The absolute best outcome for Bird would have been the city saying "you can put them in designated scooter areas, and they have to be docked in designated scooter areas". And that would have turned them into just another e-bike: utterly useless and used by no-one.

Now, there's absolutely a reasonable conversation to be had about corporate over-reach, responsibility, and externalities here. However, let's not pretend that this could realistically have been accomplished any other way.

That would have gotten a no, but ”we would like to do an experiment decreasing road congestion” could have gotten them a yes _and_ a subsidy for running the experiment.

And yes, that “yes” would have had strings attached, even if it weren’t subsidized, but that’s normal for anthingmyhea affects shared space. If a company goes to the city and says “we would like to park our cars on the street instead of on our expensive parking lot” or “we would like to semi-permanently occupy the space in front of or shops”, would you expect the city to say “yes”, too?

Fat VC dollars come when they think you’ll dominate the world of scooters and put them everywhere. If you spend some of those millions fighting city governments so be it. Bribe them, make them fail elections, find loopholes, extend court trials forever. This companies have almost an unlimited supply of money.

Yes? I'd assume it would take finding someone friendly who works for the city, getting them interested in the concept, and getting their help and support in navigating the process, but yes, I'd absolutely expect the city to say "sure", maybe "sure, with caveats". Hell, maybe the city folks could find a way to finance half your deployment with taxpayer money. It's not like city administration exists only to sit on their collective butt and default-deny every request.

Were I only following the local media and other people's opinion on our city, I'd still be believing it's all bunch of busybodies led serving a no-good city president. But, as a part of leading a local Hackerspace, I ended up involved in city-NGO cooperation space. I've interacted with both city officials and private organizations trying to run publicly beneficial projects in the city, and it turns out my city is really willing to help, to partner, to support.

Of course, the local and national politics sometimes leak through and create issues, so it's not all roses. But I left the space with the impression that one only has to try to start a friendly conversation, and there's plenty of city officials, with budgets behind them, willing to cooperate with your new endeavour.

EDIT: Oh, and yes, there are procedures. Things move much slower than you expect, and if you're trying to get some of the city money for the project, you end up organizing public consultations and preparing recommendation reports to the city, and doing other busywork that may seem, or even be, pointless in the case of your project. It can be frustrating.

If it's risky proposition, then yes, it's better to refuse.

If he accepts it and things go wrong, it'll be blamed on him, and he might get kicked out.

If he refuses, the worst that could happen is it could succeed somewhere else. In which case, he could then reconsider.

The only time where it makes sense to accept is when he's desperate and needs to shake things up, or there are enough kickbacks to make it worthwhile.

Yes. The politicians already do this all the time, every time a development company wants to turn a vacant lot or McDonald's into an apartment building even though that building meets all the codes and standards.

It turns out that politics is often times negative sum, and whatever good thing you are doing will stopped, merely because you havent given them their cut.

When you meet an asshole you've met an asshole. When you meet assholes all day, you're probably the asshole. These dockless companies are complaining about everyone's reaction to them, which is making me think they might just be assholes