>Depends. If you get kicked out of an affordable place and nothing else affordable is available, compensation only delays the inevitable by a few months.

Maybe if nothing is affordable in a strict 121km^2, a more affordable location convenient to public transportation in the larger 9,128km^2 metro area should be looked into. Like Oakland, perhaps?

People get priced out of Manhattan and end up moving to one of the other boroughs all the time (though now that people are getting priced out of Williamsburg, they're moving _back_ to portions of Manhattan like the LES). It sucks, but that's the life of a renter.

> For the most part I'm inclined to agree that, if landlords are being abusive assholes, it's a problem with the landlords, not with the wealthy tenants or their employers.

Depends. If they're being abusive assholes within the law, it's a problem with the law. You can't assume - especially with landlords - that economic actors will choose the path to Nash equilibria. If they're abusive assholes outside of the law, it's a problem with the landlords. IMHO, an Ellis Act eviction isn't abusive - just because it's not abusive doesn't mean it's fair, however. A landlord in Brooklyn recently told his tenants that he was going to do repairs - and instead of repairing the property, he (allegedly) gutted the apartment (removed flooring, plumbing fixtures). All to try and force them to abandon their lease. This was abusive -- and illegal (he's almost definitely going to jail). But it's also an artifact of the extraordinary tenant rights we enjoy here in NYC: we cannot be evicted without cause, and even then the landlord must win an eviction suit in (a very pro-tenant) housing court. If a landlord wants a tenant out for reasons not valid (e.g., to convert to condos or a mansion), they can offer to buy the tenant out of their lease. The tenant, of course, can refuse the buyout until they receive a price they consider fair. These tenants can be a huge headache for landlords that want to improve or demolish the property.

Seems to me that the Ellis Act itself is what's abusive here, not landlords taking advantage of the law.

> Still, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect major employers to assist with the needs of their community

It might not be unreasonable, but it's extraordinarily unlikely. Corporations are in it for profit. Making sure people have affordable housing in downtown San Francisco doesn't really enter into it.

> If Google's policies are indirectly enabling shitty landlords

What policy is that? Employing shrewd lawyers? Not being punitive when their employees take full advantage of the law?

If you think invoking the Ellis Act is being a shitty landlord, you live in a wonderland of amazing landlords my friend. I'm still trying to get mine to fix my foyer mailbox after six months of it being broken (thank goodness for PO boxes).

> it would be neighborly of Google to use their clout to lobby for pro-tenant ordinances

Google isn't just neighbors with SF. Google is a global company: its neighbors are the entire world. That's why its nonprofit arm builds things like Person Finder, Flu & Dengue Trends, discounted access to its products for non profits. It also invests in research for renewable energy cheaper than coal (though was dropped in 2011), seeds plug-in EVs, prediction & prevention of emerging (climate & disease) threats, uses its information to improve public services in the developing world, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

They've got bigger fish to fry than doing San Franciscan's civic duty for them.