Live data from Hacker News

For San Francisco Cab Drivers, Once-Treasured Medallions Now a Burden

ww2.kqed.org

51–60 of 91 posts

Re: For San Francisco Cab Drivers, Once-Treasured Medallions Now a Burden

#51
post #39
post #9

This is an especially poignant story, and it's hard to not feel bad for this driver. On the other hand, people face investment risk all the time, i.e. when franchising a restaurant. When Chipotle or whoever comes in and devours the fast food market, I wonder if the local struggling burger franchisee asks the city for help? I can't speak on behalf of other cities, but anyone who has lived in SF pre-Uber has no shortag…

People face investment risk all the time, but medallions are a case of a city setting explicit expectations when selling the medallions and then changing the terms of the deal post facto. Chipotle devoured a huge chunk of the fast food market, but the city didn't collect money from McDonalds for a guarantee that Chipotle wouldn't be allowed to enter. Notably, this is illegal by federal law for auto manufacturers and…

Hold on -- there's a big difference between "the government reneged on its promise to keep squatters off your land" vs "no one wants your land anymore". If they start turning a blind eye to squatters, it's fair to criticize that government for reneging. If the other city becomes such a vibrant spot that no one wants to live near you -- different story entirely.

While local governments are arguably failing to require newer livery services like Uber and Lyft to meet e.g. higher insurance requirements, they are not reneging on the medallion promise, which still gives holders the exclusive right to pick up street hails. That right is still enforced, and the Uber/Lyfts of the world are not infringing on it. The situation is much closer to "street hail pickup rights aren't valuable anymore" than "governments enable encroachment on the right to pick up street hails".

And before you dismiss "arranged hire" (livery) vs "street hail" as a technicality, there are very good reasons to put a cap on the latter but not the former (and otherwise subject the latter to harsher regulation):

- By necessity, street hails require clogging of "Schelling points" where drivers can expect to get line-of-sight to a potential fare, and vice versa. That doesn't happen with livery, where they go only where requested, not significantly different from a private car.

- Street hails create a risk of fighting over fairs, livery doesn't.

- Street hails enable you to pressure naive passersby/tourists to take your rate, livery requires you to ask for the fare from a central service.

- Medallion holders get use of the scarce privileges to use taxi stands and bus-only lanes, livery doesn't.

- Livery creates a central, auditable record of the event, while street hails can rip you off without showing up on an audit.

To be sure, Uber/Lyft are flouting even some of the requirements of livery services ... but the medallion case looks more like "street hails are becoming obsolete in the information age, so of course they'll lose value".

Re: For San Francisco Cab Drivers, Once-Treasured Medallions Now a Burden

#52
post #17

This isn't unique to San Francisco, the entire industry is in a free fall nationwide... It is incredible to watch the effects of a little innovation and (effectively) deregulation. Chicaco: "Once a sure bet, taxi medallions becoming unsellable" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9564478 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/05/17/taxi-medallion... New York: "New York City Taxi Medallion Prices Keep Falling" https…

Don't forget that the "innovator" is operating illegally in many jurisdictions and is actively trying to buy protection (i.e., lobbying).

In most places it is completely legal. Street hailing is different than dispatch hailing in most jurisdictions.

In others jurisdictions it is gray territory and some govs err on the side of the taxis. But I don't really know of many jurisdictions were it is outright illegal.

Re: For San Francisco Cab Drivers, Once-Treasured Medallions Now a Burden

#53

Cab driver /= medallion owner. For every poor hardworking cab driver who has taken a mortgage out to buy a medallion, there are a dozen sleazy operators who own piles of them, do not drive, and have leased them out to cabbies at horrific rates.

> there are a dozen sleazy operators who own piles of them, do not drive, and have leased them out to cabbies at horrific rates. How is that sleazy? If cabbies are willing to pay then it sounds like the market is working.

By 'sleazy' I mean this: http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-taxi-medallion-king/i...

Full article: (heavily discussed on HN a couple weeks ago) http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-taxi-medallion-king/

Sleazy business operators are those who take advantage of employees, who do things like allocate risk from the highest earners to the lowest. In taxis, this is commonly done by charging a fixed rate for a limited asset (medallion/cab) used in a highly variable business. Individual drivers then carry the risk rather than the millionaire. Legal, but sleazy.

Re: For San Francisco Cab Drivers, Once-Treasured Medallions Now a Burden

#54
post #6
post #2

I don't know what to say. These people made a bet that the future would look like the past. They were wrong, and it's costing them significantly. Yet... what are we supposed to do about it?

If the medallion is the only way you can be a taxi, then enforce it. If Lyft and Uber are legitimate, then lose the medallion and pay this guy back his $250K.

A medallion is not and never was the only way to be a "taxi."

Yes, there is little difference between street hailing and dispatch these days. But the law never guaranteed them immunity from dispatch innovation.

