Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 321 posts

Re: San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

#51

Post by draw_down »

quotemstr wrote: post #4

Business permits should be shall-issue: if an applicant adheres to a set of rules known in advance, the city ought to have no power to deny its permit application. Want to limit the number of something? Fine. Auction off medallions or something in a transparent, open way. Don't pick and choose businesses the way SF busybodies do. San Francisco has severe and worsening problems primarily due to rampant interference in…

Why? If people don’t want it there then the permits shouldn’t be issued. Not that this is necessarily the case in SF specifically.

Re: San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

#52

Post by eropple »

xtqctz wrote: post #48
eropple wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When corporate entities happily take money in exchange for their clients littering the streets with eyesores, it is a rather important problem. Boston hasn't been overrun yet, and I am hopeful that we stay that way.

The argument was that the market is important, not that the resulting behaviors of users are an important nuisance to you.

OK.

I care.

Wait, no, I really, really, really really don't.

Ends matter and the ends of the shitty scooter companies are awful at the human scale.

Re: San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

#55

Post by draw_down »

djrogers wrote: post #20

This really comes off as spiteful and childish. Bird and Lime didn't come kiss the ring before daring to provide services to the residents of San Francisco, so they get kicked to the curb in favor of a couple of companies who's timing hadn't yet angered the City.

I just don’t understand this attitude that these companies are owed their ability to do business, particularly when it involves just dumping these things on the public sidewalks.

Re: San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

#56

Post by Felz »

Is a license for 2500 scooters worth much, startup wise? Pulling numbers from this:

https://medium.com/13-notes/unit-economics-of-the-bird-scoot...

To maintain a presence of 2500 scooters for a year, you'd need 2500 * (365 days / 50 days (scooter lifespan)) = 18.2k scooters. That's 18.2k * $600 (lifetime cost) = $10.9 million in capital.

Each of these scooters generating $14 in revenue a day is $12.7 million in revenue a year, for a profit of $1.8 million and a 16% return on capital. If we assume a San Francisco quota was rolled out to the entire country, that'd be (325 million / 880k) * 1.8 million = $664 million in profit, at best.

Re: San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

#57

Post by LeoPanthera »

isoskeles wrote: post #38
LeoPanthera wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The companies in question already had a history of operating illegally in San Francisco. I don't think it's fair to dismiss that as "picking and choosing". Dumping those scooters over the city is effectively littering. Business should be able to operate freely, but they should not be able to break the law until someone catches them.

It's not littering. You know this.

Honestly I don't know. It feels like littering. If the company suddenly closed - what now? Presumably they're unusable without the backend.

Re: San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

#59

Post by enraged_camel »

jzymbaluk wrote: post #47
threeseed wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are saying you wouldn't complain if a 50 storey apartment complex was built right next to you and bathed your entire house in darkness 24/7. Sure thing. This free for all world sounds downright scary.

Why shouldn't land owners be able to build whatever they want on their own property? It's not your backyard, it's your neighbors property

Playing devil's advocate here (which is my way of saying "bring on the downvotes"): because what they build can still generate negative externalities that affect their neighbors. So even though a 50-story building might be in compliance with zoning laws, it still blocks neighbor's access to a valuable, albeit non-essential resource (sunlight, cool ocean breeze, etc.) that probably factored into the price the original owner paid for their property.

In other words, you are free to build whatever you want on your own property, as long as its effects don't negatively impact the value of mine. (I personally will never block developments, but I think I would have a right to be pissed off as hell if something like that happened, still.)

Re: San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

#60

Post by gk1 »

threeseed wrote: post #18
ohazi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with home renovation / remodeling / addition / construction permits. If your design meets code and zoning, it should automatically get approved. None of this nimby-neighbor-going-to-the-planning-meeting-and-getting-your-project-cancelled-because-your-chimney-will-cast-a-shadow-on-their-backyard bullshit.

So you are saying you wouldn't complain if a 50 storey apartment complex was built right next to you and bathed your entire house in darkness 24/7. Sure thing. This free for all world sounds downright scary.

"Now that I live here, nobody else can."
Post reply on HN