Leave it to an elected official from El Paso to promise to screw up something everybody loves. You can read about Pickett's latest vanity moment HERE.
It's about ride sharing. It's about a vote that took place in Austin last week. It's about confusion created by one side not being able to articulate its argument and the other side purposely making things hard to understand.
What happened in Austin is pretty easy to explain. Austin is not very progressive. They claim they are. There are plenty of people who dress like they're homeless when they are not and listen to music that doesn't sound like music and they do a lot of drugs. However, the people who vote don't really share that same sense of positive progressive action. Austin voters tend to vote down anything they think will raise their taxes or change their neighborhood. This includes money for mass transit and public private mixed use developments. As one local political consultant told me a while back "if there's an option to vote no on something, likely Austin voters will take that option every time." Likely Austin voters are quite literally that old man screaming at the kids to get off his lawn. (There are some legitimate reasons for their anger and fear of "yes," but that's a story for another time.)
So, when Uber and Lyft (ride sharing companies) got a petition signed to put the rules governing their operations to a vote it was thought that the popular ride sharing services would prevail over the City of Austin's draconian restrictions. But they were wrong. A few factors led to Uber and Lyft losing.
1. Voters had the opportunity to literally vote "no" - as stated, they won't even blink, read or think when given the option to stop change.
2. High voter turnout precincts were in parts of town where they don't need ride sharing and have access to public transportation and cabs (North Central Austin).
3. The ballot language was quite confusing and the new voters who showed up to support the ride sharing services complained they didn't know what they were reading/doing.
4. The May election slot is where proposition go to die - only angry people vote in the May elections. November would have been a better time for this ballot question given the every four year voter is a lot more positive and willing to take chances and spend money.
5. Uber and Lyft failed to drive home the point that they'd completely halt services to the city if they lost. Most people figured they were bluffing and voted against them assuming they'd still have access to the services, but on their terms. They were wrong and it's Uber/Lyft's fault for not making their position clearer.
6. The hundreds of thousands of people who live just outside Austin's city limits (not the concert) were not able to cast a vote. Many people, my wife and I included, use Uber to go into the city for date night, concerts etc. While Uber and Lyft still operate where we live (out in Travis county, but my address still says "Austin"), but they can't drop us off in Austin anymore. Had they held a county wide vote, Uber/Lyft would have prevailed easily.
When Uber/Lyft lost they stopped service to the city and everybody lost their mind. It became apparent within 24 hours that a ton of people had come to rely on the service and were going to miss it. Sure, there are alternatives, but they are much more expensive and lot less accessible because they simply don't have enough cars to service demand. Uber and Lyft's business models provide plenty of cars at a low price. New regulations would have kept them from sticking to their business model. So they left.
And just a quick note... Austin's political scene is very much a "kiss the ring" system where you are expected to make campaign donations to the council and spend money promoting council member's agenda if you want them to treat your fairly. The taxi cabs gave $54,000 to council members/challengers in the last election. They subsequently were allowed to write their competitor's regulations so that they would not be able to comply with them. Nobody thinks that's fair. But, that's how politics go. Had Uber simply started a PAC and gave money to city council members, they could have written their own rules.
Pickett focus squarely on the fingerprinting aspect of the regulations. He assumes that's what voters really want put into the regulations. However, he ignores the other parts of the ballot that were more likely what drove voters on the fence towards a no vote - click HERE for ballot language. Note that one item was not stopping in lanes of traffic to pick up passengers - that's already illegal! You can't pick your mom up from the beauty salon like that!
It's not smart to assume one issue was bigger than the others in this case. It's also disingenuous for Pickett to have implied
"State Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, said that voters in cities such as Austin, Houston and New York want ride-hailing drivers to undergo city-run background checks — including fingerprints — and that those wishes need to be respected."
Nobody in New York or Houston voted in an election to put in fingerprinting. Why would he mislead people by saying that?
The reason fingerprinting is a big deal is because the taxi cab lobby knows that the process takes forever and is somewhat expensive. Uber and Lyft operate on a model where drivers can sign up quickly and easily and drive passengers around part time. Requiring fingerprinting slows the process of them being hired by requiring potential drivers to go find a fingerprinting place, pay the fee and then wait for the results. It would be easier for them to get a different part time job. And let's not forget - they are already having their backgrounds checked by Uber going back seven years. Nobody can demonstrate what fingerprinting would add here other than an impediment to Uber/Lyft's business model.
