| > Elected officials are not making big bucks in overtime dealing with extra paperwork. The city is not the elected officials, it's the myriad workers who perform the day-to-day work. The city apparatus survives just fine even if the elected officials end up with egg on their face. Perhaps better. > This is a really narrow minded view of the role of a politician. Their job depends upon public satisfaction. If the public is not happy with what they do, they risk losing their job. If you screw up majorly at work, do you not risk losing your job? That's as it should be. Wasting time and (apparently scarce) city money on propaganda and unreasonable demands seems like a good reason. > City officials win by doing what is in the interest of the public, You yourself point out that they win by being perceived to do that's in the interest of the public, not some hard to define "actual good". > You're overlooking the importance of perception. Facts are nothing on their own. How people interpret them is what counts. Enacting useless policies only helps their reelection campaign. Facts are everything, not nothing. > Taxes permit the government to pay for [stuff] And income is what lets a Lyft employee feed their family. The city is already making more in tax since Uber and Lyft went in - from every taxable good and service they consume, and as trickle-down from their drivers' spending, etc. But that doesn't show up on the balance sheets with a politician's name next to it so its worthless to the people making these unreasonable demands. > At the moment, the Austin public's perception is that fingerprinting is something that ride sharing services should do. An idea it got from city officials why scrambled for something to do, not something useful to do. It doesn't matter that Uber is safer than a cab, if you can't attach your name to that claim you're politically better off banning it. |
The city is everyone, both elected officials and those who elected them. The elected officials represent the desires of the city whenever they were last elected.
> The city apparatus survives just fine even if the elected officials end up with egg on their face. Perhaps better.
Yes, this is exactly why we have a democratic republic and we don't referendum everything. It gives the public a chance to blame one individual rather than each other.
> If you screw up majorly at work, do you not risk losing your job? That's as it should be.
Of course. My point was that city employees do suffer when you scoff at the law. They risk losing their jobs. Many roles are appointed by the elected administration.
> Wasting time and (apparently scarce) city money on propaganda and unreasonable demands seems like a good reason.
The government spent money holding a referendum that potentially would have benefited U/L. You're certainly free to voice your concerns about how tax money is spent. The city, in my opinion, acted properly.
> not some hard to define "actual good".
Right, I didn't say "actual good", I said "interest of the public". That is another way of saying their desire, which is based on their perception of facts, not facts themselves. I don't believe in "actual good" or "objective morality". Perceptions are reality
> Enacting useless policies only helps their reelection campaign.
Enacting policies with which the public agrees helps them. It's a pretty simple equation. Politicians do not exercise any great mind control any more than U/L. Each holds their own sway, but ultimately the public decides themselves how to interpret facts.
> Facts are everything, not nothing.
I don't mean to say facts are useless. I mean that people can interpret them differently. One man's trash is another's treasure, that sort of thing. Some people love U/L, others have no need for it. Recognizing differences in people can help you build products, companies, run for office, etc.
> And income is what lets a Lyft employee feed their family.
For sure. I have very little stake in this issue. No U/L stock and I don't live in Austin. I'm merely American. My interest is it's interesting to discuss. Whether or not Austin makes tax money or U/L make profit, and all the ramifications associated with employment etc. make little difference to me.
> The city is already making more in tax since Uber and Lyft went in - from every taxable good and service they consume, and as trickle-down from their drivers' spending, etc.
That's wonderful.
> But that doesn't show up on the balance sheets with a politician's name next to it so its worthless
Again I'd say that's short sighted. People do care when a business leaves a city. Parents recognize the value of tax money, which goes towards keeping them and their young ones safe and educated.
> its worthless to the people making these unreasonable demands
Calling them unreasonable demands is your opinion. Another way of phrasing this is you think more than 50% of active Austin voters are unreasonable. I'd say that attitude is unlikely to help you build a business there or get someone elected.
> An idea it got from city officials why scrambled for something to do, not something useful to do.
Whether a person thinks private vs. government background checks is more useful is subjective. People voted on this. If U/L feels private checks without fingerprints are just as good as government ones, then they should share more information on this through their website.
Complaining about the decision made by Austin voters does little to help U/L at this point, particularly to me, since I'm not even a resident. Perhaps you also just find it interesting to discuss. Cheers!