid of prop 13, rent control, zone everywhere in SF for 30 story buildings, before you can't even afford an aparment in Antioch and Tracy.