The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions • Hacker News Board

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#161

Post by bradleyjg » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 2:45 AM UTC

zimbu668 wrote: post #57

seanalltogether wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've brought this up in another thread, but over in the UK, due to a lack of property taxes, its possible to purchase a home, yet stil have to pay a yearly ground rent to a private party. The cost to own land in nothing, so there's little incentive to ever sell it, and instead lease it out. People may complain about property taxes in the USA, but it prevents this very practice from happening. It would be better for e…

Ground rent exists in the US as well. Baltimore has a lot of it, maybe Philly as well. A few years ago people were losing their houses over $30/yr bills from someone who found their great-great-grandpa had the ground rent title on whatever property.

In Hawaii it's pretty rare to be able to buy a property fee simple. Mostly it's long term leases.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#162

Post by rdtsc » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 2:47 AM UTC

larrys wrote: post #88

schiffern wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article said it pretty well. > So, medallion holders speculated in holding a government asset and lost. Some of these people are also taxi drivers or operators of taxi dispatch companies. Like Greek bondholders, they gambled and lost big.

"So, medallion holders speculated" Don't agree with that at all that is what the article says. (It doesn't match up with my definition either based on my years of business experience either.) Definition of "speculation" from investopedia: "The act of trading in an asset, or conducting a financial transaction, that has a significant risk of losing most or all of the initial outlay, in expectation of a substantial gain…

> "The act of trading in an asset, or conducting a financial transaction, that has a significant risk of losing most or all of the initial outlay, in expectation of a substantial gain."

Based on recent history no. But maybe based on longer history? Imagine a pandemic that wipes our a large # of population, now taxi medallions for whatever reason are not that important so they drop in value.

Medallion system is sustain by the laws. Laws can change. The bet is that the laws own't change drastically but that is just a "speculation".

Government is nice enough to offer a compensation in eminent domain, but they don't have to. What if they don't? What would you do? Sue them? You can't. Gather a militia and march towards the White House or the Senate building?

If you had asked someone 20-30 years or so ago. "Do you imagine government one day will be able to store and read all your communications, telephone, mail?" Most people would have bet it would never happen because of Free Speech and it was just something we made fun of other corrupt and evil countries of doing. Yet here we are today. If you'd somehow made a financial bet against it, it would be a losing bet.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#163

Post by jbooth » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 2:48 AM UTC

argumentum wrote: post #133

jbooth wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driving taxis isn't a crime against humanity. Your argument is that requiring medallions to drive a taxi (which I agree has become an inefficient and slightly corrupt situation) is in any way comparable to slavery is an insult to anybody who's ever read any history.

> Driving taxis isn't a crime against humanity The problem here isn't some people "driving taxis", its that these people, and organizations associated with them, lobbied for and bought into a system that prevents, by force of government, anyone else from driving taxis. And of course, even that is not a crime against humanity. If it was, I'd be advocating the use of military intervention if it was serious enough, such…

That's a valid argument (I think some token compensation is fair, but can totally see both sides).

But if you interlaced every other word with 'fuck' and questioning the sexuality of other posters, you couldn't expect to be judged on the merits of your argument. Personally (others may disagree), I see totally unnecessary comparisons to slavery the same way.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#164

Post by jbooth » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 2:50 AM UTC

NoPiece wrote: post #9

tptacek wrote: post #4

Apart from all the obvious externalities of cab driving operations, the extremely high probability of fraud, and the fact that policing cabs is extraordinarily expensive, there's another problem a lot of these analyses miss about why cabs are regulated the way they are. In many large cities, the taxi system is a fundamental component of the transport infrastructure. There are locations in most cities that are not eff…

What you are saying is fine, but that's not why taxi's were regulated, at least in New York. The regulations go back to the depression and were put in place specifically to limit competition in order to keep prices high and protect employment of existing cab drivers. The history is right on the NYC gov page: http://www.nyc.gov/html/media/totweb/taxioftomorrow_history_... -- quoting from the NYC site: "Widespread pove…

I'm just gonna throw this out there, "underhanded tactics" in the depression era were probably quite a bit more underhanded (no scare quotes) than undercutting the competition on price.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#165

Post by bradleyjg » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 2:51 AM UTC

larrys wrote: post #59

pg wrote: post #2

Structurally this practice is a lot like the preindustrial precursor of taxation, when governments would sell monopolies on the import or production of things in exchange for a lump sum. When obsolete government practices persist, they tend to be pretty sinister.

