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

81–90 of 321 posts

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

#81

Post by bsder »

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…

> 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.

The problem is that the named companies already have shown their willingness to use their VC backed resources to stomp over local regulation.

These companies were jerks who basically said "Nya. Nya. We're too powerful, you can't regulate us. "

To which SF replied: "Nya. Nya. Yes we can. No permits for you and now we can fine the snot out of you if you disregard us."

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

#82

Post by ckocagil »

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.

If you think about it, Uber and Lyft literally built their businesses on breaking taxi laws of every city they operate in.

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

#83

Post by adventured »

gk1 wrote: post #60
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.

"Now that I live here, nobody else can."

Exactly that. I was reading today that ~66% of Seattle's residential housing is single-family homes. Boston by comparison is 14%. It's absurd.

And then so many people in Seattle want to complain about plunging affordability.

"Seattle homeowners have vigorously fought changes to zoning laws that would increase density on the grounds that it would alter the character of neighborhoods filled with picturesque (if small) craftsman-style bungalows."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-30/how-big-t...

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

#84

Post by gaoshan »

emodendroket wrote: post #63
jzymbaluk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Imagine you owned a home and somebody wanted to put a nightclub on one side of you and an abattoir on the other. Do you think that might affect your quality of life at all? I mean hey, it's their property!

If the area is zoned to permit such facilities then perhaps having a house their isn't the best idea. Areas zoned residential don't have such issues.

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

#85

Post by greglindahl »

village-idiot wrote: post #17
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…

I always have maintained that local governments tend to be the most corrupt compared to the amount of power that they have, but the corruption is usually too small to gain notice.

"Corruption" has a meaning, and there doesn't seem to be any mention in either the article or this discussion of anything that would be corruption.

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

#86

Post by baddox »

enraged_camel wrote: post #59
jzymbaluk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

> In other words, you are free to build whatever you want on your own property, as long as its effects don't negatively impact the value of mine.

That is nowhere near a good enough rule. What if I buy commercial retail property in a bustling district, but over a few years the bustling industry shifts half a mile away, leaving my district with less foot traffic and thus negatively impacting the value of my property? Have those developers harmed me in a way that should be illegal?

You may be tempted to say “well, no, obviously that’s different.” And indeed, it is obviously different. But the challenge is coming up with a rule that actually works without needing you or someone to decide on a case by case basis what is “obviously” an exception.

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

#87

Post by toomuchtodo »

burke wrote: post #70
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.

If I were foolish enough to buy property next to a lot zoned for a 50-storey apartment building, then, yes.

People want to use upzoning to change permissable uses after people have bought. That’s the problem.

So you’re either arguing for zoning to remain static to maintain the property rights of surrounding owners, or someone’s getting screwed when zoning changes.

The equitable solution would be to compensate surrounding owners for their property losing value or them losing enjoyment when zoning changes (similar to eminent domain), but if that makes zoning changes prohibitively expensive (or owners turn down the offer entirely), we’re back to square one. Someone is losing something.

I would rather try to cure cancer than fix land use and housing in California.

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

#88

Post by andr »

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://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-docume...

[2] https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-docume...

Also, note that Scoot already has an arrangement with the city for the red electric mopeds they rent out.

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

#89

Post by BurningFrog »

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…

I'll say it:

With "shall-issue" rules there is no one in city government to bribe and/or make special deals with.

That's not how SF likes to operate.

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

#90

Post by baddox »

minikites wrote: post #80
Meekro wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'd started a scooter company before scooter companies were a thing, went to any city and asked for permission, they would have said "wtf? no." (assuming they answered my petition at all) and that would have been the end of it. The only reason we're here arguing about this is companies like Bird chose to ask for forgiveness rather than permission in the past.

>ask for forgiveness rather than permission Do you genuinely think it's good for society when businesses do this?

I don’t see how anyone could believe that it’s never good for society when businesses do this.
Post reply on HN