4 ms·

You're very misinformed. I live in the area. Uber/Lyft have campaigned really aggressively. I've got stuff from them in the mail, they contacted me at my unl

You're very misinformed. I live in the area. Uber/Lyft have campaigned really aggressively. I've got stuff from them in the mail, they contacted me at my unlisted cell, they've been canvassing hard for months. I've never even seen an "anti" ad. The "pro" Uber/Lyft PAC spent north of $8m, while the "anti" PAC spent 1/40th of that [0]. This is by far the most money ever spent on any election in this city's history, by a factor of about 5. And all of it is Silicon Valley money, which is just weird. Quite frankly I have no idea whether the regulatory reforms Uber/Lyft wanted were sensible or not. I don't know whether they were really necessary for Uber/Lyft to continue operations or not. I just know a bunch of SV investors spent an absurd amount of money trying to convince everybody of that, and Austinites are a very skeptical bunch who decided not to take their terms. [0] http://qz.com/677908/the-future-of-uber-and-lyft-is-at-stake-in-austin/ http://qz.com/677908/the-future-of-uber-and-lyft-is-at-stake...

bendbro 10y ago
I live in the area too, and it is known that politicians involved in the bill have conflicts of interest with the cab companies. Here's JDI's response to Mike Maples argument that mentions it. http://josh.jones-dilworth.com/post/138468651784/in-response-to-mike-maples-jr-re-lyft-v-city-of http://josh.jones-dilworth.com/post/138468651784/in-response...
partiallypro 10y ago
Getting mailers does not at all mean you have lobbying power, and even spending large sums of money on a campaign doesn't mean you have lobbying power. Often times power comes from who you know. Uber and Lyft are not local like cab companies, so they have no local precedent or representation in local governments. People have this Aaron Sorkin view of government lobbying where dropping dollars from helicopters can get you anything, that is patently false, even in DC. Look up "regulatory capture," a Nobel was won because of it. It's exactly what's happening here.
ashitlerferad 10y ago
How did they get your unlisted cell? Hack into a cell company?
- richteer 10y ago
  I believe access to your number is one of the permissions the app requests, so it was probably already on file for all who have installed the app in that geolocation.
carussell 10y ago
> I've never even seen an "anti" ad. Well if we want to match anecdotes, I live in the area and have only seen "anti" campaigning. FWIW, I'm in North Austin, where it turns out the opposition apparently did really well. > Quite frankly I have no idea whether the regulatory reforms Uber/Lyft wanted were sensible or not. [...] SV investors spent an absurd amount of money trying to convince everybody of that, and Austinites are a very skeptical bunch who decided not to take their terms. I think this is a weird characterization, to the point where your bias is showing. Both your comments and the article you link to make it seem as if the ridesharing startups launched an underhanded campaign in order to change the status quo to suit themselves. But that's not the case. The reality is that regulatory changes to specifically target Uber and Lyft were adopted months ago, those companies reacted by saying, "WTF WTF let's not do this", managed to bring it to a special election to get the city to reconsider the new regulations, and that attempt failed. I find your own comments as well as the articles that try to focus on storytelling to be the ones that rely the most on readers who aren't entirely sure of what's going on. Speak some reassuring words that suggest to the confused reader, "someone's trying to pull the wool over your eyes; voting <this way> would show them it can't be done!", spin some yarn about companies trying to buy their way into deregulation to benefit their bottom line, and that's how you win a campaign to use the law to get the ridesharing companies in question to go away and preserve cab companies' customer base.
lkbm 10y ago
I don't see any conflict between anything you said and partiallypro's statement. How does campaign spending from one special interest to get rid of an ordinance prove the ordinance wasn't designed for an opposing special interest?

bendbro 10y ago

I live in the area too, and it is known that politicians involved in the bill have conflicts of interest with the cab companies. Here's JDI's response to Mike Maples argument that mentions it. http://josh.jones-dilworth.com/post/138468651784/in-response-to-mike-maples-jr-re-lyft-v-city-of http://josh.jones-dilworth.com/post/138468651784/in-response...

partiallypro 10y ago

Getting mailers does not at all mean you have lobbying power, and even spending large sums of money on a campaign doesn't mean you have lobbying power. Often times power comes from who you know. Uber and Lyft are not local like cab companies, so they have no local precedent or representation in local governments. People have this Aaron Sorkin view of government lobbying where dropping dollars from helicopters can get you anything, that is patently false, even in DC. Look up "regulatory capture," a Nobel was won because of it. It's exactly what's happening here.

ashitlerferad 10y ago

How did they get your unlisted cell? Hack into a cell company?

richteer 10y ago
I believe access to your number is one of the permissions the app requests, so it was probably already on file for all who have installed the app in that geolocation.

carussell 10y ago

> I've never even seen an "anti" ad. Well if we want to match anecdotes, I live in the area and have only seen "anti" campaigning. FWIW, I'm in North Austin, where it turns out the opposition apparently did really well. > Quite frankly I have no idea whether the regulatory reforms Uber/Lyft wanted were sensible or not. [...] SV investors spent an absurd amount of money trying to convince everybody of that, and Austinites are a very skeptical bunch who decided not to take their terms. I think this is a weird characterization, to the point where your bias is showing. Both your comments and the article you link to make it seem as if the ridesharing startups launched an underhanded campaign in order to change the status quo to suit themselves. But that's not the case. The reality is that regulatory changes to specifically target Uber and Lyft were adopted months ago, those companies reacted by saying, "WTF WTF let's not do this", managed to bring it to a special election to get the city to reconsider the new regulations, and that attempt failed. I find your own comments as well as the articles that try to focus on storytelling to be the ones that rely the most on readers who aren't entirely sure of what's going on. Speak some reassuring words that suggest to the confused reader, "someone's trying to pull the wool over your eyes; voting <this way> would show them it can't be done!", spin some yarn about companies trying to buy their way into deregulation to benefit their bottom line, and that's how you win a campaign to use the law to get the ridesharing companies in question to go away and preserve cab companies' customer base.

lkbm 10y ago

I don't see any conflict between anything you said and partiallypro's statement. How does campaign spending from one special interest to get rid of an ordinance prove the ordinance wasn't designed for an opposing special interest?