Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HashtagDadWatts t1_isgmac0 wrote

Reply to comment by Johnnadawearsglasses in June Homes ‘Reinvents’ Having a Roommate and it Sounds Less Than Ideal by ME_Press

Transit is better than using a private car anyways, so call it a net benefit.

−3

sternfan1523 t1_isgwkyt wrote

Not for every destination. Plenty of places I go it’s very hard to get there with mass transit

7

HashtagDadWatts t1_isgyrdw wrote

General statements should be construed generally.

0

BiblioPhil t1_isjf05l wrote

"Paper is better than rock."

"Unless you're up against scissors"

"Hey! How dare you construe my general statement like that!"

1

HashtagDadWatts t1_isjf5qx wrote

More like:

"Paper is better than rock"

"There is a mystical rock known to the ancients that is greater than any paper"

"...ok"

3

Johnnadawearsglasses t1_isgquvi wrote

Nyc as a luxury product is never a good thing. If you don’t want cars in spaces, ban them.

5

HashtagDadWatts t1_isgt3qs wrote

I don't think outright banning of cars is the right policy decision. There are occasions when it is necessary or makes sense. I do, however, think that's steps like congestion pricing and eliminating subsidized parking are appropriate insofar as they force car users to bear the cost of their choice.

3

66Hanuman99 t1_ishg2a2 wrote

tell that to the NYC Taxi medallion owner's who paid nearly $1,000,000 for the exclusive right to drive a taxi in NYC and were then undercut by Uber and Lyft. I think I remember at least a couple of dozen NYC Taxi medallion owners who have committed suicide because they could not make payments or support themselves or their families anymore since 2016.

In essence they paid $1,000,000 for a right that Uber and Lyft drivers got for practically free.

How would that make you feel?

2

HashtagDadWatts t1_ishihhr wrote

Happy to do so. People make bad business investments every day. It's a shame that some folks overextended themselves so badly, but we shouldn't make bad public policy choices because they did.

5

66Hanuman99 t1_ishmxyi wrote

Maybe a little more context would help you understand my point.

Simply saying it was a "bad business decision doesn't cut it.

There was an implied contract between The City of NY and the Owners of NYC Taxi medallions. Before Uber and Lyft came along it was illegal to take a paying passenger fare without a NYC Medallion and a approved vehicle.

So in essence the were drivers were secure in knowing that the City Medallions issued by the TLC were regulated and their investment was secure.

That is until they were lobbied by Lyft and Uber to allow them to completely barge in and "disrupt" the implied agreement the medallion owners had payed for and counted on to make a living.

5

Run_0x1b t1_isjg1gi wrote

“Waaaa our legally enforced monopoly got disrupted and we actually had to improve our product and compete for our customer’s business.”

Only a complete bozo would construe this as a bad thing.

3

Paid-Not-Payed-Bot t1_ishmytm wrote

> owners had paid for and

FTFY.

Although payed exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:

  • Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. The deck is yet to be payed.

  • Payed out when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. The rope is payed out! You can pull now.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.

Beep, boop, I'm a bot

0

HashtagDadWatts t1_ishnye5 wrote

Regulatory risk is part of analyzing a business decision. It's not uncommon for investments to turn south because of a regulatory shift. It happens.

0

IvanIsOnReddit t1_ishytqm wrote

When that happens (regulatory shift), they tend to lobby the shit out of it to maintain the status quo.

3