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

201–210 of 321 posts

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

#201

Post by saagarjha »

mrep wrote: post #167
mancerayder wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ho…

Overall the point I was trying to get at “if they follow the rules, then I don’t care if they’re next to my house”. Ideally there would be rules protecting me from annoyance such as noise pollution. Zoning rules would allow those that require more lenient regulations their own place to stay (note: this isn’t a NIMBY argument. It’s a “follow the rules” thing, which ideally should be constructed in a way to make it possible to build these while still not making it horrible for everyone else living there, and not putting any other restrictions just because I don’t want it next to my house).

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

#202

Post by fipple »

1024core wrote: post #175
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…

San Francisco has a 14-page rulebook for ... just replacing windows. http://default.sfplanning.org/publications_reports/Standards...

And the federal government issues effectively binding guidelines for the cap design of baby food. The upside? Windows don’t fall out into people and babies don’t choke on the caps.

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

#203

Post by curun1r »

jonny_eh wrote: post #27
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.

What law did they break?

The ADA, for one. Scooters left haphazardly in the middle of sidewalks are a menace to blind people.

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

#204

Post by fipple »

austenallred wrote: post #8
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…

San Francisco just granted two companies a monopoly when previously there were multiple companies fighting for the same business. That’s the exact opposite of what you’re advocating.

Well maybe those companies shouldn’t have been huge assholes the way that Uber was. The city is once bitten and twice shy with Uber.

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

#205

Post by saagarjha »

emodendroket wrote: post #144
berbec wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

"It technically complies with the law"seems like cold comfort. Anyway you're just moving the locus of struggle from the approval process to the zoning regulations, since anyone with their head screwed on is going to demand that the city council use the law to block a development like this.

Yeah, I understand that zoning is often used as a way to discourage building things that people don’t want built. But my idea was that hopefully there’s a way to make zoning “work”. I have no inherent issues with a nightclub; I just think it would be better from a noise perspective to put it downtown where it’s not going to bother other people.

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

#206

Post by fipple »

cjlars wrote: post #169
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...

The scooters that were in SF were certainly not surviving 50 days. They were 90% broken and not because of the battery.

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

#207

Post by almost_usual »

s0rce wrote: post #99
jsemrau wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are absolutely right. Dockless mobility uses public space for the benefit of a private corporation. I cycle to work and there is not a single day where I see an OfO bike or Grab bike parked in the most annoying places. Maybe "society" is not ready for dockless and we need to create norms and rules of behavior (i.e., enforce that with fines)

While I agree that this is an issues, in my opinion it is exceedingly minor, especially in comparison to the amount of cars illegally stopped or parked that I see while biking. In fact I had to merge into traffic a few times to go around tonight. A few bikes haphazardly placed is nothing more than a mild nuisance. Never mind the homeless camps and other litter everywhere in the bay area.

Wonder how many of those illegally stopped cars are Ubers and Lyfts...

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

#209

Post by throwaway66666 »

noobermin wrote: post #187
throwaway66666 wrote: post #180

I recently went south to LA and SD, and the scooters are awesome there. I saw them mostly near the beach, and 0 thrown in the middle of the pavement, none blocking exits or riding them obnoxiously. They even have scooter police that will give you a ticket if you go too fast (I am not saying that as necessarily a good thing, just that they seem to have their stuff together as cities). For the first time I actually mad…

They aren't going anywhere. People are just mad their favorite service didn't get chosen.

Who cares though, they are all the same. (I forgot which company's I used, until I checked my phone now to see the app). They really didn't work much on brand recognition, I 'm surprised people have favorites

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

#210

Post by austenallred »

fipple wrote: post #204
austenallred wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco just granted two companies a monopoly when previously there were multiple companies fighting for the same business. That’s the exact opposite of what you’re advocating.

Well maybe those companies shouldn’t have been huge assholes the way that Uber was. The city is once bitten and twice shy with Uber.

What did Bird or Lime do?
Post reply on HN