Although the OP is about a rather crude way to deal with conditions in Silicon Valley, it does indicate that SV has its discontents and they are probably due to the lopsided economic benefits of SV and the large number of other people being disadvantaged by SV. I am surprised that there has not been more attacks on SV, rather than less.
So, infrastructure is the Achilles Heel of the boom in SV, in the bostering plans of all the politicians and investment managers, of the VCs and the banks that back them. Those who are on the outs, and that percentage gets larger every day, know that, and if they could rain on SV's parade they would, although it seems that drying out SV is more the order of the day than raining on it.
Shutting down a freeway, or causing commute congestion, may be more effective and less of a crime, and nay be a natural consequence of things being so out of kilter, like they were in 1999 and 2000, when congestion cut into the workday, along with power outages, may have contributed to the dot gone crash of 2000-3.
Infrastructure is vulnerable on many levels in the Bay Area, a 7.2 quake on any number of faults in the South Bay could happen at any time and the effects would take several years to recover from. That could end the current boom overnight. Lots of greedy property owners would be out of luck. The drought is actually a direct threat to infrastructure for not only do we need water but the wildfire season is upon us and a major fire destroying parts of the grid could do par more damage than cutting fibre optic lines.
But of course, it is the politicians who would take the blame if the overheated economy they are constantly boosting fails because of infrastructure failures under their preview. It serves them right, and us, when the investors move on. I wish they would. We would be better off with far less Capitalism.