4 ms·

The fact remains, at least as far as I understand from the article, that without a change in law the doghouses are illegal. Furthermore, after receiving two ce

The fact remains, at least as far as I understand from the article, that without a change in law the doghouses are illegal. Furthermore, after receiving two cease-and-desist letters, the owner of the company ignored them and continued to expand the company. The article phrases it as 'being unfazed by the letters'. One could also phrase it as willful neglect.

booleandilemma 8y ago
Sounds like they were taking a page out of Uber’s book.
ryanworl 8y ago
The city can just go remove them if they want to, but this illustrates one of my primary complaints with local government here: The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. She developed this project with help from the government, albeit a different department. Instead of that being enough to continue, she gets threats. I hope she continues to ignore them, and her expansion goes well elsewhere. They’ll come around once she can prove they drive more business (read: taxes) to the area.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  This is not how any of that works. It's one thing to be a startup and get some seed money from the government supportive of small businesses. It's another thing to just claim public space as your own, without any permits. Restaurants need permits to put sidewalk seating and tables; they can't just privatize the space in front of their property, because it's not theirs. Just because the government helped pay to develop drones doesn't mean you can use them anywhere, at any time, on public property without any restriction. The same goes for these doghouses.
  - ryanworl 8y ago
    Where did the city development group she worked with want her to put them? Outer space? It is trivial to see they wanted them installed in Manhattan in the sidewalk. The fact that there is no method of permitting at all is the problem.
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      That should've been figured out first. It's not as if the city is opposed to changing the regulations. She just didn't bother getting it sorted out before she actually did anything. Ignorance of the law excuses no one.
    - manicdee 8y ago
      There is a method of permitting them, it's just that the business did not pursue the hoop-jumping and form-filling paper trail because occupying public space in the pursuit of profit was more important than complying to local regulations.
      - makomk 8y ago
        If you read the article, there is no method of permitting them because the city didn't forsee their existence. There's literally no form she could fill in or hoop she could jump through that would make it possible to install them. They're not one of the uses of sidewalk space that New York City is familiar with, so she's screwed. (Naturally, they didn't tell her this until after a whole bunch had been installed.)
        Bjartr 8y ago
        That's untrue, they can petition the law be changed. It's a harder hoop than just getting an existing permit, but to say there's literally no avenue forward is disingenuous.
    - ori_b 8y ago
      > Where did the city development group she worked with want her to put them? Outer space? In the country where I live, we have something called 'private property'. Conveniently, it is generally not located in outer space. You can pay to purchase it, and then you can put whatever you want on it (within reason).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Analemma_ 8y ago
After getting caught flatfooted by Uber, I think cities have wised up and now come down hard on startups whose game plan is “break the law and ignore cease-and-desist letters, but move so fast that you can’t be pushed out“. Future entrepreneurs with this strategy in mind should not expect to get away with it just because Uber did.
Buge 8y ago
She got cease-and-desists from New York City. She's expanding outside of New York City. So the expansion is not in violation of the cease-and-desists.
tacostakohashi 8y ago
The doghouses aren't illegal - you can have as many as you want on your own private property. Expropriating public space is illegal, unsurprisingly.
gumby 8y ago
> The fact remains, at least as far as I understand from the article, that without a change in law the doghouses are illegal. It's not the doghouses per se that are illegal, it's arbitrarily using the public's right of way that's illegal. What if people put sidewalk-blocking tents in front of their houses in summer (it'd be a good idea to give your kids a bigger, and cooler, place to play in the summer heat.) That also wouldn't be allowed, but it would be perfectly fine in your back yard (assuming you have one).
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Reminds me of the one interesting job creating 'loophole' that is a weird sort of working exactly as intended. You might notice sign waver/wearer jobs at public intersections depending on your area. The person is allowed to be there with right of way but just leaving the signs behind would not be allowed. While it is technically a loss of labor to have someone waving the signs (even considering the attention getting) having someone carrying the signs actively ensures that it won't lead to any cluttering and imposes the cost of their salary for the public space they are occupying.
  - mrep 8y ago
    God I wish seattle actually enforced that because I see stupid signs blocking the sidewalks everywhere.

