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

121–130 of 321 posts

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

#121

Post by freyr »

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…

> "due to rampant interference in the operation of the free market"

But maybe in another sense, San Francisco is a product, and the feature it's selling includes rampant overregulation.

If that's not a good business model, another city can step up and offer better incentives. And people can move there. There are many nice cities and towns in the US. If you insist on living on the dirty tip of a tiny overcrowded peninsula, that's a choice.

You're trying to regulate San Francisco's right to regulate.

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

#122

Post by fyfy18 »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #57
isoskeles wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wouldn’t worry too much about that. Here in London, most of the time when I see someone using an Ofo bike it’s some kids who clearly aren’t paying for them, but have found a way to unlock them.

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

#123

Post by pgnas »

The mafia was taken down in Chicago because it was providing something that was desired by the people, people who should be in control of their own lives and will ultimately be responsible for the decisions that they make, freedom. Unfortunately, the powers that be did not see it that way, you can argue that Al Capone was taken down for tax evasion, I don't care, this is how he was convicted,one has nothing to do with the other.

Al Capone was taken down because he had more power than that of the government. These companies are being shut down because they are not willing to pay the shakedown money by the city mafia.

We need to take this country back and until you people do not understand this, you will remain slaves. I almost believe that this is what you want..

I do not. This is NOT what this country was built upon and changing this, being OK with this will eventually lead to the destruction of our country, which, before that happens, will be a civil war.

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

#124

Post by upzone »

dack wrote: post #119
upzone wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So first of all, you don’t have a right not to live in a shadow. Millions of people in cities all over the world deal with it every day. It’s not that bad (tbh it probably helps AC bills too). You have certain rights when you buy property, but “a view” isn’t one of them. If you want scenery, move to the country. It’s gorgeous! Second, it’s frustrating that people only think of themselves. “What about my view?” What a…

I can understand this point of view, and I don't own a house so I'm not really "defending" anything here. I'd love for housing to be cheaper and for more people to build in SF. However, think about how you'd feel if you bought a house and spent most of your life savings on it (like most are forced to), only to find that it drops in value dramatically putting you underwater on the payments. It's not just about their "…

That’s the other thing: real estate is not a guaranteed investment. If you invest money in a house and its value goes down, I’m sorry, but that’s the risk you take. A home is not a guaranteed investment vehicle, despite that being the outcome when NIMBYs vote and craft policy to make it so.

Also, I don’t think people’s home values drop all that dramatically when new housing is built. We’ve been putting this off for decades, but we’ve also been artificially inflating housing prices. Maybe your tiny bungalow ISN’T actually worth $500,000. Maybe decades of bad local policy have ballooned the price of your house at the expense of others.

And even so, even if building housing makes your house decrease in value, that’s still not a good reason to prevent development. I care much more they cities are healthy and plentiful housing than I do about some Boomers who got lucky with when they bought into the real estate market.

The solution is actually remarkably simple: build more housing. We did it before; plenty of other countries with more sensible zoning laws do it. There aren’t enough places for people to live. We can either start killing people, or we can put up some walls. Personally, I’m a fan of buildings.

Edit: typos (phone)

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

#125

Post by JeremyBanks »

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.

Let this be a lesson to the next Uber. :)

And the current Uber too, actually. :D

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

#126

Post by stephengillie »

eropple wrote: post #30
xtqctz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you consider the short term rental of inexpensive scooters an important market needing laws to regulate their capacity (..by the wise and benevolent leaders of this sparkling city..), it's hard to imagine any market that would fall short of your importance threshold. The notion that the only way to ensure competition is to forbid it is convoluted.

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.

Bellevue, WA has a very unique solution. Most of their east-west avenues channel traffic to Bellevue Collection's shopping squares.

But not all. One street in either direction of Bellevue is essentially bus/pedestrian/bicycle friendly - 6th Street and 108th Ave. At their intersection is Bellevue's bus hub. 6th Ave provides bus access to the freeway, and pedestrian-only access to the Bellevue Collection.

108th has a bicycle lane wedged between car parking and the driving lane on either side, and this is where almost all of the Lime Bikes congregate. There are special painted squares, almost like Zipcar parking slots, where the bikes can usually be found. The bikes are occasionally seen outside apartments and businesses, but never for long - none have been there long enough to become a real eyesore.

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

#127

Post by berbec »

mrep wrote: post #92
saagarjha wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as they follow the noise and disturbance ordinances, then sure.

Are you suggesting that nightclubs should be banned altogether? If not, then where do you suggest to put them since they are inherently noisy?

GP point, I believe, is not to ban them as long as the conform to zoning code. If zone code allows his neighbor to convert to a nightclub, good!

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

#128

Post by noobermin »

s0rce wrote: post #91
minikites wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>ask for forgiveness rather than permission Do you genuinely think it's good for society when businesses do this?

In all cases, no. In this case, yes. Improving the sad state of transportation options in the bay area is beneficial to all residents. Two wrongs don't make a right. Fine them for breaking the rules and then allow them to continue. Don't give their business to a competitor in an act of revenge against their breaking the rules.

You're phrasing it as if it's "revenge" rather than the city looking out for its citizen's best interests. If this company has been willing to flaunt the rules, who's to say it won't again? That isn't "revenge," it seems more like using common sense.

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

#130

Post by stephengillie »

jshap70 wrote: post #5

off topic, but does anyone else find the name for Lime weird considering there's already something in the tech space with the same name?

I keep getting Lime confused with Limeade - the latter work to increase efficacy of corporate health plans, to make sure your employees get what you're paying the health insurance company for.

It's like "Pandora Nexus" all over again.

Post reply on HN