Nobody is going to do that. They don't have to. There is absolutely no formal process to require them to. Is this really the endgame of the anti-tech movement in SF? To shame people out of the city? We are talking about people so shameless they can raise a 5MM seed round for a cat-sharing startup.
It seems to me --- and I'd welcome an argument to the contrary --- that simultaneously protesting tech and opposing new building is, in effect, a strategy to concede the whole city to the wealthy.
To be fair, the city has enacted some rather ill-conceived regulatory changes to encourage tech growth, most of which should probably be reversed. It's not about shaming...it's a matter of good public policy.
It makes no sense to me, for example, that we should be giving tax incentives to developers to convert buildings on Market street into office space. Why not apartments? Or how about the fact that we're incentivizing large companies to hire more employees in the city? Or that we're looking the other way while startups colonize all of that shiny new residential construction? (Aside: one of the under-reported scandals of this boom is the number of market-rate apartments that are being used as offices. Who can afford a $6,000 one bedroom? A startup office.)
It's hard to argue that these are intelligent responses to the growth crisis.
I think this is a bubble and it will eventually pop. But we could be doing more to manage the explosion in the meantime.
> ...one of the under-reported scandals of this boom is the number of market-rate apartments that are being used as offices.
The fix is easy: If the folks using that apartment as an office aren't also using that apartment as their living quarters, call City Planning.
If they are also living in that apartment, who cares? Tolerance of low-to-no foot traffic commercial activity (such as programming work) inside one's apartment has been a thing for a very, very long time.
Your definition of "easy" is only actually easy if we ignore the little problems of detection, enforcement and proof. Anyone can call the city on illegal residential property uses today, but obviously, that approach isn't working I can flip through the listings of any newer residential building in SOMA, and see 50% of the units occupied by startups.
As for tolerance: what is acceptable in small doses becomes pathological when taken to extremes. Just like AirBnBs, it's not an issue when a handful of apartments are being used for commercial activity in a healthy market. When you have a huge percentage of renters doing it in a housing crunch, it's a concern.
It might not be, if the protests start to become effective in lowering demand.
Right now, tech workers want to live in SF. But if they see hatred and protests against them at every corner, then at some point those tech workers won't want to live there anymore.
Similarly, if tech workers arriving drives up prices which drives up the homeless rate, making the city less and less pleasant to walk around in, then at some point those tech workers won't want to live there anymore.
A third way to decrease demand is if the city increases taxes on the well-off, making it much more expensive to live in San Francisco if you have a software engineer's salary.
I think all of those are sad, but if we don't build a lot more housing, things will get a lot worse. Either things will spiral out of control, or they'll get so bad that demand starts to fall.
I wouldn't say it's about shame so much as common sense. Why build where resources are scarce? Even the plentiful developers are more expensive for living costs. For individuals, there are no shortage of jobs elsewhere.
It seems to me --- and I'd welcome an argument to the contrary --- that simultaneously protesting tech and opposing new building is, in effect, a strategy to concede the whole city to the wealthy.