Until the tech industry is willing to show some true solidarity with the class of workers who serve it, this is a distinction without a difference. I guarantee that if the collective influence of some of the world's most powerful companies wanted there to be more affordable housing, either out of some noblesse oblige like you see in NYC, or because their employees really turned the screws on them, it would get built.
You seem very sure by offering a guarantee, but how exactly would these companies go about bypassing city councils, regional authorities and current long term residents, many of whom seem quite hostile to the idea of density and housing?
Sure, Google/FB/Apple have plenty of money and power, but I don't think they have so much power that they could simply build whatever they wanted without approval.
By the same kind of organized political resistance that affects changes of a much larger scale all over the country. It amazes me that in a year where a coalition of white working class voters were able to propel someone like Trump to the highest office in the land, that people of far greater means see much smaller political change as impossible.
The coalition impeding affordablity now thrives precisely because tech industry workers refuse to align themselves with the lower classes suffering the brunt of the damage under these circumstances. The ownership class then gets to paint themselves as trying to defend against all these encroaching barbarians that are making things tough for the little folks, all the while profiting from the exploding housing costs. They consolidate power around keeping out the "other," and then turn around and use it to soak tech workers (and by extension their companies) with higher rents. The play the bottom and the middle against each other and stay on top.
The hostility is a ruse, just like it is in politics on the national level, and it has to first be shown for the lie that it is. As an example, what if wide swathes of tech workers held rent strikes until more affordable housing is built for low income residents? Suddenly the narrative that sustains the ownership class becomes less and less coherent, and space is opened up for actual reform.
"people of far greater means" drastically supported Clinton over Trump and look what happened. Money does not equal political power. This really isn't the tech industry's fault.
Forgive my saying, but I don't think it's that frustrating. I really do expect rich people to vote for a ham sandwich if that ham sandwich runs as a Republican. Unless they're unusually far-sighted rich people who really care about ecological and sociological stability for maintaining their wealth, a lot of those tax plans must just sound too damned appetizing to pass up.
Voting, though important, is not the only form of political redress. Immigrants in this country have successfully lobbied for all kinds of beneficial political reforms through protest and financial support of groups representing their interests.
Well, easiest way is to collect enough signatures for proposition and then to vote for it. The problem is is that people don't vote. Also Trump hijacked the republican infrastructure which through gerrymandering and the fact that a lot of people don't vote gave him the votes he needed to win.
I guarantee that if the collective influence of some of the world's most powerful companies wanted there to be more affordable housing, either out of some noblesse oblige like you see in NYC, or because their employees really turned the screws on them, it would get built.
Tested and disproven.
Google tried to develop thousands of new units of housing in 2015 and was rejected by the Mountain View city council.
If you see my comment up-thread, this can only be successful when it's premised on a broader coalition with clearly stated values that oppose the ownership class. Mountain View can shutdown Google because they can just paint this as tech industry villains trying to screw over "the little guys." The only way to get redress for affordability is to first pursue it for the most disadvantaged and rob the ownership class of the narrative that undergirds their political support.
