Vote Clears Way for Taxi Rider Apps in NYC | Hacker News Reader

Vote Clears Way for Taxi Rider Apps in NYC

blogs.wsj.com

42 pointssethbannon33 comments

> Those companies have aggressively lobbied the TLC not to permit apps that they feel would break down the existing ban on “prearrangement” of rides between yellow cab drivers and customers, saying that to do so could severely threaten their business. That argument held sway among some TLC commissioners, who said they feared the impact on jobs of allowing the apps to be used.

Good thing those people were not around when the computer was invented.

> Good thing those people were not around when the computer was invented.

That's a trope that's misapplied here. These people aren't just fighting "progress" in some vague sense. They're fighting something that disrupts their arrangement with the City of New York. And this isn't same sweet-heart, back-room arrangement. Cabs are a basic part of the transportation infrastructure in the city. More than half of households in New York don't have a car (75% in Manhattan). It's also one of the top tourist destinations in the country. The city regulates cab companies heavily, and in return for things like requiring them to serve riders regardless of destination, it gives them certain protections from competition. Cab companies in the city are basically like public utility companies.

Uber is not subject to these regulations. The cab drivers are entirely justified in pushing back to force a discussion on how Uber should fit into this semi-public/semi-private transportation system.

Plenty of industries are subject to local and federal government regulation, but that doesn't mean they should be protected from competition. Where does the motivation to provide good service at competitive rates come from if you are protected from competition? Such an agreement, in my opinion, is inherently bad for progress and for consumers in general.

Protected from competition, no. Protected from unfair competition, yes. There are a limited supply of taxi medallions in NYC (~13,000?), the number of which is controlled by the government, and getting one (last I saw) will cost you upwards of a million dollars.

Uber is basically coming in, running a taxi business, and refusing to pay for the government mandated barrier to entry. I'm not expressing an opinion on the system as a whole, but I think it's hard to deny that taxi folks (from the drivers up to the people that own the medallions) have a valid reason to complain.

You make a valid point given the current system, but the government mandated system of limited medallions seems like an unnecessary barrier to entry and prevents small (and perhaps more innovative) companies from competing in the market. (which seems unfair). What benefit, if any, do the consumers get from limiting the number of medallions?

There are regulated industries then there are utility monopolies. In the latter case, the monopoly is part of the bargain that convinces a private company to get into a business subject to a particularly onerous regulation. Cab services are basically like utility monopolies. Protection from competition is part of the bargain cities make with them to get them to do abstain from doing otherwise sensible things like not serving unprofitable routes.

It seems you're trying to rationalize the situation. Taxis don't need to be regulated any more than other services. The reason these restrictions still exist is because politicians are afraid of the potential retaliation from the incumbents if the city deregulates the industry.

I'm not trying to rationalize anything. I'm trying to describe the status quo to people who don't understand how it got to be the way it is, and resort to hackneyed tropes.

Gotta hand it to Uber (and the others) here. They are making good on their strategy: Disrupt now, break the rules, apologize & make nice later.

It's remarkable how the tables are turning in their direction with respect to the local governments.

Keep it up guys!

(And as an avid AirBNB user, I hope the tide goes in the same direction for them on this score...)

Sorry, but that's not at all what happened here. This is a function of Hailo and others actually working within the system to change it, rather than disrupting/breaking rules/making nice.

If you look at the series of events, Kalanick and Uber broke laws (not just rules) after trying to get around those rules behind the scenes. Then, when they were called out for it, they launched into pseudo-randian tirades about the unfairness and injustice of it all. They whined about how the governments just kept beating up on the little guy and how they'd stop at nothing to promote the free market.

And after all that, this played out the way it should have - there was a vote on the laws that allowed a new behavior. All of a sudden, Bloomberg is a good guy! New York is amazing! Uber triumphs over the forces of darkness...by playing the game they should have from the start.

And after all that, this played out the way it should have

You seem to have a very specific idea about how things should work. That's fine, but it's important to recognize that not everybody feels the way you do.

As someone who doesn't use AirBNB, when can I expect a check to compensate me for the risk you expose me to buy running a hotel out of your residential dwelling?

Somewhat OT, but I suppose I brought it up in my comment.

Can you clarify your question? Are you referring to "you" as in AirBNB or "you" as in the host/owner of the apartment? And by "me" do you mean yourself as a host or yourself as an AirBNB user/guest?

Who do you think owes you a check and for what risk exactly?

AirBnB's business model is built on violating zoning regulations. Cities zone hotels specially because a place with a constant stream of transient tenants has a very different risk profile than a place with long-term tenants. When people buy a condo or apartment or house in a residential area, they rely on that zoning. All else being equal, a home in a completely residential area is going to cost more than one next to say a hotel. When you effectively run a hotel in a residential area by being an "avid AirBNB user", you expose your neighbors to more risk than they bargained for, without compensating them.

This kind of thing is just a great way to make money. Take a little bit away from a very large number of people in a way that makes it hard for any single affected person to challenge the system as a whole.

Sorry I'm having trouble following this argument, what is the risk? A couple guesses I had:

-Do you think they'll start a fire and burn the neighborhood down? I think I can safely say that that virtually never happens in the contemporary US.

-Do you think airbnb guests are likely to be violent criminals? To which I would answer, when a criminal stays at a hotel and then attacks me does the hotel owe me money? In my opinion they do not.

