6 ms·

As an Austinite, the whole think looked more like a childish pissing match rather than some real debate on regulation vs the free market. Austin City Council to

by aero142 10y ago

As an Austinite, the whole think looked more like a childish pissing match rather than some real debate on regulation vs the free market. Austin City Council took up a fight where there wasn't a problem, and Uber paid 9 million to fight something that they are already doing 3 hours down the road. http://www.driveuberhouston.com/fingerprint-background-check/ http://www.driveuberhouston.com/fingerprint-background-check... The whole thing makes no sense to me. The City Council won a fight, but gained nothing, Uber/Lyft lost a market but will happily move on to some other place. Meanwhile, the only real losers are the people living in Austin who are stuck in some of the worst traffic in the nation and now have a worse on demand ride system. What a waste.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
You might consider that the citizens of Austin voted on the measure that passed. This wasn't Austin City Council against Uber and Lyft. It was the citizens of Austin voting for provisions Uber and Lyft needed to comply with (and choose not to).
- blisterpeanuts 10y ago
  Only 17.3% of the voters turned out. Hardly the will of the people, just the ones who cared enough to vote, or were literate enough to understand what day of the week the vote was, or had a way to get to the voting station. Also, the ballot question itself apparently was worded so confusingly that it wasn't clear what box to check. Here's the actual ballot question (from http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/dont-mess-up-your-vote-heres-what-uber-lyft-ballot/nq2rs/ http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/dont-mess-up-your...): Shall the City Code be amended to repeal City Ordinance No. 20151217-075 relating to Transportation Network Companies; and replace with an ordinance that would repeal and prohibit required fingerprinting, repeal the requirement to identify the vehicle with a distinctive emblem, repeal the prohibition against loading and unloading passengers in a travel lane, and require other regulations for Transportation Network Companies? Then there are two boxes below that. Next to one it says “For the Ordinance” and on the other, “Against the Ordinance.” The writer points out that it's not clear which ordinance the boxes are referring to, or what the net effect of your vote. Usually, on ballots I've seen over the decades, there's a summary phrase on the ballot like "if you vote YES, you are supporting gay marriage" or something like that, nice and clear. If a clear phrasing had been provided, I wonder whether it still would have gone that way.
  - Nadya 10y ago
    "For the Ordinance" would be against the repeal - wouldn't it? So if you wanted to say "Yes, I want to repeal" and saw a positive answer it would be very easy to support not repealing the ordinance by saying you were "for it". Or is it to approve a new ordinance to repeal the existing ordinance? I can see people being very confused by this.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    > Only 17.3% of the voters turned out. Hardly the will of the people The will of the people willing to go out and vote. If you choose not to vote, that's on you.
    - ttraub 10y ago
      You said "the citizens" when in fact it was less than 20% of the voters. Technically you are correct, but really, this vote was hardly representative of the citizenry. Then there's the whole vague wording thing as explained above. For all we know, half of the voters didn't understand the ballot question. I'm not so sure I would have voted correctly either. What a fiasco.
      - ryan-c 10y ago
        I actually saw articles on mainstream news sites saying Uber/Lyft had threatened to leave if the vote passed. I'm sure plenty of people's votes weren't what they intended.
  - jhayward 10y ago
    > Only 17.3% of the voters turned out. Which is about 7% more than usually turn out for May elections, and about the same as chose the currently sitting governor. Please don't suggest it wasn't a valid election. As to confusing ballot language, I've never seen anyone write any clearer language that passes legal muster. It has to talk about two ordinances, one to be repealed and one to replace it, and the major points of difference between them. Go ahead, give it a shot.
  - droithomme 10y ago
vkou 10y ago
Taxis, traditional, or Uber-flavoured, actually make traffic worse. Unlike a private automobile, they add to congestion because they need to travel to their pickup point. If you actually want to fix traffic, tax cars, and add some buses/trains.
- aero142 10y ago
  Perhaps there are situations where this is true, and I'd be open to studies on this, but my experience says otherwise. I know people who did not own a car and instead mostly used buses and/or bikes to get around Austin. They knew they always had a reliable Uber ride to fill in the gaps. Taxis adjust to demand terribly in Austin so they are not reliable or pleasant to use. So, now these people are using cars more often because they don't have a reliable way to fill in the gaps. 2) Uber reduces the need for parking which means more parking lots and garages, which pushes business further away from each other, making walking between places more difficult. As far as I know, increasing density is a reliable way of reducing traffic because it makes alternatives more attractive. 3) I would love to see more buses and trains in Austin. Unfortunately, Austin has failed to pass much on that front largely due to incompetence in government all over the place. If I had my way, we would be investing heavily in buses, trains, walkways, all of it. Uber is a great way to fill in gaps between these. I see the fingerprinting battle as a giant distraction from real traffic problems.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    > I would love to see more buses and trains in Austin. Unfortunately, Austin has failed to pass much on that front largely due to incompetence in government all over the place. If I had my way, we would be investing heavily in buses, trains, walkways, all of it. Uber is a great way to fill in gaps between these. I see the fingerprinting battle as a giant distraction from real traffic problems. Looks like its time to get involved in your local government! Have you considered campaigning and running for the next city council seat that goes to election?
    - aero142 10y ago
ProAm 10y ago
Uber/Lyft put more time on the clock in regards to viewing their employees as contractors. That is what this was all about.
naveen99 10y ago
Houston is much larger than austin (different market category). Uber also does fingerprints in nyc. Uber earlier left san antonio over fingerprints for 6 months, until san antonio compromised with optional finger prints. If Uber was still in austin, i would think about taking the bus from houston instead of driving (or not bothering because its too much trouble). With Uber, I frequently car pool with my wife, as i can always take uber back on the way, if our times don't match. With Uber, I much more frequently consider bus / train, as i don't have to worry about transportation to and from the metro station.

