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

281–290 of 321 posts

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

#281

Post by emodendroket »

saagarjha wrote: post #205
emodendroket wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I don't really get what you mean; that's the whole point of zoning and an approval process. What's your objection to that way of doing things?

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

#282

Post by [deleted] »

anonsfnative wrote: post #240
colordrops wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's how a city should operate. The citizens should regulate how the city regulates.

We do. That's what people here are complaining about. They have no stake in this game, have no intention of becoming part of the community, they're just looking for a cheap buck and don't mind if they ruin everything that makes our home great. There are plenty of other places to go to, and everybody whining about "San Francisco being a zoning failure" might want to remember that we have a larger GDP than many develop…

[deleted]

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

#283

Post by davidgould »

wellyeah wrote: post #275
andr wrote: post #88

SFMTA has published the detailed feedback[1] and summary ratings[2] for each petition. Although the actual applications are not published, it really looks like Bird did a poor job on paper. For example, most of the companies relied on swipe-through screens in apps to remind people to use helmets, which the SFMTA deems insufficient. I have to agree, as I have rarely seen someone on a scooter with a helmet. [1] https:/…

I ride them daily, and I don't want to use a helmet. I feel that I and I alone am responsible for my own safety. It's not like other people are going to get hurt because I'm not wearing a helmet.

You have no parents, no siblings, no friends to grieve over you? The EMT whose effort to stabilize or resuscitate you fails should shrug and move on? Your employer is able to replace you with no disruption? Your insurance will cover your treatment and disability for the next 20 years?

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

#284

Post by Kalium »

JeremyBanks wrote: post #125
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

It's worth remembering that Uber learned the lesson of Night School - a startup that insisted on playing by the rules and for its honesty was shut down. https://psmag.com/economics/night-school-failed-because-it-f...

Combined, the lesson here seems to be this:

* Asking permission for something new will tend to get you squashed.

* If you're big enough, popular enough, and rich enough, you can work around this.

* If someone else fails at that approach, you might get in in an arbitrarily regulated way some time later.

I can see where some might like this lesson! Though personally, I think there might be some opportunity for improvement.

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

#285

Post by tomatotomato37 »

upzone wrote: post #118
ohazi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with home renovation / remodeling / addition / construction permits. If your design meets code and zoning, it should automatically get approved. None of this nimby-neighbor-going-to-the-planning-meeting-and-getting-your-project-cancelled-because-your-chimney-will-cast-a-shadow-on-their-backyard bullshit.

That’s called by-right and lots of cities (maybe all? Not sure if it’s a local/state/federal thing) have that. That doesn’t stop NIMBYism (all you have to do is downzone), but for areas that are reasonably densely zoned, you don’t need any variances for projects that conform to zoning ordinances. The real issue with NIMBYs is how restrictive zoning is. Sure, you can build anything you want if it conforms, but good lu…

Don't forget the fun of HoA's. Those nice standardized apartment blueprints now need 2 tons of architectural foam glued on them to match the mcmansions in the neighboring subdivision, and then the renter's get charged an extra $20 a month so a group of jaded retirees can argue with each other about the grass height surrounding their $500,000 houses

Source: I rent in one of these atrocities.

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

#286

Post by eropple »

megaremote wrote: post #163
eropple wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1) I believe urban areas--say, within half a mile of a subway stop--should be generally car-restricted to its residents, yes. (Exceptions of course exist but they can be managed; Boston has an MBTA car service for the disabled, as an example.) But no, cars don't belong where humans live.

2) As the sibling comments note, cars tend to park in observance of the law and don't go whizzing down the sidewalk while I am walking to work.

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

#288

Post by nojvek »

Someone wrote: post #261
darawk wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You honestly believe that had Bird, initially an unheard of company, gone to say, the city of Los Angeles and said "We'd like to put scooters everywhere, is that cool?" They'd have said "sure"? I think that's incredibly naive. The absolute best outcome for Bird would have been the city saying "you can put them in designated scooter areas, and they have to be docked in designated scooter areas". And that would have tu…

”We'd like to put scooters everywhere, is that cool?” That would have gotten a no, but ”we would like to do an experiment decreasing road congestion” could have gotten them a yes _and_ a subsidy for running the experiment. And yes, that “yes” would have had strings attached, even if it weren’t subsidized, but that’s normal for anthingmyhea affects shared space. If a company goes to the city and says “we would like to…

Yeah but an experiment wouldn’t have gotten them those fat VC dollars.

Fat VC dollars come when they think you’ll dominate the world of scooters and put them everywhere. If you spend some of those millions fighting city governments so be it. Bribe them, make them fail elections, find loopholes, extend court trials forever. This companies have almost an unlimited supply of money.

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

#289

Post by WalterSear »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #256
darawk wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You honestly believe that had Bird, initially an unheard of company, gone to say, the city of Los Angeles and said "We'd like to put scooters everywhere, is that cool?" They'd have said "sure"? I think that's incredibly naive. The absolute best outcome for Bird would have been the city saying "you can put them in designated scooter areas, and they have to be docked in designated scooter areas". And that would have tu…

> You honestly believe that had Bird, initially an unheard of company, gone to say, the city of Los Angeles and said "We'd like to put scooters everywhere, is that cool?" They'd have said "sure"? Yes? I'd assume it would take finding someone friendly who works for the city, getting them interested in the concept, and getting their help and support in navigating the process, but yes, I'd absolutely expect the city to…

You live in a way cooler city than I ever have.

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

#290

Post by csallen »

emodendroket wrote: post #277
csallen wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't contradict my point, as I never claimed that was impossible for housing values to depreciate, only that the alternative happens "often". Specifically: You're treating all real estate as if it's the same, but the world is more complex than that. We're talking about dense metro areas , where development primarily happens to support growing populations and an influx of businesses. How many expensive homes i…

Are we? I was responding to a claim that property owners should have absolute rights to build whatever they please on their property. Nobody builds big smoke stacks in the middle of major cities anymore but you could refer to some 19th-Century writing about London to see how that could be bad as well. Or you could read about the time the Thames stank so bad Parliament all had to leave and was finally compelled to do…

As far as I can gather from jeffbax's comment, yes, that's what he was talking about. Not giving property owners absolute rights to build whatever they please. I don't know how many people would seriously support going to that extreme.
Post reply on HN