In all cases, no. In this case, yes. Improving the sad state of transportation options in the bay area is beneficial to all residents. Two wrongs don't make a right. Fine them for breaking the rules and then allow them to continue. Don't give their business to a competitor in an act of revenge against their breaking the rules.

You're phrasing it as if it's "revenge" rather than the city looking out for its citizen's best interests. If this company has been willing to flaunt the rules, who's to say it won't again? That isn't "revenge," it seems more like using common sense.

Then I vote to give them a 2nd chance and see how it goes. Its easy to pull their permit in the future if needed.

Why? It's not like they've made a mistake. They intentionally broke the law; they've displayed propensity for unlawful behaviour. The reasonable thing to do is to give their business to parties who did not, so far, show the same propensity.

So did lyft and uber initially, those services are immeasurably better than the previous taxis (although their treatment of employees may be worse but I haven't seen much evidence taxi drivers get better conditions/benefits).

In then end I guess I don't care because I truly believe the rules are backwards and protecting cars above any useful alternatives that may represent a useful future for green sustainable urban transportation.

s/flaunt/flout

Thank you, but alas, two hours have passed.

I should also say, look below[0]. Bird's application was terrible . Scoot on the other hand set an example for a great application to a government body for a resource of some kind, I can compare it to my experience for writing grants.

I can imagine some class on professional writing contrasting these very two applications as examples of what not to do and what to do when applying for something from a government. After scanning both, I'm pretty much convinced the city chose the applications based on the quality and substance behind each application, not based on anything else.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17882982

Yes of course it's good. Look at the history of Uber and Lyft vs. Taxi companies and other vested city interests. The government regulatory complex almost never represents citizens interests better than the free market.

I don’t see how anyone could believe that it’s never good for society when businesses do this.

Just like killing someone might be good for society sometimes. Doesn't mean you want to do this indiscriminately, or have this as standard practice.

I do. The government originally instituted the taxi medallion system to protect riders from predatory taxis, but it ended up granting a monopoly to the predatory taxis and locking out potential competition.

The free market has worked out much better. Uber/Lyft have to provide competitive service at a low price. If they stop doing this, they too will be replaced.

>The free market has worked out much better.

It's like everyone who preaches this line knows so little history or wants people to forget[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_(horse)

A free market doesn't mean free from consequences, or that it won't be dire. Many govts have performed experiments on their own people, and people died from it, without telling anyone. It also doesn't mean free from any regulation (at least to me). Not everyone pushing for free market solutions is an an-cap fool.

In most situations, a process that allows for more freedom is the solution. I do not count corporations as people and as far as I'm concerned, they should be required to be far more open about operations than they are currently. I'm also not a fan of IP laws generally speaking and think they should all be scaled back.