by aero142 10y ago

toomuchtodo 10y ago

You might consider that the citizens of Austin voted on the measure that passed. This wasn't Austin City Council against Uber and Lyft. It was the citizens of Austin voting for provisions Uber and Lyft needed to comply with (and choose not to).

blisterpeanuts 10y ago
Only 17.3% of the voters turned out. Hardly the will of the people, just the ones who cared enough to vote, or were literate enough to understand what day of the week the vote was, or had a way to get to the voting station. Also, the ballot question itself apparently was worded so confusingly that it wasn't clear what box to check. Here's the actual ballot question (from http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/dont-mess-up-your-vote-heres-what-uber-lyft-ballot/nq2rs/ http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/dont-mess-up-your...): Shall the City Code be amended to repeal City Ordinance No. 20151217-075 relating to Transportation Network Companies; and replace with an ordinance that would repeal and prohibit required fingerprinting, repeal the requirement to identify the vehicle with a distinctive emblem, repeal the prohibition against loading and unloading passengers in a travel lane, and require other regulations for Transportation Network Companies? Then there are two boxes below that. Next to one it says “For the Ordinance” and on the other, “Against the Ordinance.” The writer points out that it's not clear which ordinance the boxes are referring to, or what the net effect of your vote. Usually, on ballots I've seen over the decades, there's a summary phrase on the ballot like "if you vote YES, you are supporting gay marriage" or something like that, nice and clear. If a clear phrasing had been provided, I wonder whether it still would have gone that way.
- Nadya 10y ago
  "For the Ordinance" would be against the repeal - wouldn't it? So if you wanted to say "Yes, I want to repeal" and saw a positive answer it would be very easy to support not repealing the ordinance by saying you were "for it". Or is it to approve a new ordinance to repeal the existing ordinance? I can see people being very confused by this.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > Only 17.3% of the voters turned out. Hardly the will of the people The will of the people willing to go out and vote. If you choose not to vote, that's on you.
  - ttraub 10y ago
    You said "the citizens" when in fact it was less than 20% of the voters. Technically you are correct, but really, this vote was hardly representative of the citizenry. Then there's the whole vague wording thing as explained above. For all we know, half of the voters didn't understand the ballot question. I'm not so sure I would have voted correctly either. What a fiasco.
    - ryan-c 10y ago
      I actually saw articles on mainstream news sites saying Uber/Lyft had threatened to leave if the vote passed. I'm sure plenty of people's votes weren't what they intended.
- jhayward 10y ago
  > Only 17.3% of the voters turned out. Which is about 7% more than usually turn out for May elections, and about the same as chose the currently sitting governor. Please don't suggest it wasn't a valid election. As to confusing ballot language, I've never seen anyone write any clearer language that passes legal muster. It has to talk about two ordinances, one to be repealed and one to replace it, and the major points of difference between them. Go ahead, give it a shot.
- droithomme 10y ago

vkou 10y ago

Taxis, traditional, or Uber-flavoured, actually make traffic worse. Unlike a private automobile, they add to congestion because they need to travel to their pickup point. If you actually want to fix traffic, tax cars, and add some buses/trains.

aero142 10y ago
Perhaps there are situations where this is true, and I'd be open to studies on this, but my experience says otherwise. I know people who did not own a car and instead mostly used buses and/or bikes to get around Austin. They knew they always had a reliable Uber ride to fill in the gaps. Taxis adjust to demand terribly in Austin so they are not reliable or pleasant to use. So, now these people are using cars more often because they don't have a reliable way to fill in the gaps. 2) Uber reduces the need for parking which means more parking lots and garages, which pushes business further away from each other, making walking between places more difficult. As far as I know, increasing density is a reliable way of reducing traffic because it makes alternatives more attractive. 3) I would love to see more buses and trains in Austin. Unfortunately, Austin has failed to pass much on that front largely due to incompetence in government all over the place. If I had my way, we would be investing heavily in buses, trains, walkways, all of it. Uber is a great way to fill in gaps between these. I see the fingerprinting battle as a giant distraction from real traffic problems.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > I would love to see more buses and trains in Austin. Unfortunately, Austin has failed to pass much on that front largely due to incompetence in government all over the place. If I had my way, we would be investing heavily in buses, trains, walkways, all of it. Uber is a great way to fill in gaps between these. I see the fingerprinting battle as a giant distraction from real traffic problems. Looks like its time to get involved in your local government! Have you considered campaigning and running for the next city council seat that goes to election?
  - aero142 10y ago

ProAm 10y ago

Uber/Lyft put more time on the clock in regards to viewing their employees as contractors. That is what this was all about.

naveen99 10y ago

Houston is much larger than austin (different market category). Uber also does fingerprints in nyc. Uber earlier left san antonio over fingerprints for 6 months, until san antonio compromised with optional finger prints. If Uber was still in austin, i would think about taking the bus from houston instead of driving (or not bothering because its too much trouble). With Uber, I frequently car pool with my wife, as i can always take uber back on the way, if our times don't match. With Uber, I much more frequently consider bus / train, as i don't have to worry about transportation to and from the metro station.