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

31–40 of 133 posts

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

#31

Post by sngz »

dvtrn wrote: post #8
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mode…

i loved fasten the app was pretty well run and handled the load during SXSW pretty well.

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

#32

Post by baddox »

darawk wrote: post #30
pbreit wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

I bet it would have the same level of influence for people whose primary goal is to gain political power, and I bet those people (not by coincidence) tend to be the ones who become politicians.

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

#33

Post by techsupporter »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #28
CaptainZapp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that's not what the author wrote in context. He is pointing out that representatives from rural and suburban areas propose regulations and laws that benefit those types of areas and are often directly opposite of what people in a dense area need or want.

That's not being insulting; that's the expected outcome. People should advocate for what is suitable for the area where they live. (What that happens to be and how to implement it is always up for debate.) But for a representative of a rural or suburban area to insist that a city have the same rules as--and no more than--a rural area is not feasible.

That's what the author was getting at within the context of those two paragraphs. It's also the push/pull dynamic of cities and rural/suburban areas that's been going on in state governments since time immemorial.

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

#34

Post by vkou »

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?

The worst case scenario is also that fixed rate, lottery availability taxi is completely replaced by highest bidder availability.

Depending on your value system, this can be a good, or a bad thing.

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

#35

Post by vkou »

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?

One's illegal.

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

#36

Post by vkou »

darawk wrote: post #30
pbreit wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When I see a politician selling their constituents up the river to a special interest group that also happens to fund his re-election (or threaten funding of his opponents), I don't actually feel much different then if it were a regular quid pro quo corruption arrangement. It happens all the fucking time.

In fact, that they aren't breaking any laws when doing so makes me feel more incensed about it.

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

#37

Post by joecool1029 »

Honestly, I would much prefer everything get regulated at state level.

I live in NJ. There are 565 municipalities here. Every single one has different regulations. For example, if one were to pick up a prearranged regular fare from Terminal A at EWR (Newark Liberty International), they might not know that this terminal is in the City of Elizabeth. The city sometimes has plainclothes detectives write $783 tickets. For prearranged pickups by non-airport taxi, not solicitation.

Uber and Lyft got regulated under a statewide 'rideshare' law here. Townships and cities can't ticket them for doing pickups. Taxis have to know all the regulation of every municipality they operate in. In the above example, Elizabeth wrote a ton of tickets for rideshare drivers before the statewide framework into effect.

I'm aware large cities provide unique challenges and can understand why NYC for instance should be allowed to regulate their own taxi/livery situation, but for the rest of the state it doesn't make sense to have every little town have different regulations.

Edit: Seems someone did write a petition that even covers the nuance of allowing some larger municipalities a little oversight https://www.change.org/p/new-jersey-governor-help-the-taxi-i...

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

#38

Post by stale2002 »

vkou wrote: post #34
pbreit wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The worst case scenario is also that fixed rate, lottery availability taxi is completely replaced by highest bidder availability. Depending on your value system, this can be a good, or a bad thing.

Nothing about Uber and Lyft existing prevents taxis from continuing to operate via fixed rate availability.

In many of the big cities, taxis still exist alongside Uber and Lyft.

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

#39

Post by stale2002 »

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 anyone else be speaking up about legislative issues?

Doesn't everyone else have the same rights as a mayor to do so?

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

#40

Post by stale2002 »

spacegod wrote: post #15
scarejunba wrote: post #13

I've seen the effect of San Francisco "governing itself". In many respects, I would rather they didn't. "Governing itself" isn't some magical good. The cost of incompatible laws in jurisdictions can be large and invisible. Since the legislature ignores the cost of laws, they are encouraged to complicate things as much as possible. I'm on Lyft's side here.

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

It is certainly more "democratic" to have important issues, such as housing, governed at the state level, and not at the local level.

Do you oppose democracy or something?

Post reply on HN