
Vote Clears Way for Taxi Rider Apps in NYC - sethbannon
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2012/12/13/vote-clears-way-for-taxi-rider-apps/
======
htf
> 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.

~~~
rayiner
> 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.

~~~
netfire
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.

~~~
RHSeeger
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.

~~~
netfire
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?

------
nlh
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...)

~~~
rayiner
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?

~~~
nlh
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?

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
jvm
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.

~~~
tptacek
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.

~~~
sami36
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.

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
sami36
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.

------
noarchy
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.

------
bdcravens
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 ....