No one was scammed. But you can still feel sorry for the guy.

If there is one thing to learn - DIVERSIFY YOUR INVESTMENTS!

Re: For San Francisco Cab Drivers, Once-Treasured Medallions Now a Burden

#55
post #7

Here's the thing I don't understand -- if the main attraction (from a customer point of view) is the app (with everything that comes with it), why haven't the cab companies got in on the same game? Either put out their own app to hail rides (and maybe give their cabs a more luxury look to them), or sign up as Uber/Lyft drivers themselves? Or is there something I'm missing?

I think when you say "the app" you really mean "the convenience of not having to hail a cab" specifically. The app is a game changer, but not for that reason. Not having to hail is nice, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. For example, a couple of days ago I took an Uber. The driver that picked me up was a student. I asked him why he was driving, and he said, "Oh, well I came [to this city] to hang out with my fr…

[deleted]

Re: For San Francisco Cab Drivers, Once-Treasured Medallions Now a Burden

#56
post #51
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People face investment risk all the time, but medallions are a case of a city setting explicit expectations when selling the medallions and then changing the terms of the deal post facto. Chipotle devoured a huge chunk of the fast food market, but the city didn't collect money from McDonalds for a guarantee that Chipotle wouldn't be allowed to enter. Notably, this is illegal by federal law for auto manufacturers and…

Hold on -- there's a big difference between "the government reneged on its promise to keep squatters off your land" vs "no one wants your land anymore". If they start turning a blind eye to squatters, it's fair to criticize that government for reneging. If the other city becomes such a vibrant spot that no one wants to live near you -- different story entirely. While local governments are arguably failing to require…

Street hails work when my phone battery dies.

Re: For San Francisco Cab Drivers, Once-Treasured Medallions Now a Burden

#57
I see a lot of comments suggesting that medallion owners should be compensated. But the government is not morally obligated to compensate people whose investments lose money due to changes in regulation. And it would be prohibitively expensive to do so, because it is a one-sided affair. No one who made money investing in medallions when they went up in price was arguing "when we bought medallions, we thought that the number of available medallions would increase with demand, resulting in a stable price. Instead, prices shot up, so we feel we should pay back the government some money because their unexpected policy change benefitted us".

The government might sometimes compensate people, but that would depend on many factors such as 1) To what extent the person was unable to avoid the risk, and to what extent they willingly bet on the price of the medallion, and 2) Whether the government did all in its power to keep policies predictable, given the unpredictable nature of technological change.

Re: For San Francisco Cab Drivers, Once-Treasured Medallions Now a Burden

#58
post #51
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People face investment risk all the time, but medallions are a case of a city setting explicit expectations when selling the medallions and then changing the terms of the deal post facto. Chipotle devoured a huge chunk of the fast food market, but the city didn't collect money from McDonalds for a guarantee that Chipotle wouldn't be allowed to enter. Notably, this is illegal by federal law for auto manufacturers and…

Hold on -- there's a big difference between "the government reneged on its promise to keep squatters off your land" vs "no one wants your land anymore". If they start turning a blind eye to squatters, it's fair to criticize that government for reneging. If the other city becomes such a vibrant spot that no one wants to live near you -- different story entirely. While local governments are arguably failing to require…

Everything you say is technically correct, but when something has been valuable for a very long time primarily due to government regulation only, and then it suddenly loses most of its value in the span of just a few years, I don't think it's fair for people who just recently entered the market after years of waiting to suffer all the loss (while their predecessors, purely by chance, made their investment back many times over). At the very least this loss should be spread around in some way - Uber and Lyft drivers could bear some of the load, recent purchasers of medallions could be bumped to the front of the sales line, etc. Many different options.

I don't want to live in a society where government regulation leads to financial disaster for individuals, and the society and government response is "tough luck".

Re: For San Francisco Cab Drivers, Once-Treasured Medallions Now a Burden

#59
It's hard to feel bad for people who chose to invest in rigged markets. Their frustration should remain squarly with local representation. Show me the public vote that decided to implement medallions. It's like voting to regulate the number of restaurants in a given city and leaving half that market to mcdonalds. (For safety of course) People would laugh at not leaving that up to supply and demand. The only reason it worked with cabs is because nobody used to care how it worked keeping it open to political grease balling. Suddenly people care and now everybody is scrambling trying to explain their positions on it. And make no doubt about it... Every representative from when it was implemented to today is responsible for allowing it to continue under their watch. Once they know you all are going to hold our representitives personally responsible it will go back to supply and demand faster than anybody can thrown money at it.

Re: For San Francisco Cab Drivers, Once-Treasured Medallions Now a Burden

#60
There are 1800 medallions for all of SF ( https://www.sfmta.com/services/taxi-industry/medallions/meda... )

At 250k, buying them back would cost $450 million.

The city could tax the new cabbies on a percentage of each fare, while buying back medallions over the next few years.

Post reply on HN