Uber/Lyft ride-sharing in Kansas City

[aknowledgeableperson]

I assume that KC wasn't a very profitable area so they decided not to budge and if they didn't get their way they would leave and use KC as an example. They're now worth over $40 billion so I doubt any of them are pouting.

The problem is that this puts KC in a much worse position than it puts Uber, especially until/if Lyft starts back up. Pushing popular ridesharing companies out isn't a good look for a city who is trying to capitalize on being a technologically progressive city.

Your assumption is probably correct. What KC was requiring was probably not more onerous than any city or state has required of and accepted by Uber. Uber is facing lawsuits and pushbacks across this nation and internationally so maybe it isn't so much on the city but on Uber who is being the big bully in this case.

[kboish]

I thought the interesting bit reported in one of the news stories was what Mayor James said. He said Uber is basically stalling at the City level while they work over the MO state legislature to pass a bill that would neuter/trump the City's ability to pass ordinances governing Uber type technologies. Basically, Uber has not been negotiating "in good faith." Uber could hold their line against the City becuase they seem to think their chances in the State Legislature are better.

[flyingember]

They need to find places that have regulation but aren't crazy difficult that they can point to in other cities. They're likely hedging their bets that KC will be one of the tougher one.

But if they're wrong all it would take is NYC or LA coming up with much stricter and they're really hurting.

[kcjak]

I can't believe Tulsa will have Uber but not Kansas City

Tulsa probably doesn't have a taxi company mafia like we have in KC

[pash]

.

[kucer]

I thought the interesting bit reported in one of the news stories was what Mayor James said. He said Uber is basically stalling at the City level while they work over the MO state legislature to pass a bill that would neuter/trump the City's ability to pass ordinances governing Uber type technologies. Basically, Uber has not been negotiating "in good faith." Uber could hold their line against the City becuase they seem to think their chances in the State Legislature are better.

This.

[kucer]

"Bending over backwards" for Uber, as James put it, still means that anybody who wants to drive for them has to

• Obtain a city business license (submit a form and pay $12.50);
• Obtain a state chauffeur's license (spend some time at the DMV, waiting and taking a written test, and pay $17.50 or $35 depending on the licensing duration);
• Get a physical (trip to your doctor's office, pay more money);
• Submit to a background investigation; and
• Obtain a driver's certificate from Regulated Industries (submit the above info, fill out a form, pay $250).

How many people who might otherwise be interested in driving for Uber every now and then are going to take a trip to the DMV, another one to their doctor, and shell out several hundred dollars for the privilege?

The city is making drivers jump through a bunch of hoops. Enough that it amounts to saying, "Professional drivers only." So it doesn't look to me at all like Uber is just being petulant. The regulations don't work for their business model.

And I'll ask again, what problem are these regulations trying to solve? What harms have Uber drivers inflicted on our city that we're trying to reign in here? At the moment, it's all hypothetical (and pretty hypothetically unconvincing, in my opinion). Why not wait and see what happens, and if Uber drivers really do end up kidnapping Sally and running down granny, drop the hammer then. That's both good sense and good politics.

Well...your info contradicts what James just said on the radio and yesterday in the Legislative Session...so i don't know who to believe.

[pash]

.

[smh]

"Bending over backwards" for Uber, as James put it, still means that anybody who wants to drive for them has to

• Obtain a city business license (submit a form and pay $12.50);
• Obtain a state chauffeur's license (spend some time at the DMV, waiting and taking a written test, and pay $17.50 or $35 depending on the licensing duration);
• Get a physical (trip to your doctor's office, pay more money);
• Submit to a background investigation; and
• Obtain a driver's certificate from Regulated Industries (submit the above info, fill out a form, pay $250).

How many people who might otherwise be interested in driving for Uber every now and then are going to take a trip to the DMV, another one to their doctor, and shell out several hundred dollars for the privilege?

The city is making drivers jump through a bunch of hoops. Enough that it amounts to saying, "Professional drivers only." So it doesn't look to me at all like Uber is just being petulant. The regulations don't work for their business model.

And I'll ask again, what problem are these regulations trying to solve? What harms have Uber drivers inflicted on our city that we're trying to reign in here? At the moment, it's all hypothetical (and pretty hypothetically unconvincing, in my opinion). Why not wait and see what happens, and if Uber drivers really do end up kidnapping Sally and running down granny, drop the hammer then. That's both good sense and good politics.

Uber should have made this plain in its emails rather than using lobbyist talk to try and persuade The Youth to stand up to Old Many City without telling anyone why we needed to stand up.

Source: Card carrying member of The Youth.

[brewcrew1000]

Can Uber still operate in Kansas? They could still serve half the metro by operating in Kansas, Trips could probably end in Missouri as well.

[pash]

.

[flyingember]

A business license is $25 minimum. So if it's really $12.50 that's a discounted rate.

I should know, I have one.

Another thing that hasn't made that list, they also have to file KC earning tax paperwork yearly. It's mandatory as a Kansas City business

[kboish]

By the way, the most disconcerting thing I've learned in looking at the Uber ordinance is that the City Manager is required to answer the question "Is it good for the children?" in the fact sheet and summary published alongside every ordinance passed by the City Council.

I know, that requirement makes me laugh every time. Reminds me of the Simpsons.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

"Bending over backwards" for Uber, as James put it, still means that anybody who wants to drive for them has to

• Obtain a city business license (submit a form and pay $12.50);
• Obtain a state chauffeur's license (spend some time at the DMV, waiting and taking a written test, and pay $17.50 or $35 depending on the licensing duration);
• Get a physical (trip to your doctor's office, pay more money);
• Submit to a background investigation; and
• Obtain a driver's certificate from Regulated Industries (submit the above info, fill out a form, pay $250).

