Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing
1–10 of 133 posts
Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing
#2After reading the article (including the letter which was reproduced within), I feel an equally fair title could be:
"Mayor and Commissioner of Transportation lobby for the right to enforce their own rules, not just state laws, on Lyft"
Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing
#3I've complained about this here before after Uber and Lyft did the same thing in Texas (https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2017-03-14/lege-f...), states certainly have an interest in legislative preemption when there's a good and prevailing cause for it, I won't argue the legal merits there, but I think this warrants serious consideration beyond the surface when voters (as was the case in Austin) decide on municipal code and business effectively 'buy' preemption or else threaten to take their ball and go home (https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-05-13/our-city-our...).
Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing
#4It's worth noting: as much as a low-quality source like this frames their headline as if devolving control to local government is an unalloyed good, the interplay between the policy of nested polities (eg city, state, federal) is a much more complex issue, and one that people come down on the other side of fairly often (as a simple, dramatic example, the repeal of Roe v Wade is considered to be a nightmare scenario for many here, and yet it's precisely a case of federal law restricting the ability of local govts under the aegis of protecting individual rights[1]).
I'm not expressing approval or disapproval of Lyft's actions, but I think it's worth pointing out what a low-quality source this is, given its reliance on leaning into the reader's biases right from the headline. Low-effort advocacy like this is almost never the best way to understand a topic, just as a libertarian think tank's hypothetical "Lyft protects consumers from authoritarian local govt's" headline wouldn't be.
[1] I know this is a complicated issue and I'm really not interested in getting arguing it on its merits; it's just a convenient, widely-recognized example that takes the jurisdictional form I'm describing here.
Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing
#5It's worth noting: as much as a low-quality source like this frames their headline as if devolving control to local government is an unalloyed good, the interplay between the policy of nested polities (eg city, state, federal) is a much more complex issue, and one that people come down on the other side of fairly often (as a simple, dramatic example, the repeal of Roe v Wade is considered to be a nightmare scenario f…
Merely curious since you went out of your way to twice refer to this as a 'low-quality source', but is there something remarkably un-qualitative about the writing on the topic of public transit in this blog-beyond your stated objections with this particular post? This post got me looking through the rest of the blog as someone passively interested in transit, but otherwise uninformed on the topic as an area of focused-study compared to Mr. Walker, here.
Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing
#6Color me naive, but I'm always confused why those troubled by the lobbying criticize the influencers instead of the influenced. The influenced aren't some innocent party here. Surely it is more reasonable to act in the best interest of your company as a lobbyist than it is to act against your constituents as a politician. Where is the scathing letter directed towards the writers/signatories/supporters of the bill in question? The reason you see this one is simple PR as a city lobbies for their way at the state level just as Lyft lobbies and they know anti-big-company is an effective tactic.
If the city of Portland has a problem with the state of Oregon, then that's where the politicians need to hash out their issues.
> Specifically, the bill Lyft has proposed and is attempting to pass [...]
Lulz...what kind of terrible spin is that. I would be ashamed if I voted for this guy. Lyft doesn't pass laws.
Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing
#7I've complained about this here before after Uber and Lyft did the same thing in Texas ( https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2017-03-14/lege-f... ), states certainly have an interest in legislative preemption when there's a good and prevailing cause for it, I won't argue the legal merits there, but I think this warrants serious consideration beyond the surface when voters (as was the case in Austin) decide on…
The most infuriating part of the state legislative preemption is that it was very obviously not necessary. Within days of the departure of Uber and Lyft there were competing services that operated just fine under the new regulations.
I won’t speak to whether the regulations were necessary or effective, but when the companies argued that there was an undue burden being imposed that would make it difficult to do business and then we witnessed the very opposite happen (smaller companies such as Fasten and nonprofits such as RideAustin were able to do just fine with the regulations), it sure made it smellier when the legislature came in and deemed it necessary to overturn the regulations.
Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing
#8I've complained about this here before after Uber and Lyft did the same thing in Texas ( https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2017-03-14/lege-f... ), states certainly have an interest in legislative preemption when there's a good and prevailing cause for it, I won't argue the legal merits there, but I think this warrants serious consideration beyond the surface when voters (as was the case in Austin) decide on…
The most infuriating part of the state legislative preemption is that it was very obviously not necessary. Within days of the departure of Uber and Lyft there were competing services that operated just fine under the new regulations. I won’t speak to whether the regulations were necessary or effective, but when the companies argued that there was an undue burden being imposed that would make it difficult to do busine…
Within days of the departure of Uber and Lyft there were competing services that operated just fine under the new regulations.
Good point, I always forget to mention those. While not without their own technical issues, I think RideATX (I forget what the other competing service that sprung up during that legislative frackas was named-was it Fasten that you mentioned?) had a lot going for it with real promise as a model cities could follow during the months Austin went without the two big names in ridesharing.
The story is even more baffling when you consider the story of HeyRide, who launched in Austin before Uber and Lyft even showed up (http://austin.culturemap.com/news/innovation/11-01-12-15-51-...)
Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing
#9Color me naive, but I'm always confused why those troubled by the lobbying criticize the influencers instead of the influenced. The influenced aren't some innocent party here. Surely it is more reasonable to act in the best interest of your company as a lobbyist than it is to act against your constituents as a politician. Where is the scathing letter directed towards the writers/signatories/supporters of the bill in…
> I'm always confused why those troubled by the lobbying criticize the influencers instead of the influenced.
Bribery tends to be a crime because we haven't found a way to short circuit en masse the human tendency to submit to influence.
> Lulz...what kind of terrible spin is that. I would be ashamed if I voted for this guy. Lyft doesn't pass laws.
Considering your comment, I shouldn't be surprised that you would be dismissive of the idea that directing influence means exerting greater control over the legislative process; it's only the technicalities (i.e. Lyft is not a legislator) that differ. The statement holds, and I think many of us would appreciate a more dignified rebuttal to the article's point rather than "lulz."
Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing
#10It's worth noting: as much as a low-quality source like this frames their headline as if devolving control to local government is an unalloyed good, the interplay between the policy of nested polities (eg city, state, federal) is a much more complex issue, and one that people come down on the other side of fairly often (as a simple, dramatic example, the repeal of Roe v Wade is considered to be a nightmare scenario f…
What exactly is low quality about the source? Apart from the fact that Mr. Walker is without question an expert in public transport most of the blog post reprints a letter from the city of Portland outlining Lyft's dirty tacticts.
The actual blog entry simply outlines the different requirements between dense - and suburban city areas.
Your comment, smearing the original poster, seems to me vile and totally beyond the point.