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

161–170 of 321 posts

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

#161

Post by dack »

upzone wrote: post #124
dack wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

I agree with you in that I still think the right thing to do is build.

I also think it's really easy to say "sorry, you fucked up when you spent all your money on a house" if it's someone else. These aren't all "Boomers who got lucky" - they are also millennials buying their houses today at current rates.

I think we have to have more empathy for these people if we want to make progress.

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

#162

Post by toomuchtodo »

0xB31B1B wrote: post #158
toomuchtodo wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

All property owners are afforded protection under the law, regardless of income and wealth status. Low income renters, by the very definition, have no equity in the situation. Someone would need to subsidize the equity you want them to have (no complaints with that, just find the voluntary party willing to pay for it).

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

#163

Post by megaremote »

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.

Wow, you must go crazy every time you see a car, which must take up 100x the space, cause 50x the damage.

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

#164

Post by [deleted] »

Felz wrote: post #56

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 reven…

[deleted]

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

#165

Post by enraged_camel »

upzone wrote: post #124
dack wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

>>That’s the other thing: real estate is not a guaranteed investment.

The types of people the parent is describing don't buy real estate as an investment. They buy it as an asset. And for most Americans, their house is their most valuable asset.

So can you not spare a shred of sympathy that they are hyper-conscious about what happens to the value of that asset?

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

#166

Post by upzone2 »

dack wrote: post #161
upzone wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

I agree with you in that I still think the right thing to do is build. I also think it's really easy to say "sorry, you fucked up when you spent all your money on a house" if it's someone else. These aren't all "Boomers who got lucky" - they are also millennials buying their houses today at current rates. I think we have to have more empathy for these people if we want to make progress.

If you can show me that building more housing causes everyone else’s property values to fall, I’ll believe you. Until then, these are the exact same arguments people use to prevent building any housing.

Remember, this all rests on the assumption that building housing necessarily depresses property values, and that isn’t a guarantee. You can tell because it goes further than that. It’s hard to build any housing at all. My city had about 100,000 people in it. I know some smart urban planners and they estimate it would take about 20,000 to 30,000 new units to stabilize our rental market. Not drive prices down, just stabilize. But we can’t even build ONE apartment building, let alone tens of thousands of units. Even if more housing would drive property values down (which it doesn’t necessarily), it would take so much housing before it ever got to that point.

And once again, we can have empathy and we can build housing. I promise one or two apartment buildings isn’t going to ruin grandma and grandpa’s home value. I promise.

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

#167

Post by mrep »

mancerayder wrote: post #140
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?

That's where zoning comes in. Residential, commercial and so forth. NYC has dozens of zoning codes (eg., R6, R2, https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/districts-tools/re... is just a link to R and there are links on the left to C and the rest), and re-zoning requires a complicated political process. There's no chance of a nightclub opening up next door, but there's plenty of chances a few blocks aware where light…

Are we talking through each other because I feel like we are arguing the same point.

jzymbaluk said "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" which screams "No zoning" to me.

Then "saagarjha" said "As long as they follow the noise and disturbance ordinances, then sure." which screams "the market will naturally balance homeowner satisfaction with factories/businesses".

I responded with "Are you suggesting that nightclubs should be banned altogether? If not, then where do you suggest to put them since they are inherently noisy?" as without zoning, homeowners, businesses, and factories could be right next to each other.

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

#168

Post by upzone2 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #165
upzone wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

>>That’s the other thing: real estate is not a guaranteed investment. The types of people the parent is describing don't buy real estate as an investment. They buy it as an asset. And for most Americans, their house is their most valuable asset. So can you not spare a shred of sympathy that they are hyper-conscious about what happens to the value of that asset?

Can you not spare a shred of sympathy for people who want to live in the city they work in but can’t because property owners won’t let them? Sorry, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who actively block building new housing because “screw you, got mine”. (Also, building housing doesn’t just tank the value of your home, trust me.)

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

#169

Post by cjlars »

Felz wrote: post #56

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 reven…

The 50 day lifespan seems too low. Even if the batteries can only survive ~50 charges, the rest of the scooter will outlive the battery. Revising that number upwards skyrockets the ROI figure...

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

#170

Post by beachy »

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 "…

If you buy a property that has a magnificent view, but has an empty building lot next door, or an old dilapidated home ripe for being pulled down, then, in a transparent zoning situation, you'll be fully aware that you may be built out and you'll have no rights to prevent it.

That means you'll pay less for your property, and you get to enjoy your view for as long as it lasts, and keep some money in your pocket.

If on the other hand you do have all sorts of rights to prevent anyone from building out your view then that same house will cost you a lot more - perhaps more than you'll be able to afford.

Either of these situations seems fair, because you know the rules in advance.

Crappy situations arise when the rules are not clear. In that case, you don't really know how much you should pay for that house, and you may suffer immense angst when your view disappears.

Post reply on HN