Using New York and Houston as a comparison to Austin or El Paso is stupid. Why? Because Uber in New York and Houston have a primary revenue generator in what's called "Uber Black." Uber started as a company that utilized the tens of thousands of professional limo drivers in cities like San Francisco, New York and DC who had idle time between chauffeuring their regular clients around. The professional drivers meet all licensing requirements that cabs do. There has never been any argument against them using the Uber app to fill their free time by picking riders who need a car service on demand.
In Houston and New York Uber X (which is regular citizens using their own regular cars to drive people around) drivers have to get fingerprinted. Uber is less worried about this process in those markets because they have Uber Black as an option to serve customers and bolster earnings. They can afford to have the Uber X hiring process slowed down because they have an alternative. In Austin and El Paso they have no alternative to allow them to change their business model.
Pickett is clueless about the companies he wants to regulate and he should resign immediately for opening his mouth without knowing any of the facts. He is the embodiment of what's dangerous about a politician - ego first, facts second, reason third.
If Pickett gets his way Uber leaves Texas. And, looking at a map, El Paso is technically in Texas. Uber allows people who drink a way to get around town affordably and efficiently without getting behind the wheel. Untold number of lives have been saved and arrests avoided because people have the option to push a couple of buttons on their phone to get a ride home.
Furthermore, most people take an Uber from their house to the bar, which is a doubly safe way of ensuring you don't get behind the wheel. Parents of college aged kids have become some of the biggest proponents of Uber and Lyft. Their kids have the app and they don't worry that they are driving around drunk every night. In Austin, parents from out of town are up in arms over Uber leaving because they no longer have an option for a safe ride and you know college kids aren't going to stop drinking... they'll just start driving and drinking.
Drunk driving is real problem in Texas - a huge problem in El Paso. Taxis have been in existence for 100 years and have never been a solution for most Americans because most towns don't have enough of them. For example, Austin has less than 800 cabs serving a metroplex of two million people. That's 2,500 people per cab. Word is that only half of them are in service at any one time so it's really like 5,000 people per cab. I've only been able to get a cab in Austin at the airport. I have never been able to call, flag or jump on the hood of one when I've been out in downtown Austin.
I have never seen a cab in El Paso other than the few that park at the airport. Most everyone I know in El Paso can say they've never been in a cab in that city in their entire life. On the other hand, all of my friends in El Paso use Uber almost weekly. Take that option away and they'll stay home (they're smart). However, many in El Paso won't. They'll get back into their cars and they'll crash into a family on I-10 and kill everyone - kids included.
Why? Because politicians like Joe Pickett have huge egos and like to "regulate" businesses as a way of validating their existence. And that means constituents lose out on innovative conveniences like Uber and Lyft.
It will be interesting to see how Pickett survives as chair the Transportation Committee. Big time Republican badasses are taking up this cause and they governor may get involved. I'm not sure some Democrat from El Paso is going to stand in their way. And if he does, they'll have him moved out of the way.
Pickett says:
“The public has said, 'We want fingerprints,'"
And that is wrong. Austin voters voted to impose a series of restrictions on Uber and Lyft that happened to include a fingerprinting requirement. The will of 88,241 voters of the roughly 16,000,000 registered voters in Texas does not represent what everyone thinks. I'm guessing Pickett doesn't think the state house and senate members and their thoughts on issues are representative of Texas voters. Again, what an ego that guy has.
But as usual... Keep El Paso Backwards.
A letter in El Paso Inc from a taxi driver admitted that you cannot call a taxi for a pick up. He said the operators only give those calls to their friends and relatives, which means that only a hand full of cabs are available for pick up. What's more, does anyone think you can train college kids to CALL a taxi?
Government cannot solve every problem. That is not the basis on which our country was founded. Getting government involved when it is not needed is beyond stupid. I hope Picket goes down in flames.
And BTW, the other night we ate at L&J. The television flashed the news, Austin Dumps Uber. All the drunk guys sitting at the bar stood and cheered. They were taxi drivers. I hope they all got a DWI on the way home.
Posted by: El Paso Uber Rider | May 11, 2016 at 11:54 PM