The Seattle city council was updating the law. It was entirely within their power to update the law in such a way that it removed restrictions on cab and for-h

The Seattle city council was updating the law. It was entirely within their power to update the law in such a way that it removed restrictions on cab and for-hire companies and kept TNCs lightly or not-at-all regulated. This may go to a deeper level than you intended, but law -- especially business regulation law like this -- is SO detailed and complex that I think that most citizens despair of being able to easily comment on changing it in any way that is not entirely generalities (such as: "I don't think that we should cap Uber's car-count"). I was listening to the Seattle city council meeting, and one of the councillors asked -- someone, staff or maybe the bill author -- "Why did we strike the section that lists the innumerable things that we don't want professional drivers to do (like, 'transport a prostitute' and such)?" The bill author responded, "Oh, well, we're reclassifying the TNCs as for-hire companies, so we already have law explaining all the things they can't do." (I'm paraphrasing, of course). This struck me as both ridiculous -- I'm fairly sure that we don't need separate business regulation making it... more?... illegal for cab drivers to aid and abet separate crimes -- and also a cause for despair. The city councillors who have been focusing considerable attention on this particular subject for weeks now are unable to keep the bill straight in their heads. How impenetrable will it be to everyone else?