Is San Francisco becoming toxic for new startups?
blog.thefamily.co
Is San Francisco becoming toxic for new startups?
1–10 of 26 posts
Re: Is San Francisco becoming toxic for new startups?
#2>San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera has just sent a cease-and-desist letter to MonkeyParking a competing company that offers another mobile application related to parking.
>In fact there seem to be nothing illegal about sharing or even selling parking information.
Way to side step the fact that MonkeyParking was basically a service that encourage people to hoard parking spaces for money. That's less about selling parking information than selling/leasing public property.
Re: Is San Francisco becoming toxic for new startups?
#3Kinda funny that the post bemoans regulation then says: The truth is, incumbent rent-seekers do have powerful lobbies even in the US. The oil industry tried hard to stop Governor Schwarzenegger from passing more stringent green air legislation in California.
One person's responsible legislation is another person's gov't innovation killing regulation.
Re: Is San Francisco becoming toxic for new startups?
#4I've heard people say before that usually when an article's headline is a "provocative" question, the answer is no. That seems to hold true here.
Re: Is San Francisco becoming toxic for new startups?
#5This was a pretty exaggerated post from what I read. It went from a city not allowing public parking spaces to be sold, to the United States turning into Japan.
It is hard to take it seriously with such exaggerations.
Re: Is San Francisco becoming toxic for new startups?
#6I was approached several months ago to build an app with the same business model as MonkeyParking's queue-barging-for-cash. I walked away: the world needs less Ayn Randian it's-not-nailed-down douchpreneurship, not more.
Re: Is San Francisco becoming toxic for new startups?
#7I've heard people say before that usually when an article's headline is a "provocative" question, the answer is no. That seems to hold true here.
Betteridge's law of headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
Re: Is San Francisco becoming toxic for new startups?
#8Kinda funny that the post bemoans regulation then says: The truth is, incumbent rent-seekers do have powerful lobbies even in the US. The oil industry tried hard to stop Governor Schwarzenegger from passing more stringent green air legislation in California. One person's responsible legislation is another person's gov't innovation killing regulation.
Many people flock to libertarian political views (and consequently, business models) because they can't see where their selfishness ends and the rest of the world begins.
Consequently, it's not surprising that the defense of their positions ultimately devolve in to convoluted rationalizations for 'do as I say, not as I do'.
Re: Is San Francisco becoming toxic for new startups?
#9Interesting read. I think it poses a good question about what can be rented/sold as it pertains to information. I think MoneyParking is a bit different than Sweetch from what I can tell so I don't think they have much to worry about. I agree with the other comments that the article is pretty slanted and not very well sighted. But it's a blog. Can't really expect much journalistic integrity from a blog these days.
Re: Is San Francisco becoming toxic for new startups?
#10Startups aren't good in themselves, they're good if they bring about helpful innovations or good products etc.
Skirting regulations to privatize a public resource and make money off of it harms society as a whole, so it's better to have as few startups like that as possible.
Also, this article claims that this one, widely supported government action is indicative of a "broader trend", but it offers no further evidence and I'm having trouble thinking of many other cases. Arguably, SF has been rather forgiving of companies which skirt regulations without really harming the public - like AirBnB, Uber, or even Google buses.