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

171–180 of 321 posts

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

#171

Post by enraged_camel »

upzone wrote: post #95
enraged_camel wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing devil's advocate here (which is my way of saying "bring on the downvotes"): because what they build can still generate negative externalities that affect their neighbors. So even though a 50-story building might be in compliance with zoning laws, it still blocks neighbor's access to a valuable, albeit non-essential resource (sunlight, cool ocean breeze, etc.) that probably factored into the price the original…

So first of all, you don’t have a right not to live in a shadow. Millions of people in cities all over the world deal with it every day. It’s not that bad (tbh it probably helps AC bills too). You have certain rights when you buy property, but “a view” isn’t one of them. If you want scenery, move to the country. It’s gorgeous! Second, it’s frustrating that people only think of themselves. “What about my view?” What a…

>>You have certain rights when you buy property, but “a view” isn’t one of them.

I have a right to what I pay for. This is simply inarguable.

In most highrises, the view tends to make up a significant portion of the value. This is why units become more expensive the higher up they are: the view is better from a higher altitude.

So essentially, when a developer comes and builds another highrise next door, they are destroying a big part of the value of the original highrise units.

So, if I have a right to what I pay for, and someone is doing something to negatively affect that, the NIMBY argument becomes rather straight-forward.

(Again, these aren't my actual views. I'm simply saying I can sympathize with NIMBYs, even though I despise them.)

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

#172

Post by ohazi »

gnicholas wrote: post #160
ohazi wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That. Meets. Zoning. Seriously, wtf.

One issue is that zoning rules don't always cover every potential problem. For example, there's been a huge controversy in Redwood City (and neighboring Atherton) regarding a coffee shop that is going in, which will employ lingerie-clad baristas (and apparently have mirrors on the ground, to make things even skeezier). [1] This coffee shop apparently meets all current zoning rules, though the employees may need to be…

So in situations like these, do you:

a) Fix the zoning rules

b) Make everybody ask the city council and all their neighbors for permission for every little thing, every time

(a) is at least trying to make an even playing field for everyone. The rules are for everybody, and everybody has to follow them, regardless of political connections or money or lawyering, etc. At least in theory.

With (b), you start by trying to get an exception carved out for yourself, so in practice only those with the most patience, money, lawyers, political connections, etc. will be able to get what they want, and everybody else gets the Kafka treatment.

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

#173

Post by sean_lynch »

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:/…

This is incredibly interesting, thanks for sharing. The actual applications are also available here:

https://www.sfmta.com/reports/original-2018-scooter-applicat...

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

#174

Post by kurthr »

quotemstr wrote: post #4

Business permits should be shall-issue: if an applicant adheres to a set of rules known in advance, the city ought to have no power to deny its permit application. Want to limit the number of something? Fine. Auction off medallions or something in a transparent, open way. Don't pick and choose businesses the way SF busybodies do. San Francisco has severe and worsening problems primarily due to rampant interference in…

What's the permit for leaving your product lying on the public sidewalk? There are several (for signs, seats, etc), and you're also supposed to pick up after your animals, not leave stuff laying about.

Undocked transportation? I think that without some formal approval it would be within the cities right to confiscate items left on the public right-of-way and auction it off to the highest bidder.

You can't even legally leave garbage out for collection (in unapproved containers) except for certain days.

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

#175

Post by 1024core »

quotemstr wrote: post #4

Business permits should be shall-issue: if an applicant adheres to a set of rules known in advance, the city ought to have no power to deny its permit application. Want to limit the number of something? Fine. Auction off medallions or something in a transparent, open way. Don't pick and choose businesses the way SF busybodies do. San Francisco has severe and worsening problems primarily due to rampant interference in…

San Francisco has a 14-page rulebook for ... just replacing windows. http://default.sfplanning.org/publications_reports/Standards...

