Atlanta introduces bill to regulate Uber and Lyft
clatl.com
clatl.com
I'm a progressive liberal fwiw, not a libertarian.
From the Wikipedia entry on Guilds: As Ogilvie (2004) shows, the guilds negatively affected quality, skills, and innovation. Through what economists now call "rent-seeking" they imposed deadweight losses on the economy. Ogilvie says they generated no demonstrable positive externalities and notes that industry began to flourish only after the guilds faded away. Guilds persisted over the centuries because they redistributed resources to politically powerful merchants. On the other hand, Ogilvie agrees, guilds created "social capital" of shared norms, common information, mutual sanctions, and collective political action. This social capital benefited guild members, even as it hurt outsiders.
The heyday of guilds lasted from around 1200 to 1700...
As in, where does it stop or where do we begin? Florist? Movers? Hairstylist? Nail care? Plumber?
Taxi services aren't regulated for the sake of limiting competition. They are given a monopoly in return for agreeing to be regulated as quasi-extensions of cities' transportation infrastructures.
The Taxi companies that own these medallions have gone to court many times to enforce the artificial scarcity that drives up the value of their golden geese.
A taxi driver in NYC has to pay $80,000 a year over and above his insurance and operating costs just for the right to operate a cab: that money goes straight into the pockets of medallion owners who don't much of anything except own medallions- until a threat like Uber comes along, wherein it's time to deliver brown paper bags filled with bundles of unmarked bills until the problem is solved. Both the drivers and the consumers are getting shafted.
NY is an extreme example, but the taxi industry works more or less same way in pretty much every city in the western world. It's not uncommon for incumbent businesses to hijack goodwill regulations as a way to stifle legitimate competition.
Now Uber and app-based livery services do need to be regulated- but their service is a whole different paradigm from the traditional taxi industry. In California progressive legislation has been passed that places these services in a completely different category than tradition taxi companies, much to the dismay of those taxi companies.
Uber is also expanding aggressively- their revenue has grown 20% per month over the past couple years, they started with 15 cars in 2009 and they are now valued at nearly 4 billion dollars, and operate in 60 countries. Every city they go into, they go into expecting a fight. They win some and they lose some. They were shut down in both Toronto and Vancouver. Uber is a fascinating company to watch- it's trench warfare everywhere they go- and they have mountains of venture capital backing them.
The solution for Uber and the like isn't progressive regulation that puts them in a different category. Uber walks like a cab service and quacks like one, the only difference is a more modern method of hailing. Cities should deregulate their cab systems to increase supply, but categorize services like Uber within the same cab regime.
Also: the population of Manhattan is 25% smaller today than it was in 1950, so that means more medallions per person. Also, it has probably a lot more private cars.
It's not about restricting competition, it's about very real concerns that are addressed by specific licensing regimes for each such industry. Tort law and market competition are useless, alone or together, in regulating low-entry-cost industries with high potential externalities. Licensing imposes capital requirements which make tort law and market competition feasible, along with guaranteeing certain other benefits to customers that increase the potential market of the industry.
It actually does seem like a decent first draft.
I'm sort of baffled why someone like Yellow Cab doesn't just put out an app.
Not disallowed just have to show your app is measuring properly.
With all the crazy laws surrounding taxis and liveries, I wouldn't be surprised if an app like that is illegal in some municipalities.
It is not clear to me that Uber is a huge problem for anybody but an industry being disrupted yet, and that is not only not a crime, it's a feature of the system. (Feel free to correct me in replies, if you like; this is not a permanent state of mind. It really is not clear to me right now that Uber is a significant danger to anyone but existing taxi companies. I've heard a couple of anecdotes, but so far the taxi industry is well able to keep up with "anecdotes" of how they do bad things too, so calling it a "wash" would probably be doing the current incumbents a pretty big favor....)
40-1-193. (a) No transportation referral service provider subject to this part shall contract with, utilize, or refer individuals or entities to limousine carriers or taxi services that are not properly licensed by the state or a political subdivision of this state, are not properly insured under state or local law, or which use drivers that are not properly licensed under state and local law to carry passengers for hire.
These licenses aren't tied to a driver, rather they usually lease them from a managing company. Safety's got nothing to do with it.
(ref http://taxirisk.com/taxicab-facts-for-atlanta-georgia/)
If they just want to ask someone to pass a test and/or background check, that seems fine. If they refuse to issue one because there is a limit, that works against consumers.
I actually almost hope this passes?
Subject (large text): "Explore NJ this weekend with FREE uberX rides"
Body (small text): "NJLOVESuberX covers rides beginning OR ending in New Jersey, up to $20. Believe us – at these rates, $20 will get you far."
Fine print (tiny text): "Please note that there is a $20 surcharge for trips between New Jersey and NYC."