"When obsolete government practices persist, they tend to be pretty sinister." How might you propose to compensate people who, in good faith, bought taxi medallions (a legal practice)? (Or do you feel that's not necessary?)

I don't think there's a vested property right in them, but even if there is, there isn't in their scarcity. The government could issue medallions to all comers instead of abolishing the existing one.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#166

Post by analog » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 2:58 AM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #157

PeterisP wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once there are separate owners (for whatever reason it happened), it's not that easy to arrange that - since the land owner usually does not want to sell.

What if they do sell? Can land owners do whatever they like to the home owners? Like kick them out? Start drilling tunnels through the land, extract oil in the back yard?

Unscrupulous landlords will increase the rent.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#167

Post by pg » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 3:03 AM UTC

codex wrote: post #158

pg wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While that may be a benefit of medallions (or not), it's almost certainly not, historically, why they exist.

I can't speak for all medallion programs, but NYC medallions were created to solve a surplus of taxis and associated congestion, low wages, and poor service, at least according to the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/11/nyregion/medallion-limits-...

As far as I can tell that article implies the main goal of medallion limits was to increase prices by decreasing competition. Which is exactly what I would have expected.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#168

Post by malandrew » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 3:04 AM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #150

malandrew wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't get is why a city as dense as NYC supports any transportation method that puts a few individuals above the public good. Cars in a dense urban area epitomize the tragedy of the commons. Buses and delivery trucks are the only vehicles that must have access to the street. Everyone else should be walking, taking public transportation, or bicycling. Not having to wait on a street corner for a crosswalk signal…

Taxis are not the problem. Private cars are the problem, and the city does a pretty good job keeping them out of Manhattan as well, with tolls on many of the bridges (any bridge into Manhattan connected to a highway is tolled; local street bridges are not) and a 19% parking tax. But there are certain situations where you need a taxi and the bus or subway won't do. Think the elderly, families with small children, etc.

I would love to see a city mandate something the size of the Lit Motors vehicle for the cases you mentioned. However for many of the cases you mentioned, taxis still aren't the solution. There are plenty of families and handicapped people that get by with public transportation. They can use things such as scooters, wheelchairs, motorized wheelchairs and strollers. Technology has advanced to the point where a motorized wheelchair or scooter is no longer a rare luxury.

While I can see the argument for taxies, I;m totally in agreement about private cars and especially parking. Parking has no business in the modern urban dense city.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#169

Post by tomcorrigan » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 3:05 AM UTC

caf wrote: post #160

adventured wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That and the fact that the US is 1/7th as densely populated as the UK (UK is 260 people per km, the US is 34/km). The US is #179 on the population density list country wise. If someone won't sell you a piece of land, there's a vast supply of other land to look at. The only place you'll run into a problem is in a few high density metros like NYC.

I think there's definitely something to this, because land taxes aren't common in Australia, either, and yet almost all houses there are freehold house and land.

Doubtful. Land taxes are extremely common in Australia. All land is taxable, however exemptions exist for your own principle place of residence (ie home). If you own a holiday house or investment property then your are liable for land tax. That is the reason houses are primarily sold freehold as opposed to leasehold.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#170

Post by danwyd » Thu, Apr 11, 2013, 3:06 AM UTC

larrys wrote: post #88

schiffern wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article said it pretty well. > So, medallion holders speculated in holding a government asset and lost. Some of these people are also taxi drivers or operators of taxi dispatch companies. Like Greek bondholders, they gambled and lost big.

"So, medallion holders speculated" Don't agree with that at all that is what the article says. (It doesn't match up with my definition either based on my years of business experience either.) Definition of "speculation" from investopedia: "The act of trading in an asset, or conducting a financial transaction, that has a significant risk of losing most or all of the initial outlay, in expectation of a substantial gain…

I think that you're a little too generous about government exercise of eminent domain.

I wrote an article about a New Jersey city which offered $49,000 for a three-bedroom rowhome, and when residents wouldn't take it, ripped up sidewalks and stopped collecting trash. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/new-jersey-developm...

Outright seizure gets headlines, but the government can harm your property through regulatory takings as well. So crazy zoning can make your property value decline, and it's not well-established practice to compensate you for your loss. See Richard Epstein's work on this.

The Supreme Court will decide this year on a potentially really important case, Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District. A landowner wanted to develop some property, but the local water protection agency denied the permit because he wouldn't pay for mitigation that was totally offsite. This stuff can be borderline extortion.