Despite their attempts to remain in the shadows, the state’s roughly 200 billionaires have outed themselves. Greater visibility has meant their narrow — and self-interested — agenda has come increasingly under fire. 

San Francisco billionaires like Michael Mortiz and Chris Larsen have a storied history of opposing increased taxes on corporations and the wealthy, using their fortunes to elect allies who will protect them from any incursion into their wealth. 

Recently a labor-backed measure, the Billionaire Tax Act earned a place on November’s statewide ballot. The modest, one-time tax that, if passed, will fund essential services like public hospitals, has mobilized California’s elite who tried — and failed — to keep it off the ballot. Despite successes in smaller statewide races, and a few wins in recent San Francisco elections, the very fact that the Billionaire Tax earned a place on the ballot may be a sign that their winning streak is coming to an end. 

The measure is popular. It should also be kept in mind that the tax on billionaires will not meaningfully affect their lives or reduce the obscene generational wealth. Nonetheless, billionaires are willing to spend millions to defeat it. This won’t endear them to the state’s voters. A coalition led by Google cofounder Sergey Brin has reserved $87 million of ad space for spots to combat the measure. That number will likely increase as the election approaches.

Grassroots organizing efforts across the state have coalesced to push back against other aspects of the billionaire agenda, most notably around issues like data center construction, the use of online surveillance by local police, and driverless vehicles.

Data Centers 

Data centers are wildly unpopular. A plurality of Americans “strongly oppose” them, according to a Gallup poll taken in May. These massive structures that serve as the engines of artificial intelligence and crypto currency are noisy, tax the electrical grid (often resulting in higher bills for residents) and the local water supply. Beyond just that, they are a physical reminder that the billionaires behind the industries are more than willing to destroy communities in order to further enrich themselves. The limited jobs they do produce are temporary and generally do not pay well. 

In June, nearly 400 residents of the Contra Costa County suburb of Pittsburg crowded into a city council meeting to voice their opposition to a planned data center. Monterey Park voters “overwhelmingly” passed a permanent ban on data centers within its city limits. Gilroy residents recently pushed back against a proposed Amazon data center, with one group petitioning to stop the project entirely. 

Some fifteen states have put forward legislation to slow down or ban data centers. 

In early July, a plan was put forward by a shadowy development company called Global Stack LLC to redesign San Francisco’s historic Cow Palace into a data center. That scheme, too, has resulted in significant opposition. The Cow Palace project is only one of 33 proposed data centers it plans in California including eight in the Bay Area. Many of the sites are proposed for former fairgrounds. On July 21, the Tulare County Fair board voted to halt a proposed development contract with Global Stack LLC after extended public comment in opposition to the project. 

Data center development is a prime example of a business model in which public infrastructure is leveraged to create private wealth.

Online Surveillance

Similar to the public outcry against data centers, the opposition to online surveillance is crossing traditional political divides. Across the country, rural and metropolitan communities are rejecting local contracts with Flock Safety, an online surveillance company stemming from Garry Tan’s Y Combinator and funded, in part, by Peter Thiel, a billionaire and early supporter of President Donald Trump.

Flock has come under fire for data leaks. In San Francisco, the police department’s surveillance system, powered by Flock cameras, has been searched millions of times by out-of-state agencies, notably the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Customs and Border Patrol, in violation of state law. 

The San Francisco Police Department’s Drone As A First Responder program recently came under fire for similar security concerns. Two researchers were able to access drone feeds without bypassing any encryption. Skydio, the operator that makes the drones for the city’s program, and Flock Safety are both part of the financial portfolio of A16z, the venture capital firm founded by Silicon Valley billionaires and Trump supporters Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz and promoted by Chris Larsen, an ally of Mayor Daniel Lurie. 

In mid-July, the Los Angeles Police Department announced it would renegotiate its contract with the mass surveillance company. Last fall, Oakland city council was embroiled in a contentious public debate over its Flock contract with the council voting to renew its $2.25 million Flock contract. Councilwoman Carroll Fife criticized the decision, echoing the concerns of many residents: “I don’t know how we get up and have several press conferences talking about how we are supportive of a sanctuary city status, but then use a vendor that has been shown to have a direct relationship with Border Control,” Fife said from the dais. “It doesn’t make sense to me.” A few months later, multiple Flock cameras across Oakland were paint-bombed.

Similarly, El Cerrito’s Flock cameras were set to be deactivated in early June after intense public push back at city council meetings. However, public advocacy put renewed efforts on turning off the cameras after activists in late July noticed that the cameras were still capturing information. The El Cerrito police department has since rolled out a plan to remove the cameras in August. 

Neighboring Berkeley city council voted in May to extend its contract with Flock for automated license plate readers but declined a potential contract expansion after massive public outcry that would have included drones and additional cameras.   

Driverless Cars

The city’s July 4th celebration was marred when Waymos, the driverless cars that have become ubiquitous on San Francisco city streets, blocked roadways on a day when an estimated 100,000 were making their way to the northside of town for a fireworks display. Waymo refused to provide details on how many of its cars were stranded and had to be towed. 

It wasn’t the first time that Waymo has been responsible for chaos. During a devastating power outage last December, Waymos stalled 1,593 times, creating traffic jams that threatened to create impediments for the city’s first responders. According to Mary Ellen Carroll, executive director for San Francisco’s Department of Emergency Management, dispatchers called Waymo 31 times to remove the offending vehicles with at least one dispatcher being kept on hold for 53 minutes. 

Last April, Carroll told federal officials that the technology is getting worse. Congressman Kevin Mullin representing San Mateo and the Peninsula, recently put forward a bill to regulate Waymo, specifically in how it works with first responders. 

Lurie has been a Waymo booster. He has allowed it,  and other rideshare companies, to offer their services on a car-free portion of Market Street. After significant public outcry, Lurie is now calling for driverless car companies to be regulated, and is supporting Mullin’s bill. 

Driverless vehicles, online surveillance and data centers are all part of the Astroturf Network playbook: They use public infrastructure for private gain. With rising public opposition, that playbook may be drawing to a close.