Another speed bump for Uber in Pittsburgh (Penn: crime, day care)

[Enough_Already]

Originally Posted by jay5835

All the bike lanes I've seen are on the far right side of the road.

Penn Avenue...try again!

[Enough_Already]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Conservatives are less likely to support bike lanes, but that doesn't mean 0% do. A 2011 poll in NYC found 59% of the public in favor, including 35% of Republicans. Don't try to make out every random issue as a proxy battle between the forces of "good" and "evil."



Any action taken to create or modify a public right of way could be seen as being socialist. Roads are socialism for cars, sidewalks are socialism for pedestrians, and bike lanes are socialism for cyclists, busways are socialism for transit riders. The job of government is to balance out all of those needs to satisfy the electorate.

It is socialism because bike lanes are only benefiting a small number of people while hurting a much larger group of people. It is another form of handout because it does not hold water in a cost benefit analysis.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by UKyank

A more realistic statement by the mayor would be "I was so enthralled that uber wanted to set up shop in Pittsburgh, & uber was such a hip & cool company then, I rolled out the red carpet, let them set up shop & entered into a completely one sided agreement because they were so hip & cool......now just 3 years later progressives don't particularly like uber so I have to pretend I don't even know the CEO's name and make some anti uber statements so as to not tarnish the progressive street cred I've been trying to build. When's my next speech about sanctuary cities?"

Sounds like a lot of East Enders I know.

[Paul2421]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Not so sure about that. Austin outright banned Uber after all, and still seems to have cred.

Of course, maybe you're talking about the potential to outright lose the jobs associated with the self-driving car lab in Pittsburgh. That would be a blow to the local economy, and Uber is just the sort of company I could see making a jerk move like that as retaliation.

Austin actually got a ton of bad press when the tech elites tried to get ride sharing during the sxsw and the local alternative apps crashed.

[Paul2421]

Originally Posted by UKyank

A more realistic statement by the mayor would be "I was so enthralled that uber wanted to set up shop in Pittsburgh, & uber was such a hip & cool company then, I rolled out the red carpet, let them set up shop & entered into a completely one sided agreement because they were so hip & cool......now just 3 years later progressives don't particularly like uber so I have to pretend I don't even know the CEO's name and make some anti uber statements so as to not tarnish the progressive street cred I've been trying to build. When's my next speech about sanctuary cities?"

this is exactly what happened. is this really gaining favor with progressives? would be interested on our progressive member opinion on the issue.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Not so sure about that. Austin outright banned Uber after all, and still seems to have cred.

Of course, maybe you're talking about the potential to outright lose the jobs associated with the self-driving car lab in Pittsburgh. That would be a blow to the local economy, and Uber is just the sort of company I could see making a jerk move like that as retaliation.

I am thinking more the latter in terms of tech jobs lost if Uber pulls out, and specifically the perception that Pittsburgh is a bad place for them. I also think the street presence of the self driving cars gives Pittsburgh a "cool factor" that would evaporate. I don't think many would think it's a huge deal if they suddenly had to use another ride sharing service, though if ride sharing were to vanish entirely, I also think that would be a pretty major issue.

[Paul2421]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

I am thinking more the latter in terms of tech jobs lost if Uber pulls out, and specifically the perception that Pittsburgh is a bad place for them. I also think the street presence of the self driving cars gives Pittsburgh a "cool factor" that would evaporate. I don't think many would think it's a huge deal if they suddenly had to use another ride sharing service, though if ride sharing were to vanish entirely, I also think that would be a pretty major issue.

I agree. Competition is always good though.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by Enough_Already

It is socialism because bike lanes are only benefiting a small number of people while hurting a much larger group of people. It is another form of handout because it does not hold water in a cost benefit analysis.

I don't believe the definition of socialism is "benefit for the few at the expense of the many". In fact, it is generally the opposite of that. Here, let me help you:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by UKyank

A more realistic statement by the mayor would be "I was so enthralled that uber wanted to set up shop in Pittsburgh, & uber was such a hip & cool company then, I rolled out the red carpet, let them set up shop & entered into a completely one sided agreement because they were so hip & cool......now just 3 years later progressives don't particularly like uber so I have to pretend I don't even know the CEO's name and make some anti uber statements so as to not tarnish the progressive street cred I've been trying to build. When's my next speech about sanctuary cities?"

Winner.

[Yac]

Oh no! the dreaded "far left" monster has entered the debate again!
As this thread continues, it would be great if you all focused on the issues at hand, not on fighting those you disagree with politically.
Also, as someone who was born behind the iron curtain, I have to say I always find the American definition of socialism rather funny, but that's not a topic for here.
To sum up: the topic is not "fight over ideology", in case it's hard to spot.
Carry on.
Yac.