Then they didn't need to make it a law, thus giving them the protection of said law.
Would a city law supersede a state law? Just asking, not arguing.
Then they didn't need to make it a law, thus giving them the protection of said law.
Would a city law supersede a state law? Just asking, not arguing.
Ride sharing fans have other choices. All is not lost.
********************************
5 alternative apps Austinites can use instead of Uber or Lyft:
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/new...rnallink_referralbox_free-to-premium-referral
Would a city law supersede a state law? Just asking, not arguing.
I take it you've never used Uber or Lyft ever. Those options are way more inconvenient or downright stupid, except for maybe #1. I'm not sure how they'll continue to operate if they're subject to the same fingerprint background check though.
#2 is to and from the airport only.
#3 Austin's public transportation system is not large enough.
#4 You're using a normal taxi cab... you never use a normal taxi cab. Would you patronize a business that gave you poor customer service?
#5 Wouldn't it just make more sense to use your own car in the first place?
No. Here's the priority
Zincwarrior's Wife's Law
US Constitution
US federal law that is constitutional
State Constitution
State law that is constitutional vis a vis both state and federal constitutions and doesn't contravene federal law(looking at you Jim Crow)
Local Law that is constitutional vis a vis both state and federal constitutions and doesn't contravene federal or state law.
Austin4 is right-you can generally make a local law that is tougher that does not contravene the higher law, or if the higher law permits -it can get complicated. Constitutional procedure is a serious class. Mine was taught by a yankee who started the first day writing:"Trust No One! Believe Nothing!" That one line was the most education I ever had.
Whew that was a mouthful.
Where did I say you would like the choices? I said you had other choices, period. Actually, it was AAS that said it, I just passed it on. Don't like 'em, don't use 'em.
But hey, y'all really stuck it to those big California corporations with y'all's California-style of thinking!
Expect drunk driving rates to go back up because of the inconvenience of trying to get a cab at last call.
Yes, it would be a shame to expect people to not get drunk if they were driving. It's always somebody else's fault.
I'm not trying to take agency away from drunk drivers, but the facts are that ride-shares did drop the rate of drunk drivers by a very substantial amount. Lets face it, Austin is a town that likes it's alcohol and there are NOT enough ways to get around at last call with just limited taxis and the piss poor public transportation system here. The free market offered more convenient ways of avoiding this and it got shot down. I will agree on the curbside dropoff stuff being a bad idea, although I never had a RS driver do that with me.
In any case, I'm actually considering running for council place 7 now. I looked at the results last year and 32% won the seat (plurality).
I am certain in reality Uber/Lyft will be back within a year.
Not at all surprised that the vote was lost by the inner city folks though. They are the ones who have the least to gain from ride shares being in the core of the city.
It's too bad those of us most affected that live in the suburbs were unable to even voice an opinion on this if we were out of city limits. We have a MUCH harder time getting taxis in the suburbs than anyone in the core of the city does and most of us have NO access to public transport (unless you live in N Leander).
Makes sense; although, initially I thought the city core were the heavy users.
Plan accordingly, have a DD or don't drink.