This question is disingenuous. The risks involved here are obvious. When you acquire a lease from a landlord, the landlord screens you. Many check references. Arbitrary apartments in arbitrary buildings are not a product offered anonymously, like candy bars or Macbooks.

In addition to the lurid- but- non-negligible risks you bring up, there are more pedestrian problems with transient tenants:

* They may leave outer door locks unlocked

* They may let random strangers into the building

* They create noise

* They can damage the building

* They create fire and electrical hazards

* They create unsafe unsanitary conditions

It is, again, disingenuous to imply that these are new concerns brought up to stymie offerings like Airbnb. These have always been concerns. Do a Google news search for "hotel zoning". People protest, often successfully, proposed zoning changes that would allow new hotels.

I protest that my comment was not "disingenuous." You raise valid points about being in the same building with airbnb guests. Your original comment was about zoning, which implied to me that you were against being in the same neighborhood with airbnb guests since zoning regulation is at the neighborhood level.

Issues that involve being in the same building with airbnb guests could be easily dealt with in the lease. Some landlords would allow it and some wouldn't, and you could just choose to live in a building that didn't allow it if you didn't want to deal with it. I'm completely in favor of lease terms being strictly enforced.

Regarding crime and fires it sounds like we may have to agree to disagree. My perspective as a New Yorker may be different from people elsewhere. The idea of travelers in my neighborhood does not fill me with dread for my life and limb, but of course I already assume there already are many travelers in my neighborhood on any given night.

Finally, the fact that an argument has been used by someone in support of their political goals has pretty much no correlation with whether that argument is valid. Talk about disingenuous...

How about a 4* star hotel or an SPG property ? is your conception of a hotel an off-the-ramp motel 6 in the Ghetto. You do realize that some of the wealthiest people in the country abandon homeownership for a care-free hotel life (Marissa Mayer, Harry Reid...others.) To me, you sound like a poor schmuck with a Mustang lecturing a Porsche owner about luxury.

I lived next to a 4 star hotel in Chicago. The transient patrons attracted a steady stream of prostitutes in and out of the hotel.

frequented by good morally-unquestionable family men living clean lives in clean homes., right ? WHO can afford escorts & 4* hotels ? Thank you, you've made my point for me. You might want to revisit your idea, I mean, fantasy of the wholesome residential subdivision. Stepford wives & all.

My point is, if you've failed to grasp it, you're no better than the average AirBnb customer, not worse either. Just don't go trying to perpetuate some manufactured falsehood to reinforce your hostility towards a company whose business model you disagree with.

None of this comment rebuts any point I made in my comment.

It does, actually. It challenges your mistaken understanding of a what "hotel" stands for, its patrons, their economic social status & their affluence in relation to your average dweller.

>> When you effectively run a hotel in a residential area by being an "avid AirBNB user", you expose your neighbors to more risk than they bargained for, without compensating them.

That's nonsense.

Nonsense? How is that different than a regulatory takings?

How about regulations in the hotel business are about collecting extra property taxes revenue not managing the risk profile of hotel patrons. EDIT : They are MOSTLY, almost exclusively concerned with raising extra-taxes, in a few cases they also deal with environmental risk.

Are you arguing my point for me ? That's exactly what I'm saying, Zoning (for hotels) is about taxes, not some imagined increased safety risk to be managed due to a high presence of transient residents

@sami36, below you asked "What are the zoning folks occupying themselves with ?"

Zoning folks just follow a set of rules/uses for any parcel. A rezoning application is usually a public process, to engage the neighborhood, which speaks to the purpose of zoning: it is intended to promote the general welfare of the community.

I am not a big fan of zoning, I'm just saying that as the law stands some Airbnb hosts flaunt the zoning laws.

Zoning regulations are not designed for taxes.

[EDit] I wouldn't use the language "risk profile", but the zoning laws are clearly about the use of the property.

As far as the taxes, I work in land development and have studied planning. Taxes may be an ancillary effect of zoning but they are by no means a primary one.

We don't disagree. I was arguing the point advanced by some that hotel tenants represent a safety risk . Alright then, help me with this. In the context of Hotels. Say a 4*+ hotel. What are the zoning folks occupying themselves with ?

Why do you need a compensation check if no damages have occurred? There might be legitimate insurance questions here, for example, but that's a separate matter.

Partly because you're lowering property values by changing peoples' bargained-for risk expectations, and also because you're almost certainly not carrying enough insurance, if you're even carrying any insurance. You're exposing people to risk they didn't bargain for and almost certainly can't compensate them if something bad happens.

It is hard to quantify the value of noise, trash etc. which is one of the many reasons we have zoning over just people suing each other.

On the risk side, you are exposing people to the potential threat of physical harm which money cannot replace. Risks like rape, murder etc. while low are definitely increased when you open apartment buildings to random people.

I'm an AirBnB user, but their business model isn't as neatly disruptive as Uber's IMO.

This sort of thing shouldn't have been held up by waiting for a government body to vote on it. To build an use an app should simply require drivers willing to use it, and paying passengers. That tells you just how extensive the regulation of that industry is, when the city keeps it locked down to such a degree.

Good for Uber! We love disruption.

So when we talk about developers working for $5/hour outsourced, that's disruption too, right? Discussion of that tends to go a bit differently ....

Reply on news.ycombinator.com