or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › I think I hate San Francisco.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I think I hate San Francisco. - Page 133

post #1981 of 2715
Quote:
Originally Posted by msg View Post

At SFO, there are announcements every few minutes warning against getting in non-official taxis. I wasn't scared.

Until an accident - when folks find out the non-official "taxi's" only have personal car insurance instead of commercial insurance to cover passengers.

 

An "official" San Francisco taxi insurance rate runs between $3000 to $5000 per month - unless the taxi company post's a multi-million dollar bond to be self-insured.

 

For the extra few dollars, I will protect myself and my family by being completely insured while traveling on licensed public transportation.

post #1982 of 2715
Quote:
Originally Posted by lefty View Post

Will you be sporting a pink moustache out of solidarity?

lefty

Hell no. I think that shit is nuts.

As for use of licensed and insured transportation, Uber gets lumped in with Lyft and the like, but it's a licensed livery car service. The controversy stems from their use of an app to "poach" street hails from SF taxis. And on this point, fuck the taxi companies. They have lobbied the city hard for years to cut out competition, and the result is the status quo. As far as I'm concerned, anyone with a good driving record who can pass a test, demonstrate financial responsibility, and is willing to subject the vehicle to regular inspection should be able to get a medallion. Compete or die, mofos.
post #1983 of 2715
I don't think anyone, in any city, has much sympathy for taxi companies. It's remarkable they have as much political power as they do, given how unpopular they are.

The whole thing, like you said SB, is them trying to protect their business by having the government lock out their competitors. It's ridiculous.
post #1984 of 2715
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by lefty View Post

Will you be sporting a pink moustache out of solidarity?

lefty

Hell no. I think that shit is nuts.

As for use of licensed and insured transportation, Uber gets lumped in with Lyft and the like, but it's a licensed livery car service. The controversy stems from their use of an app to "poach" street hails from SF taxis. And on this point, fuck the taxi companies. They have lobbied the city hard for years to cut out competition, and the result is the status quo. As far as I'm concerned, anyone with a good driving record who can pass a test, demonstrate financial responsibility, and is willing to subject the vehicle to regular inspection should be able to get a medallion. Compete or die, mofos.

This nails it. I have a real problem with the idea that any random schmuck can pick up a fare on the street, but something has to break through the taxi monopoly.
post #1985 of 2715
BTW there are approximately 8,000 housing units going online between 9th and Market and Castro and Market over the next few years. That will have a huge impact on the Market Street corridor along that stretch, but the area around 6th and Market will likely be a shit-hole for decades to come.
post #1986 of 2715
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

Bad stuff...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aravenel View Post

...about...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by imatlas View Post

...the taxi industry.

 

And with that sugarbutch, aravenal and imatias were never heard from again.

 

lefty

post #1987 of 2715
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

Fog?

In other news, every home buyer in San Francisco should be required to sign a piece of paper at closing which says, in 100 pt. type, "I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT VIEWS ARE NOT PROTECTED AND I HAVE NO RIGHT TO RESTRICT THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES."

Heh. I have a friend who's an architect and who used to do nothing but shepherd various bits of minor remodeling and renovation through the SF planning bureaucracy. He claimed that for some houses in some neighborhoods it took up to a year to get permission from as many as half-a-dozen separate entities just to re-paint your front door the same color it was already.
post #1988 of 2715
I enjoyed lefty's last post, so I wanted to let it ride as long as possible, but this just in:

http://sfist.com/2013/07/31/public_utilities_commission_ready_t.php
Quote:
PUC Ready To Legalize Ridesharing In California

After mulling over how to regulate semi-legal ridesharing services like Lyft, SideCar and Uber, the California Public Utilities has handed down a proposed ruling that would create a new set of regulations for the services and label them as "Transportation Network Companies," rather than taxi or limo services.
post #1989 of 2715
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Copeland View Post


For the extra few dollars, I will protect myself and my family by being completely insured while traveling on licensed public transportation.

Tell that to Julie Christine Day.

I know a few cab drivers. I have met and know a couple of cab company owners, as well as their lobbyists. I take cabs only when I absolutely have to.

I actually took one today from Caltrain to Wingtip. The bastard started whining because I paid with my card. The cab racket is set up from the start to be oppositional and rent-seeking.
post #1990 of 2715
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

I enjoyed lefty's last post, so I wanted to let it ride as long as possible, but this just in:

http://sfist.com/2013/07/31/public_utilities_commission_ready_t.php

Any time companies cheer at being regulated, the rest of the world is taking it from behind. Of course, it is just the kind of thing that San Franciscans unthinkingly support like lemmings, which is what makes me hate San Francisco. Just a hint, if the cab companies are clamoring to be regulated, and the new car companies are thrilled about being regulated, why do you suppose this is?
post #1991 of 2715
I think the new companies are putting a sunny face on the least bad option for them. They wanted to continue as they have with minimal regulation and they were threatened with being shut down entirely.
post #1992 of 2715
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

I think the new companies are putting a sunny face on the least bad option for them. They wanted to continue as they have with minimal regulation and they were threatened with being shut down entirely.

That's never what it means. What they are saying is "thank you for making us part of the dominant monopoly, now bar the door and don't let the next guy in." It is the same thing that the taxi guys were saying. What do you think the taxi companies were saying when they were extolling the wonders of being regulated in the same space? Companies love being regulated if the regulations create a major barrier to entry.

BTW, the clue is that the companies are being licensed, not the cars or drivers.
post #1993 of 2715
Good point about the licensing.
post #1994 of 2715
From the public perspective this is, at least, not worse from the status quo in that there will be more cars on the road and there are options you can use if you are dissatisfied with the existing options. The downside is that the industry really doesn't have natural barriers to entry. A man and a car can give a ride, and by creating barriers like this we are just seeing a different sort of competition, but the industry isn't now open to competition. We'll see relatively soon if they are going to impose some fee restrictions. I imagine they will. At that point, you might as well paint them yellow.
post #1995 of 2715
Good points all.

But then you come home to your neighbors:

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › I think I hate San Francisco.