I'm not sure this statement says anything; it's a rhetorical NOP. You'd want to accompany it with the reason why municipalities could be assured that visitors would have a reliable way to get a ride from point A to point B in the absence of regulation.
You'd want to accompany it with the reason why municipalities could be assured that visitors would have a reliable way to get a ride from point A to point B in the absence of regulation.
How is it a proper role of municipal government to "(assure) that visitors would have a reliable way to get a ride from point A to point B"??? I reject the fundamental premise this is based on.
I mean, you have to consider the unintended consequences of (nominally well meaning) government regulation, like artificially limiting the supply of cabs, while simultaneously interfering with the ability of cab drivers to earn a decent wage. And one should ponder the possibility that there are other ways to protect consumers, outside of government regulation. Why can't there be a voluntary certification system for cabs, which a given cab company could choose to accept or reject... and, correspondingly, consumers could choose to either only take rides with "certified" cabs, or they could go all "caveat emptor" and take rides with non-sanctioned cabs.
The fact that people are already going outside "the system" is evidence that "the system" is not fulfilling the needs of the consumers.
The system clearly isn't fulfilling the needs of San Francisco consumers. But that doesn't logically imply that the only answer is to toss the regulations; instead, it could just mean that San Francisco needs to issue several hundred new medallions.
I'm not sure how simply certifying cabs overcomes information asymmetry here. The signal that competes with the certificate is "advertised price", but the whole point of cab regulations is ensuring that customers receive a predictable price and a safe, complete, timely carriage to their destination. Permission to solicit uncertified cab business seems like a license to prey on naive riders. It's clearly not in the state's interest for the market for transportation in the city to devolve that way.
>How is it a proper role of municipal government to "(assure) that visitors would have a reliable way to get a ride from point A to point B"??? I reject the fundamental premise this is based on.
It's a natural monopoly and a utility; just like water or electricity, it is both proper and better for the end user for it to be run by the government.
While Uber may be changing things, most of the literature that I am aware of in this area suggests that regulation of taxi services is necessary to get near a social optimum. It's also interesting to note that not all kinds of regulation are equally good -- e.g. some argue that controlling the number of medallions is less effective than controlling fares. This paper provides a good overview, I think:
It's not a "problem," it's "a sign that the State should get out of the business of regulating cabs."