You're right. I did. Because they have. I don't know the details of any legislation that may have applied before the one that I linked. But I would like to highlight the irony of the voters (via the government) of California legally mandating that these busses be run (see Kalium's comment), even after they have become such a hot button issue.

It's no wonder that we have so many social problems we can't manage, when our voters and legislators act so schizophrenically.

In terms of "a lot of tech companies, based outside San Francisco go out of their way to make it easy for employees to live in SF and get to work outside of it", this argument could be applied verbatim to the government paying for freeways to allow cars to efficiently drive back and forth between cities. This argument could also be applied to people who commute in from the suburbs (look to the bay bridge; there is a metric ton of them) and 'take' high-paying jobs that could be given to the locals who can't afford the rent here. But it doesn't matter. Criticizing the commuter busses for allowing people to live somewhere other than they work is an unrealistic perspective that ignores reality. People will live where they want to and can live. People will work where they want to and can work. Neither of these facts are the busses faults

> Option 3 — Employer-provided free or low cost bus, shuttle or vanpool service operated by or for the employer.