4 ms·

I don't know about other major cities in California, but in San Francisco, taxi medallions were free until Gavin Newsom decided to "monetize" them in 2010. Afte

I don't know about other major cities in California, but in San Francisco, taxi medallions were free until Gavin Newsom decided to "monetize" them in 2010. After that the city sold them for $250,000 each while providing low interest loans (via a local credit union) so drivers could pay for them. When Uber and Lyft arrived, their drivers didn't need medallions and there were no limits on how many drivers either company could have on the street. The medallion system collapsed and those who took out loans for them did indeed end up getting screwed.

lostcolony 6y ago
They were "free", but they've always been supplied lower than demand (that is, the number of permits grew slower than the population's need for taxis did), an arrangement that worked well for cab drivers since it allowed less competition, and a profitable secondary market for the medallions. Lyft/Uber/etc gutted that demand. Not saying 'good' or 'bad', just, you can't blame the city for the price of the medallion; it already had a high one due to the demand outstripping the supply. Makes sense that the government would seek to profit when it supplies them, given that.
- thereisnospork 6y ago
  >Not saying 'good' or 'bad', just, you can't blame the city for the price of the medallion; it already had a high one due to the demand outstripping the supply. Makes sense that the government would seek to profit when it supplies them, given that. I can certainly blame the city for letting the demand exceed the supply. Irrespective of 22 Uber et all was a well deserved comeuppance for the taxi industry.
908B64B197 6y ago
>while providing low interest loans (via a local credit union) so drivers could pay for them That's better than most predatory lending around these medallions in other cities. >The medallion system collapsed and those who took out loans for them did indeed end up getting screwed. Unless there was some wording in the medallion law that would prohibit competitors from entering the market or set a buy-back value, I don't think anyone was screwed. Risky assets imply... Risks!

lostcolony 6y ago

They were "free", but they've always been supplied lower than demand (that is, the number of permits grew slower than the population's need for taxis did), an arrangement that worked well for cab drivers since it allowed less competition, and a profitable secondary market for the medallions. Lyft/Uber/etc gutted that demand. Not saying 'good' or 'bad', just, you can't blame the city for the price of the medallion; it already had a high one due to the demand outstripping the supply. Makes sense that the government would seek to profit when it supplies them, given that.

thereisnospork 6y ago
>Not saying 'good' or 'bad', just, you can't blame the city for the price of the medallion; it already had a high one due to the demand outstripping the supply. Makes sense that the government would seek to profit when it supplies them, given that. I can certainly blame the city for letting the demand exceed the supply. Irrespective of 22 Uber et all was a well deserved comeuppance for the taxi industry.

908B64B197 6y ago

>while providing low interest loans (via a local credit union) so drivers could pay for them That's better than most predatory lending around these medallions in other cities. >The medallion system collapsed and those who took out loans for them did indeed end up getting screwed. Unless there was some wording in the medallion law that would prohibit competitors from entering the market or set a buy-back value, I don't think anyone was screwed. Risky assets imply... Risks!