Prop 1 in Austin (West: buy, school, law)

[AMJ27]

Originally Posted by A-Tex

All I can say is I didn't care much about this issue, but Ãœber/Lyft's relentless deluge of unwanted political calls to my cell and daily mailbox stuffing with their junk have convinced me to vote against the proposition.

I've lost count of how many people I've heard saying exactly this. A lot of people who didn't have especially strong feelings about the issue have been pushed to the "no" category simply because Uber has been so aggressive. We have been getting multiple calls/texts a day, canvassers at our house, tons of mailings. It's left a very negative impression on me too.

[rangergrit]

I guess I'm lucky in only getting one or more postcards a day. Overkill for sure.

But, I think our city council is trying to fix something that wasn't broken. These companies have revolutionized transportation. For the better. They did it with no input from local governments.

Now our local politicians want to fix a non-problem.

Listening to all the arguments, the one I liked best was an idea Mayor Adler proposed letting the drivers choose whether to be fingerprinted. Those that did got some sort of perks.

I'm not sure what happened, but I think the council wouldn't agree because they think they are the "smart people", and the populace are just the dumb people they are in charge of.

Or there is a special interest group financing many council members. Just speculation.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by rangergrit

Or there is a special interest group financing many council members. Just speculation.

The council members are getting close to diddly-squat. Seriously, the Prop 1 people are trying to make hay out of something like $3k in campaign contributions.


If that was actually an issue, if the council members were actually corrupt in that manner, Uber/Lyft would just have to make 3k or so in campaign contributions each and the issue would have been over months/years ago.


Instead they've spent over three orders of magnitude more with this special election (and probably more to come, with federal fines over robo-calling).




For right or wrong, the council members feel this is actually an issue for their constituents.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by Novacek

For right or wrong, the council members feel this is actually an issue for their constituents.

Yes, that is the crux of the problem for me - that this non-issue (imho, as a constituent) has been made into an issue. I don't care how much money either side is spending, or how obnoxious a company may be in someone's estimation. This is the proverbial answer in search of a problem.

[Aquitaine]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Have you actually seen the ads with UBER's description of what's going on? They are so far from reality and so skewed as to make, as I said, a politician blush.

Like everybody else, I get the same deluge of campaign material. It is certainly overkill. But my consideration of reality is the nuts-and-bolts cost benefit analysis of what is being proposed. I dismiss the following issues as irrelevant:

1) City council members getting money from the old taxi cartels - even if true, the old transportation companies can't compete on the scale that Uber can. They are set up to be local, 'closed loop' cartels that get their legislative agenda passed one time and then never stick their necks out.

2) Uber/Lyft spending money on getting laws they want. Some people seem to feel that it's OK to lobby or spend money advertising, but actually writing the text of the law crosses the line. I understand this, but this is an objection to our legislative process in Austin.

3) Big, out of town corporations throwing their weight around. This is Austin. We are a tech hub. Acting like one doesn't mean we automatically say yes to these people, but it does mean we need to pick the battles that matter. I believe that the council genuinely thinks fingerprinting is important. As someone with more expertise on background checks than your typical Internet dweller, I know they're mistaken. They want a piece of the pie. They want those two 1% of gross revenue streams. It's the COA - they've never met revenue they didn't like.

your convenience (yes, that IS possible, though I realize that in this instant gratification society that

It isn't my convenience. It's the people whose lives and jobs depend upon these services. You would know that if you ever interacted with them.

I find it mindboggling that there are people who will completely ignore that whole problem, fraught with peril as it is, because they find taxicabs inconvenient and Uber convenient.

I suppose my question here is: what alternative do you propose? I didn't come up with the COA petition to legislation path and I haven't seen it used before now. It's tough to get 65,000 signatures. Direct democracy is far more prone to outside influence than representative democracy. Then again, making transportation cheaper and more readily available is much more a service to the masses than to the handful that ever availed themselves of the old taxi system.

So, when Monsanto or Walmart or Exxon or the like wants to do the same, just flat write the regulations that govern them,

I have been around CD for a number of years and I know you are not as ignorant as this statement suggests. This is a local governance issue. Monsanto and Walmart and Exxon lobby on the State and National levels and they do not do so by petition. Other than the fact that they are large corporations with agendas, they have nothing in common with Uber, Lyft, or this discussion.

