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

Post by ohazi » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 2:36 AM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #18

ohazi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with home renovation / remodeling / addition / construction permits. If your design meets code and zoning, it should automatically get approved. None of this nimby-neighbor-going-to-the-planning-meeting-and-getting-your-project-cancelled-because-your-chimney-will-cast-a-shadow-on-their-backyard bullshit.

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.

Post by xtqctz » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 2:37 AM UTC

WisNorCan wrote: post #3

I generally away from regulation, but let me articulate the pro-regulation argument. Markets that are important (like transportation) and have network effects need to be regulated. A monopoly with Uber and/or Lyft dominating local transportation is not good for consumers or cities in the long-term. Cities should take control of their transportation and ensure competition by managing allocation of capacity. I think th…

Post by LeoPanthera » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 2:39 AM UTC

neonate wrote: post #10

http://archive.is/DbXBe

Post by jonny_eh » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 2:42 AM UTC

LeoPanthera wrote: post #26

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…

The companies in question already had a history of operating illegally in San Francisco. I don't think it's fair to dismiss that as "picking and choosing". Dumping those scooters over the city is effectively littering. Business should be able to operate freely, but they should not be able to break the law until someone catches them.

Post by ams6110 » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 2:42 AM UTC

WisNorCan wrote: post #19

seehafer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A monopoly with Uber and/or Lyft dominating local transportation is not good for consumers or cities in the long-term. As opposed to a city ineffectively delivering transportation to such an extent that people have to drive their personally-owned cars everywhere? Anyone in SF who was here before Uber will tell you that Uber and Lyft were and remain a godsend. Cabs were few and far between (there's an Eddie Izzard bi…

You are attacking a position that I am not advocating. I am not suggesting government run transportation. I am suggesting that government ensure that the private market remains competitive with multiple players by allocating capacity. In any case, the only thing worse than government running services is a company with a monopoly running services. The first tends to be inefficient. The second tends to be inefficient w…