That's par for the course, for example you don't see Ford chipping in for the 275,000 street parking spots in the Bay Area. SF could easily remove one parking spot per block and make it parking for bikes and scooters. But then all the people used to the city subsidizing their parking will be in an uproar. It's only a subsidy when the other guy gets it.

Cities have done that for thousands of years. It's a symbiotic relationship. The businesses pay taxes which pay for services to make the businesses more viable.

No, I'm suggesting that cities pay for infrastructure to reduce the negative externalities imposed by dockless scooter companies. If such infrastructure incidentally makes it easier for those companies to make a profit, because the lack of the negative externalities is no longer producing a negative effect on the company's reputation, is that really so horrible? Are you willing to, through inaction, harm society just so a private company won't profit?

Sure, ideally, the scooter company should pay some kind of tax or fee to help pay for the infrastructure, but I'm not convinced that it needs to be a special tax or fee, applied only to the scooter companies, beyond typical general corporate income taxes etc. that the scooter company is already paying. Particularly because the infrastructure costs involved are cheap. In my opinion, society is better served by government moving quickly to provide needed services out of a general fund, than it is by delaying action for months or years just so that expenditures are 100% just instead of 99.9999% just. There is a balance...

I mean, cities already pay for roads, and food trucks are a thing.