> Orson Aguilar, president of Oakland nonprofit The Greenlining Institute, which spearheaded the “#NoUberOakland” campaign, said he expected Uber’s earlier announcement of retrenchment might lead to the building’s sale.
> “Uber, with all its challenges, could still do something for the community and make a win for everyone’s benefit if it had dedicated significant space for a training center.”
Are they simultaneously saying that 1) NO - Uber shouldn't come to Oakland and 2) We're mad that Uber is leaving?
The next paragraph makes their position more clear. They’re not against Uber; they’re against Uber-esque hyper-aggressive business practices.
“Groups do want companies to come, not to engage in business as usual, but to work with the community to make sure people have jobs, that small businesses can provide services, that they’re coming in more conscious of social and corporate responsibilities.”
Regardless of Uber's drama, I was really looking forward to having more major tech companies spread out throughout the Bay Area. There's no reason they should all be concentrated on the peninsula and South Bay.
I understand the concerns regarding gentrification, but all this concentration is just stratifying the haves from the have-nots.
It's pretty sad that the local community has been so self-destructively negative about the benefits of a major tech company moving in. This could've meant new jobs, new housing, and new life to what is currently a pretty crime-ridden and sad part of the bay area…
Would it though? It sounds like a great example of gentrification. Those develops and such that move in will just drive up the rent, bring in restaurants and such that cater to their desires, and then push out who was there with higher prices.
I mean, I'd like this not to be the case, and love to hear of examples where things actually got better for people already there but I just haven't heard it.
I think gentrification is awesome. I fully support improving the area with new restaurant, bars, stores, housing. Local housing values will improve as the area becomes more desirable. Also key is cleaning up the crime.
Frankly I don't see any long term benefits of a self-driving car company to the local community. If they're willing to invest that's one thing; otherwise, they jack up prices and force out locals. This is just gentrification with little benefit.
Personally, I'd rather be mugged than force my neighbor to move. It's really quite difficult to get the former without the latter.
Mid-market has vastly improved since Twitter, Uber, Square, Zendesk, Microsoft, etc. moved in. It's no longer a crime-ridden sad part; it's now vibrant with grocery stores, restaurants, cafés, bars, housing, etc. It's a great success story for redevelopment.
> Orson Aguilar, president of Oakland nonprofit The Greenlining Institute, which spearheaded the “#NoUberOakland” campaign, said he expected Uber’s earlier announcement of retrenchment might lead to the building’s sale.
> “Uber, with all its challenges, could still do something for the community and make a win for everyone’s benefit if it had dedicated significant space for a training center.”
Are they simultaneously saying that 1) NO - Uber shouldn't come to Oakland and 2) We're mad that Uber is leaving?
I have to be missing something...