booleandilemma 8y ago

Sounds like they were taking a page out of Uber’s book.

ryanworl 8y ago

The city can just go remove them if they want to, but this illustrates one of my primary complaints with local government here: The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. She developed this project with help from the government, albeit a different department. Instead of that being enough to continue, she gets threats. I hope she continues to ignore them, and her expansion goes well elsewhere. They’ll come around once she can prove they drive more business (read: taxes) to the area.

bobthepanda 8y ago
This is not how any of that works. It's one thing to be a startup and get some seed money from the government supportive of small businesses. It's another thing to just claim public space as your own, without any permits. Restaurants need permits to put sidewalk seating and tables; they can't just privatize the space in front of their property, because it's not theirs. Just because the government helped pay to develop drones doesn't mean you can use them anywhere, at any time, on public property without any restriction. The same goes for these doghouses.
- ryanworl 8y ago
  Where did the city development group she worked with want her to put them? Outer space? It is trivial to see they wanted them installed in Manhattan in the sidewalk. The fact that there is no method of permitting at all is the problem.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    That should've been figured out first. It's not as if the city is opposed to changing the regulations. She just didn't bother getting it sorted out before she actually did anything. Ignorance of the law excuses no one.
  - manicdee 8y ago
    There is a method of permitting them, it's just that the business did not pursue the hoop-jumping and form-filling paper trail because occupying public space in the pursuit of profit was more important than complying to local regulations.
    - makomk 8y ago
      If you read the article, there is no method of permitting them because the city didn't forsee their existence. There's literally no form she could fill in or hoop she could jump through that would make it possible to install them. They're not one of the uses of sidewalk space that New York City is familiar with, so she's screwed. (Naturally, they didn't tell her this until after a whole bunch had been installed.)
      - Bjartr 8y ago
        That's untrue, they can petition the law be changed. It's a harder hoop than just getting an existing permit, but to say there's literally no avenue forward is disingenuous.
  - ori_b 8y ago
    > Where did the city development group she worked with want her to put them? Outer space? In the country where I live, we have something called 'private property'. Conveniently, it is generally not located in outer space. You can pay to purchase it, and then you can put whatever you want on it (within reason).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Analemma_ 8y ago

After getting caught flatfooted by Uber, I think cities have wised up and now come down hard on startups whose game plan is “break the law and ignore cease-and-desist letters, but move so fast that you can’t be pushed out“. Future entrepreneurs with this strategy in mind should not expect to get away with it just because Uber did.

Buge 8y ago

She got cease-and-desists from New York City. She's expanding outside of New York City. So the expansion is not in violation of the cease-and-desists.

tacostakohashi 8y ago

The doghouses aren't illegal - you can have as many as you want on your own private property. Expropriating public space is illegal, unsurprisingly.

gumby 8y ago

> The fact remains, at least as far as I understand from the article, that without a change in law the doghouses are illegal. It's not the doghouses per se that are illegal, it's arbitrarily using the public's right of way that's illegal. What if people put sidewalk-blocking tents in front of their houses in summer (it'd be a good idea to give your kids a bigger, and cooler, place to play in the summer heat.) That also wouldn't be allowed, but it would be perfectly fine in your back yard (assuming you have one).

Nasrudith 8y ago
Reminds me of the one interesting job creating 'loophole' that is a weird sort of working exactly as intended. You might notice sign waver/wearer jobs at public intersections depending on your area. The person is allowed to be there with right of way but just leaving the signs behind would not be allowed. While it is technically a loss of labor to have someone waving the signs (even considering the attention getting) having someone carrying the signs actively ensures that it won't lead to any cluttering and imposes the cost of their salary for the public space they are occupying.
- mrep 8y ago
  God I wish seattle actually enforced that because I see stupid signs blocking the sidewalks everywhere.