
SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters? - rmason
https://www.sfchronicle.com/Bayard%27s/heatherknight/article/SF-wants-startups-to-behave-so-why-did-it-reject-14903323.php?t=5f89d50b1e
======
wiseleo
All forms to be submitted to any government entity have to be reviewed by
lawyers because they will be read with intent to reject rather than accept. I
saw variations of this many times.

It is a sad reality, but that is the current state of government interaction.

Scooters are massively profitable. They cost $1 for 3 minutes and their
acquisition cost is lower than $500 with zero cost to operate except for
charging and repairs, where the charging cost is negligible and repair cost is
fixed. I took a few rides and paid more than $5-7 per ride, which is
comparable to an Uber ride but where the company incurred no expense foe the
driver. 100 rides pays for the thing and after that it’s pure profit.

------
KFC_Manager
Aside from the way his application was rejected, you’d think if the city was
valuing the ability of the company underlying the scooter service to provide a
stable service, good support and jobs (even if contract work) they wouldn’t
put that much faith in a startup with just their series A raised right? I
don’t know the economics of these scooter companies, but they must be burning
cash to operate and the companies SF ended up choosing have plenty of cash to
burn.

