Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

humantransit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 133 posts

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#21

Post by kodablah »

eganist wrote: post #9
kodablah wrote: post #6

Color 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…

> 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.

I specifically mentioned that they aren't innocent parties for this reason. Turns out accepting bribes (if that's what we're calling it) in public office is also a crime yet the focus here is on one side. Why?

> it's only the technicalities (i.e. Lyft is not a legislator) that differ

Yes, that's spin and it's a form of deflecting from the real issue which is that the state and city disagree (on the bill, on one side succumbing to lobbying, etc). The statement does not hold, specifically and as a whole; it needs to be made at who is really "attempting to pass" the bill. Who exerts the greatest control and why is the letter not aimed there? The question can only be asked so many ways, but sadly all this deflecting about bribery, technicalities, quality of rebuttal, etc here and by politicians prevent real answers that should be asked of the real lawmakers.

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#23

Post by int_19h »

pbreit wrote: post #20
dvtrn wrote: post #3

I'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…

Shouldn't legislation be more reactive than preemptive? Isn't the Uber/Lyft worst case scenario that traffic gets a little worse?

Preemptive in this case means that only the state legislature can pass laws on this, and cities can't have bylaws on the subject. The declared intent is to ensure that some legislative subject is uniform throughout the state.

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#24

Post by notduncansmith »

iamdave wrote: post #16
spacegod wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want corporate interests to rule a city? That's not even remotely democratic.

"Governing itself" isn't some magical good I don't think one who holds this particular stance is particularly concerned with the merits of democracy. Call me on it, if I'm wrong, scarejunba.

For what it’s worth, I read that comment as drawing attention to the fact that democracy, while powerful, can be misdirected. People make mistakes, and in large groups, peoples make mistakes, especially when working with a complex set of top-down rules that we’ve built up over centuries for the purpose of controlling other people in a world that has had billions of years to develop its own complexities. As an aside, that fragility is why such top-down structures are so rare in nature.

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#26

Post by Dylan16807 »

iamdave wrote: post #16
spacegod wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want corporate interests to rule a city? That's not even remotely democratic.

"Governing itself" isn't some magical good I don't think one who holds this particular stance is particularly concerned with the merits of democracy. Call me on it, if I'm wrong, scarejunba.

The topic is city level democracy vs. county or state level democracy.

A lot of housing and transportation problems are caused by the regulation being too local.

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#28

Post by Dylan16807 »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #10
wutbrodo wrote: post #4

It'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…

Repeatedly stating that only city folk can understand a city is uh... rather divisive and insults the reader's intelligence.

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#29

Post by Dylan16807 »

dvtrn wrote: post #14
rahimnathwani wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state is considering a piece of legislation. The mayor: - wrote a letter and released it for publication by the press - gave interviews or quotations to journalists for publication Both of these seek to influence state legislators, and the evidence is right there in the article. Where is the evidence of Lyft's lobbying? And does 'who started it' matter? (I mean, if X did the first lobbying act, does that automati…

Both of these seek to influence state legislators, and the evidence is right there in the article. Where is the evidence of Lyft's lobbying? I'd like to counter your question with a question: why shouldn't a mayor be speaking up to influence state legislators if they believe legislative issues could have an impact on their city? This is literally one of the primary duties of being an elected leader at the city level.

> why shouldn't a mayor be

...but nobody said they shouldn't.

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#30

Post by darawk »

pbreit wrote: post #19
darawk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Contrary to popular belief, lobbying and bribery are in fact not the same thing.

What's the difference?

Seriously? Lobbyists are paid to talk to politicians. They represent interest groups, and make their case in DC and other places. They do make campaign contributions, but that does not represent anywhere near the same level of influence as an actual person to person, quid pro quo bribe. There are actual places in the world where bribery is rampant, and if you lived in one of those places, you really wouldn't need to ask this question.
Post reply on HN