However, it seems clear to me that requiring turo renters to enter the VIN of their car to check for recalls is just reasonable regulation. The same goes for having the cars be inspected yearly. Now, any laws for the actual pick-up process are a different beast, but non of those are mentioned in the article.
Note that the example of turo wanting to make it illegal for car-owners to register cars with a recall seems like they are just trying to push these costs away. In the end, it is the responsibility of the rental company that their cars are safe. If the company deems signed statements from car owners sufficient due-diligence, that is their choice. If they do not trust such statements, the solution is to demand more in your due-diligence, not to make it illegal to 'lie' on these statements. That presumes that turo already has it in their TOS for car-owners that cars are required to be un-recalled. If not, adding that should be their first step. Immediately going for legislation when you can just amend contracts is a massive over-reach.
Yes, the playing field is not level, but that's what competition means: the sharing companies have found a way to go around the onerous taxes imposed by airports and there is almost nothing the airport can do to stop a private individual drop a car in it's short term parking lot for another individual. There's no safety or congestion issue, it's the entire point of the short time parking spaces.
Therefore, any charge that moves from services provided, on a needs basis, to an indiscriminate tax, on a per person basis, can be seen as onerous in light of the public investment.
If they meet the car at Walmart do we expect the walton family to get a cut? If they drop the car off at their home do we expect the HOA to get a cut?
At some point we could acknowledge that the airport isn't a party to the transaction.
Starbucks has decided that a fairly open access policy for non-customers conducting other business is a net positive for their business. Many businesses have different policies because they have different actual or perceived business dynamics. Also note that most Starbucks do place limits on this, as people who mistake them for zero-cost unlimited co-working space tend to discover.
> Which turns into a tax
A tax turns into a tax? Tell me more about this theory...
The first is congestion due to the pick-up process. Clearly, this affects both the new players and the old players. The second reason is land-use by the parking lots in which available cars are stored. This doesn't affect the new players. Now, airports might be charging for both, and simply be afraid that the cash-cow of charging reasonably for the land-use of parking lots is going to disappear.
For a real answer, you'd need to actually compare the difference in cost between congestion and land-use.
Having a driver meet you with a car at the terminal is a much better experience IMO, whether it's a taxi, a Lyft, or a rental. If the pickup area is too congested, the airport should address that problem directly with a toll to access that area. A targeted ban that happens to help incumbents in a particular industry doesn't seem like the best way.