Just goes to show you: this is a proxy fight for the Texas Horse Ladies of Austin against Big Corporations. Any corporations!

because after all, Uber got to so clearly it's fine and dandy, are you going to be singing the same tune? Because if you can't defend them doing so with the same enthusiasm as you do Uber doing so, what does that say about your argument in favor of Uber doing so?

I have no problem with any of those companies lobbying for what they want, because at least then I know what they want. I also do not automatically regard them as evil, as I guess you do, but that's even less relevant.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

It's tough to get 65,000 signatures.

We haven't seen 65k signatures. Uber/Lyft turned in 20k.

They _claimed_ they had another 45k. Of course, they've lied about everything else, so...


There were also reports that they directly lied when gathering those signatures as well, people were being told that the city was trying to "outlaw uber and lyft" (that's admittedly hearsay, but again, I don't trust uber and lyft for provably good reasons).

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by Novacek

We haven't seen 65k signatures. Uber/Lyft turned in 20k.

They _claimed_ they had another 45k. Of course, they've lied about everything else, so...


There were also reports that they directly lied when gathering those signatures as well, people were being told that the city was trying to "outlaw uber and lyft" (that's admittedly hearsay, but again, I don't trust uber and lyft for provably good reasons).

But you trust the city council?

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

That's the beauty of ride sharing (and the whole idea of the "sharing economy" made possible by the internet). The barrier for entry is much lower, yet less regulation is needed because the technology empowers us to keep each other accountable rather than the government. With the way ride sharing operates now, if Uber starts abusing their power, another company can easily pop up and start doing what Uber does better.

Regulations are mostly needed when a business line has a high enough barrier of entry that wealthy and entrenched corporations can abuse their power (i.e. telecom, oil, most manufacturing, etc.). Uber and Lyft will inevitably go toward owning fleets of driverless vehicles, which will make ride sharing much cheaper than owning a car, and we'll all become dependent on them. That's when they'll start abusing their power, and that's when they'll need to be heavily regulated, which basically makes a government-sanctioned oligopoly. That is, until someone comes up with a better idea that puts them out of business, and the cycle repeats. Trying to keep cabs around, and trying to regulate ride sharing like a cab company is simply being a Luddite.

By which time, if Uber manages to manipulate enough people NOW to get their own way all the time and write their own laws to regulate themselves, it'll be WAY too late.

They're already a multinational big corporation with a CEO who has a net worth in excess of $6 billion dollars and is on the Forbes list of 400 richest Americas (at 290 in 2014). It's surprisingly difficult to find out his annual income, though.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by CarnivalGal

But you trust the city council?

The city council is responsible to the voters.

Their meetings are open.

Political expenditures and donations are disclosed.


I trust them a hell of a lot more than I do Uber, especially since Uber has continued to lie and break the law.

1. Uber was telling their drivers to break the law and paying their fines (how that's not conspiracy, I don't know).
2. Uber has lied and said that taxpayers would pay for background checks.
3. Uber drivers _today_ continue to break the regulations passed in January (identifying emblem, etc.)
4. The latest news, they broke federal law robo-texting everyone.



(and by Uber, I mean both Uber and lyft, but I'm tired of typing both)

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

By which time, if Uber manages to manipulate enough people NOW to get their own way all the time and write their own laws to regulate themselves, it'll be WAY too late.

They're already a multinational big corporation with a CEO who has a net worth in excess of $6 billion dollars and is on the Forbes list of 400 richest Americas (at 290 in 2014). It's surprisingly difficult to find out his annual income, though.

Honestly, you are hyper-focused on the company and its value and the amount of money the CEO makes. I don't care. It is irrelevant. I don't care and couldn't care less.

If there is an ACTUAL problem with ride-sharing services sometime in the future, the CoA can make all sorts of restrictions with wide-spread voter support, I am sure. This in no way 'neuters' the city council by any restricting future regulations. The more egregious action is the 'pre-emptive' correction of a non-existent problem.