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

71–80 of 321 posts

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

#71

Post by adamson »

markdown wrote: post #67
jzymbaluk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because that is in nobody's interest. Your neighbour would also suffer if you decided to set up a poultry farm on your property. You can't live in a happy, healthy community without giving up a little bit of control in favour of the common good.

Right, and that's why zoning boards should stop your neighbors from building poultry farms in their backyards.

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

#72

Post by bsder »

emodendroket wrote: post #63
jzymbaluk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Imagine you owned a home and somebody wanted to put a nightclub on one side of you and an abattoir on the other. Do you think that might affect your quality of life at all? I mean hey, it's their property!

The problem is that you are regulating a proxy rather than the externaility.

Having laws about quiet times and public smells prevents the nightclub and abbattoir from locating there without blocking usages.

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

#73

Post by [deleted] »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #26
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…

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.

[deleted]

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

#74

Post by ckocagil »

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

No, why should they?

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

#75

Post by trhway »

dmix wrote: post #34
jonny_eh wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What law did they break?

Whatever law it may be it was most certainly not designed in the era of these scooters being a thing.

unfortunately the city itself - for example streets, sidewalks, etc. - also wasn't designed in the era of these scooters being a thing.

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

#76

Post by kojeovo »

yumraj wrote: post #35

I'd love to be proven wrong, only future will tell, but this seems to be yet another fad being funded by free money from VCs. In fact the only winner in all of this are the manufacturers who are making these scooters. According to https://qz.com/1257198/xiaomi-makes-the-bird-and-spin-scoote... at least Bird and Spin are using Xiomi scooters. Lime is also made overseas, read China. So, this is nothing but Silicon Vall…

Very little moving to China according to that aticle

> Bird could buy a fleet of 500 scooters for $137,500, or 0.1% of its total funding

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

#77

Post by adrr »

djrogers wrote: post #24
WisNorCan wrote: post #3

I generally away from regulation, but let me articulate the pro-regulation argument. Markets that are important (like transportation) and have network effects need to be regulated. A monopoly with Uber and/or Lyft dominating local transportation is not good for consumers or cities in the long-term. Cities should take control of their transportation and ensure competition by managing allocation of capacity. I think th…

Wait, so a monopoly with Skip and Scoot is somehow better? Literally the only thing creating any sort of scarcity or monopoly here is regulation, so claiming it's necessary to prevent a monopoly is a bit ludicrous. I don't think many people are in favor of zero regulation, but politicians literally picking winners and losers instead of the market is even worse.

Politicians shouldn't be picking winners or losers as this can lead to corruption and regulatory capture.

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

#78

Post by bradleybuda »

WisNorCan wrote: post #3

I generally away from regulation, but let me articulate the pro-regulation argument. Markets that are important (like transportation) and have network effects need to be regulated. A monopoly with Uber and/or Lyft dominating local transportation is not good for consumers or cities in the long-term. Cities should take control of their transportation and ensure competition by managing allocation of capacity. I think th…

How do "transportation" companies (dockless scooters in this case) have network effects? The automobile industry, which is about as mature as markets get, has seven companies in the US with at least 5% market share and the leader (GM) has merely 17%, and is largely bereft of command-and-control economic policies.

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

#79

Post by greglindahl »

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…

This is a brand new business category and no one has any idea how much demand there is and what rules are needed or are reasonable or are sufficient to prevent problems like blocking sidewalks.

What you're describing might be possible for a mature business category.

The free market doesn't always magically work.

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

#80

Post by minikites »

Meekro wrote: post #32
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.

If I'd started a scooter company before scooter companies were a thing, went to any city and asked for permission, they would have said "wtf? no." (assuming they answered my petition at all) and that would have been the end of it. The only reason we're here arguing about this is companies like Bird chose to ask for forgiveness rather than permission in the past.

>ask for forgiveness rather than permission

Do you genuinely think it's good for society when businesses do this?

Post reply on HN