How many people who might otherwise be interested in driving for Uber every now and then are going to take a trip to the DMV, another one to their doctor, and shell out several hundred dollars for the privilege?

The city is making drivers jump through a bunch of hoops. Enough that it amounts to saying, "Professional drivers only." So it doesn't look to me at all like Uber is just being petulant. The regulations don't work for their business model.

And I'll ask again, what problem are these regulations trying to solve? What harms have Uber drivers inflicted on our city that we're trying to reign in here? At the moment, it's all hypothetical (and pretty hypothetically unconvincing, in my opinion). Why not wait and see what happens, and if Uber drivers really do end up kidnapping Sally and running down granny, drop the hammer then. That's both good sense and good politics.

Where is the $250 coming from? I've only seen $100.

The ordinance lines out the insurance, permitting and other requirements Uber and other transportation network companies must follow to operate legally in the city. Uber takes issue with the annual permitting fee. If the company pays a $40,000 annual fee, drivers will be asked to pay a $100 annual fee. A statement from the city said additional fees — such as the city business license and background check — come to about $78.50 a driver.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... l?page=all

And, I thought the physical was no longer a requirement, just a written statement from a doctor or something (although, I can't find that now).

It seems to me like Uber wants to play both sides. They want to say that their drivers are independent contractors, in other words, their own business, but then don't want the drivers to have to pay for being their own business. Drivers needing a business license is directly due to Uber's policies. Needing a chauffeur's license is a state requirement and has nothing to do with the city. Submitting to a background check just seems like common sense.

Uber can't say it's a technology company that's only connecting users to hundreds of independent car sharing companies and then expect those independent car sharing companies to be treated like employees by the city.

[kboish]

"Bending over backwards" for Uber, as James put it, still means that anybody who wants to drive for them has to

• Obtain a city business license (submit a form and pay $12.50);
• Obtain a state chauffeur's license (spend some time at the DMV, waiting and taking a written test, and pay $17.50 or $35 depending on the licensing duration);
• Get a physical (trip to your doctor's office, pay more money);
• Submit to a background investigation; and
• Obtain a driver's certificate from Regulated Industries (submit the above info, fill out a form, pay $250).

How many people who might otherwise be interested in driving for Uber every now and then are going to take a trip to the DMV, another one to their doctor, and shell out several hundred dollars for the privilege?

The city is making drivers jump through a bunch of hoops. Enough that it amounts to saying, "Professional drivers only." So it doesn't look to me at all like Uber is just being petulant. The regulations don't work for their business model.

And I'll ask again, what problem are these regulations trying to solve? What harms have Uber drivers inflicted on our city that we're trying to reign in here? At the moment, it's all hypothetical (and pretty hypothetically unconvincing, in my opinion). Why not wait and see what happens, and if Uber drivers really do end up kidnapping Sally and running down granny, drop the hammer then. That's both good sense and good politics.

Where is the $250 coming from? I've only seen $100.

The ordinance lines out the insurance, permitting and other requirements Uber and other transportation network companies must follow to operate legally in the city. Uber takes issue with the annual permitting fee. If the company pays a $40,000 annual fee, drivers will be asked to pay a $100 annual fee. A statement from the city said additional fees — such as the city business license and background check — come to about $78.50 a driver.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... l?page=all

And, I thought the physical was no longer a requirement, just a written statement from a doctor or something (although, I can't find that now).

It seems to me like Uber wants to play both sides. They want to say that their drivers are independent contractors, in other words, their own business, but then don't want the drivers to have to pay for being their own business. Drivers needing a business license is directly due to Uber's policies. Needing a chauffeur's license is a state requirement and has nothing to do with the city. Submitting to a background check just seems like common sense.

Uber can't say it's a technology company that's only connecting users to hundreds of independent car sharing companies and then expect those independent car sharing companies to be treated like employees by the city.

You are correct about the $100. this would lower it from the $350 it currently sits at.

Also, the Class E license requirement is a state thing- not City so to expect the City to change this is disingenious.

Uber requires a background check also (and charges their drivers a fee to recoup that cost) so this is no additional burden.

Couple this with the Dr's note in lieu of physical along with the fact that all of this will be possible to submit/pay online within the year... i don't really see what Uber is fighting? This ordinance REDUCES what their drivers currently must do to comply with the law. How is someone supposed to believe them when they say the new law will not fit their operational model when it is literally making it less expensive and no more burdensome than the process currently is (i would argue it is making it less burdensome...but that aside).

[pash]

.

[mean]

This is what I mean when I say that we should stop resorting to regulations with real costs to solve hypothetical problems. If there's a real problem that needs solving, fine. But don't pretend that the city can justify throwing up roadblocks that purport to hold Uber to some minimal standard of service when reality suggests that Uber themselves do a great job providing a level of service well above that minimal standard.

Regulations should solve real problems, not fake ones, and the higher the costs they impose on regulated parties—and all of us, indirectly—the more evidence we should require that the many dollars and hours spent complying with them really are solving a real problem. We have zero evidence of a real problem here, much less one that justifies spending a lot of time and money fixing.

First of all, I completely agree. I'm just not sure that is realistic because the city is run by politicians, and politicians have a tendency to be averse to not doing things, especially things that give the appearance of protecting people regardless of their necessity or efficacy.

[kboish]

As this ordinance resolves the current lawsuit with Lyft. I'm curious if Lyft will start operating in the City again.

[pash]

.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Can a driver work for Uber and Lyft at the same time?