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

151–160 of 321 posts

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

#151

Post by s0rce »

noobermin wrote: post #128
s0rce wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then I vote to give them a 2nd chance and see how it goes. Its easy to pull their permit in the future if needed.

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

#152

Post by csallen »

emodendroket wrote: post #146
jeffbax wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Changing conditions within an incredibly dense metro area are part of the terms and conditions into one moving there. If you want land, there's plenty of space for it -- outside the city as opposed to where people have a pressing need to work and live without spending hours commuting and are willing to put up with the density. It is unreasonable to expect things to stay static when so many lives depend on things chan…

Who's going to buy the home at the original price, let alone an appreciated one, if it's now next to a paper mill?

It doesn't make any sense to assume that someone would want to buy Home A, tear it down, and build a paper mill there, but that nobody could ever want to buy Home B next door and build a profitable venture there as well. Often in these situations, housing values go up, because the opportunity exists to build something more valuable than a house.

Furthermore, when you buy a house, you are a taking a risk. You're making an investment. I don't see why the rest of the world should be bending over backwards and living in stasis to protect your investment. If you want absolute control over what happens on your block, buy your block.

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

#153

Post by catacombs »

jamiequint wrote: post #106
throwaway4Later wrote: post #28

Interviewed with Scoot last month on Howard St. The entire experience felt like a Monty Python interview- engineers driven on a death march to get their stuff done and interview an endless stream of qualified candidates, all the while management isn't ready to hire, but still bringing on a torrent of candidates. The interviewing process was one of the most disorganized and chaotic I've ever gone through. Pair program…

Wow, someone's bitter they didn't pass an interview.

What an idiotic response.

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

#154

Post by bww »

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

Air rights.

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

#155

Post by berbec »

pgnas wrote: post #123

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 wit…

> Al Capone was taken down because he had more power than that of the government.

Really? Not conceding the point of him having more power or that being the reason he got taken down, but isn't it good thing we had strong federal government with tough regulation to pick up the slack of lax local regulators

> this will eventually lead to the destruction of our country, which, before that happens, will be a civil war.

Amazing performance there. From "denied scooter licenses" to "dystopian communist dictatorship" to "Civil war" in under 5 paragraphs.

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

#156

Post by toomuchtodo »

Alex3917 wrote: post #149
toomuchtodo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People want to use upzoning to change permissable uses after people have bought. That’s the problem. So you’re either arguing for zoning to remain static to maintain the property rights of surrounding owners, or someone’s getting screwed when zoning changes. The equitable solution would be to compensate surrounding owners for their property losing value or them losing enjoyment when zoning changes (similar to eminent…

> The equitable solution would be to compensate surrounding owners for their property losing value They already get compensated in the form of lower taxes. Just like how if the neighbors build something that increases their property value, they need to pay more in taxes.

You’re free to make that argument to property owners and see if it sticks. If I was a gambling man, I doubt you’d get any traction. And if you attempt to use legislation, you’re going to get shot right down, because property owners have more to lose than transient renters.

Big fan of FWD:Everyone by the way, great product.

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

#157

Post by mrep »

berbec wrote: post #127
mrep wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

:/ I understand the reasoning for zoning and don't have a better solution. Thus I am generally for zoning.

I was responding to (middle OP?) "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" and "As long as they follow the noise and disturbance ordinances, then sure."

Those former seems to suggest getting rid of zoning altogether which would cause horrible negative externalities IMO. The latter assumes noise disturbances would somehow balance the market which I highly doubt.

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

#158

Post by 0xB31B1B »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #137
upzone wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The equitable solution would be to compensate surrounding owners for their property losing value or them losing enjoyment when zoning changes... So we should use public money to compensate private property owners for making a bad gamble, at the expense of people who need a place to live. I’m sorry, but why is owning property a guarantee of a return on your investment? Should we compensate people who hold stock in c…

It’s not a gamble, it’s ownership. It’s not a guaranteed return, it’s compensation for loss of value by an injuring party. Them the breaks of real estate law and it’s English origins, and while I won’t dissuade you from action, know that it will take decades before you see meaningful change. Plan accordingly.

You lost me when you acted like property owners in California are poor and need protection. They have seen some of the greatest unearned wealth increases by sitting on their butts doing nothing in the past generations. Meanwhile, the low income renters are the ones actually needing “equity” in this situation

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

#160

Post by gnicholas »

ohazi wrote: post #21
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.

That. Meets. Zoning. Seriously, wtf.

One issue is that zoning rules don't always cover every potential problem. For example, there's been a huge controversy in Redwood City (and neighboring Atherton) regarding a coffee shop that is going in, which will employ lingerie-clad baristas (and apparently have mirrors on the ground, to make things even skeezier). [1]

This coffee shop apparently meets all current zoning rules, though the employees may need to be somewhat less scantily-clad than the ones working at other locations. Regardless, this shows one way in which zoning rules don't always predict developments that neighbors might reasonably want to avoid.

1: https://abc7news.com/business/lingerie-bikini-clad-baristas-...

EDIT: Thanks for downvoting, but perhaps a response would be more productive?

Post reply on HN