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

#176

Post by enraged_camel »

upzone2 wrote: post #168
enraged_camel wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>That’s the other thing: real estate is not a guaranteed investment. The types of people the parent is describing don't buy real estate as an investment. They buy it as an asset. And for most Americans, their house is their most valuable asset. So can you not spare a shred of sympathy that they are hyper-conscious about what happens to the value of that asset?

Can you not spare a shred of sympathy for people who want to live in the city they work in but can’t because property owners won’t let them? Sorry, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who actively block building new housing because “screw you, got mine”. (Also, building housing doesn’t just tank the value of your home, trust me.)

>>Can you not spare a shred of sympathy for people who want to live in the city they work in but can’t because property owners won’t let them?

Of course I can. My sympathy goes both ways.

>> (Also, building housing doesn’t just tank the value of your home, trust me.)

I'm not talking about simply increasing the supply of housing. The specific example we are discussing is a new skyscraper blocking the view from an existing one.

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

#177

Post by fipple »

jzymbaluk wrote: post #47
threeseed wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are saying you wouldn't complain if a 50 storey apartment complex was built right next to you and bathed your entire house in darkness 24/7. Sure thing. This free for all world sounds downright scary.

Why shouldn't land owners be able to build whatever they want on their own property? It's not your backyard, it's your neighbors property

Land ownership is never absolute because it isn’t the product of human endeavor, so owning it means you either violently excluded people from it, formalized that violence through law, or bought it after one of the above had happened. That’s why I can’t build a big laser beam on my land and use it to set your house on fire, among other things.

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

#178

Post by ebikelaw »

kurthr wrote: post #174
quotemstr wrote: post #4

Business permits should be shall-issue: if an applicant adheres to a set of rules known in advance, the city ought to have no power to deny its permit application. Want to limit the number of something? Fine. Auction off medallions or something in a transparent, open way. Don't pick and choose businesses the way SF busybodies do. San Francisco has severe and worsening problems primarily due to rampant interference in…

What's the permit for leaving your product lying on the public sidewalk? There are several (for signs, seats, etc), and you're also supposed to pick up after your animals, not leave stuff laying about. Undocked transportation? I think that without some formal approval it would be within the cities right to confiscate items left on the public right-of-way and auction it off to the highest bidder. You can't even legall…

I guess you’re just overlooking cars? People leave their cars all over SF all day every day.

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

#179

Post by ebikelaw »

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:/…

A car would get a big fat “poor” on every point of that evaluation. And yet, we allow our city to be totally overrun with them! I certainly hope that SFMTA is feverishly working to apply these standards to car companies. No car should be allowed to operate in San Francisco until its maker has demonstrated that they can affirmatively prevent them from blocking sidewalk ramps and until they all have programs to track and ban abusive drivers.

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

#180

Post by throwaway66666 »

I recently went south to LA and SD, and the scooters are awesome there. I saw them mostly near the beach, and 0 thrown in the middle of the pavement, none blocking exits or riding them obnoxiously. They even have scooter police that will give you a ticket if you go too fast (I am not saying that as necessarily a good thing, just that they seem to have their stuff together as cities). For the first time I actually made an account and hopped on one of them.

However, in SF they overdid it. I don't know if SF residents got replaced by a bunch of self-entitled nerdy manchildren, but holy hell they were obnoxious. You would see 5-6 of them blocking the entrance to a restaurant (at anchorsteam brewery tap room especially). Thrown down in the middle of the pavement. People riding them on the sidewalk yelling "GOTTA GO FAST", going somewhat fast (at least have some dignity and dress like Sonic the hedgehog if you 're gonna do that). Think of an 80s action movie where the punks or hell's angels type of gangs run amok in the city, but it's dudes wearing startup t-shirts on electric scooters instead. Anyway, I 'm not a nimby but their presence in SF really left a sour taste.

But after seeing them in LA and San Diego I am convinced they can work super nicely if a little bit of common sense is applied. Maybe the SF populous is early adopters and jumped on the latest trend with too much passion, or maybe those companies put on the streets too many units. I don't know, but it can be done right and I 'd really like to see them back.

Post reply on HN