Comments on: To Protect Legitimate Interests, Seattle Should Cap All Forms of Innovation Immediately

By: bernici

bernici — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:29:00 +0000

Last time I rode in a yellow cab from the airport, got in an argument with the driver over driving safely and he dropped me off abandoned in burien. Not to mention the lose your lunch queasy feeling from being driven by a lead foot. It’s okay, an uber showed up to rescue me in less than 5 minutes. #neveragain

By: mfftc

mfftc — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 17:05:00 +0000

Perhaps the law is wrong and needs to be updated. Change the rules. As for the $160K medallion fee this is a construct created by governmental fiat and artificially limited availability. In other words our governmental overseers trying to manage the markets – and the all too predictable unintended consequences.
Yes, the current law abiding cabbies had to pay for these. Would suggest that the equitable thing to do is to have the gov’t buy them all back at a rational “market” rate. Doubt the current cabbies are any too happy with new competition (what company ever is) – but they shouldn’t be expected to play by different rules and also to have these mandated medallions completely nuked in value.
Taxpayers get stuck with the cost but their gov’t created the mess in the first place. And in the long run those who use these 3rd party transport services will benefit from innovation, better service models, and likely lower costs.

By: tamccann

tamccann — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 05:41:00 +0000

Great post Greg. A few to add.

To protect the interests of local grocery stores, citizens are limited to 1 Amazon Fresh delivery/year.

To protect the interests of local restaurants, citizens should be limited to 6 food truck visits/year.

To protect the interests of local cobblers, citizens should be limited to only 2 free returns to Zappos/year. Wait, returns help the shipping services, so I am confused who is winning or losing in this one.

By: Jerry D Goldberg

Jerry D Goldberg — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:36:00 +0000

The Council’s solution of limiting drivers was ridiculous. That being said, the current taxi drivers who paid many thousands of dollars (a good deal immigrants investing their life savings) need to be somehow compensated for the investment and effort they were required to make by the City. Real Estate agents (and their lobby) would balk if suddenly 500 new people said they were going to start selling their neighbors’ houses and take the commissions at a lower rate and these 50 didn’t have to have a R/E license or any training.
There has to be an intelligent solution that is progressive for new technology yet doesn’t punish legitimate drivers who followed the rules. Unfortunately, intelligent solutions and City Councils is usually a contradiction in terms.

By: Chris Topher Conley

Chris Topher Conley — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 07:15:00 +0000

Government should protect us from monopolies, not enforce them. All of these recommendations are less ridiculous than the City Council’s.

By: steve

steve — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 01:09:00 +0000

History repeats itself. You just deregulated the taxi industry. The last time did not go well for Seattle.

The city gave these companies 150 free permits when drivers have paid up to 160,000 dollars and you have smart Alec comments. This is the equivalent of the government taking your house without paying you for it. Property rights?

This is not about technology but venture capitalist trying to take over an industry. Cab companies could have put terminals in Unmarked cars thirty years ago but they follow the rule of law.

By: Kirill Zubovsky | Scoutzie.com

Kirill Zubovsky | Scoutzie.com — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 23:28:00 +0000

To protect the legitimate interests of our local barbers, hipster shall be required to shave and get a haircut at least twice a month.

Hm.. that might actually be a good thing.

By: Kirill Zubovsky | Scoutzie.com

Kirill Zubovsky | Scoutzie.com — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 20:17:00 +0000

To protect the legitimate interests of our local transportation authorities, highway signs shall be replaced with hipsters holding those same signs. A minimum of two people per sign shall be assigned: one to hold it, one to illuminate it at night. Bonus point for replacing automated I-90 gates with live people, holding stop signs.

By: Rory Triskaideka

Rory Triskaideka — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:49:00 +0000

Too far.

By: Reader

Reader — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:34:00 +0000

Prior to this legislation, the operation of TNCs in Seattle was illegal. All for-hire vehicles are covered by the existing regulations which didn’t permit TNCs.
Post this legislation, the operation of the TNCs in Seattle is legal. A specific set of language has been inserted to allow the operation of TNCs in a limited fashion.