San Francisco Uber Protest

It was a small but rowdy crowd outside Uber's corporate headquarters on Market Street for the October 22nd Worldwide Uber Protest. 

Uncle Uber was there: 

With a rat on his head:

There were reporters:

Several town cars and SUVs drove by with horns a-blazing:

There were impassioned speeches:

Even kids:

Where were you?

Should We Really Kill Lyft?

A few weeks ago, when I posted the cockeyed, ad hominem attack piece How to Fix Ridesharing: Kill Lyft, I knew it was going to be an incendiary post. Lyft loyalists responded with their usual derision over anything they perceive as anti-Lyft. Commenters were quick to label me a disgruntled ex-driver and an idiot, calling my logic primitive, retarded and stupid. Others pointed out that I understood nothing about how to run a business and that I was missing “a key part of the equation.”

Now, I’m the first to admit I’m no businessman. I'm certainly not the sharpest crayon in the box. And I’ve never claimed to be an authority on the subject of ridesharing other than being a current driver for both platforms (with a 4.9 rating on each) who pathologically reads every article on the subject that crosses my Facebook dashboard and Twitter feed. I also pay close attention to the posts and comments on all the Facebook driver groups that I haven’t been kicked out of yet. I know how easily offended the Lyft faithful are. So I wasn’t surprised by the vitriol my post received.

But in their ardent support of the Lyft brand, my detractors failed to grasp that I was actually championing Lyft’s main tenets. I prefer driving for Lyft. I think they are a much better company than Uber. Which is a common refrain among drivers. Ride.Share.News recently did a survey and found that the majority of drivers prefer Lyft. Which makes sense. Unlike Uber, the Lyft app has many features designed with the driver in mind. The app automatically notifies the passenger when you’re getting close to their pinned location, as well as when you’ve arrived. It even starts the ride within a few minutes of waiting, which addresses one of the biggest frustrations of dealing with passengers: the wait.

Another frequent gripe about driving is being ignored and treated like a servant. Lyft’s “friend with a car” slogan is not only in the true spirit of ridesharing, and what most of us signed up for, it also makes for an enjoyable ride. But the greatest aspect of being a Lyft driver, of course, is the ability for passengers to leave a tip. As a regular Uber driver, I know that without this option in the app, 99.9% of passengers do not leave a tip. They signed up for a service so they wouldn’t have to worry about having cash on hand, so it’s understandable. Albeit unfortunate.

Of course, not knowing what you’ve made until the next day, the overall demanding attitude of Lyft passengers (no, I’m not your fucking DJ and no, I don’t have any candy for you), that stupid pink mustache and the forced homogeny make driving for Lyft less appealing to me, but for others that’s the main draw.

So… do I really think Lyft should be killed off?

Yes. I think Lyft and Uber should both die. I think these two companies have ruined the entire concept, and the potential, of ridesharing with their rampant greed. I hate them both, but I hate Lyft more. Why? Because, as I pointed out in the original post, by taking on Uber, they’re making things worse for everybody. There’s really no way they are ever going to beat Uber at their own game. Not with a pink mustache. Not by creating a “community” of drivers. And not with a quirky, fun vibe.

Lyft wants to compete with Uber because they want to be worth billions of dollars like Uber. You can’t really blame them. We all love money. But how can Lyft expect to corner the national rideshare market and make billions of dollars without becoming a generic service like Uber?

Based on my observations over the past seven months as a fulltime driver for Lyft and Uber, the vast majority of passengers aren’t that interested in an unconventional experience. Just a safe one. They want to request a ride from their phones, have the car show up and not deal with cash. Sure, there are plenty of people who buy into the Lyft experience, but instead of cultivating those users, in their ignominious attempt to get a larger share of the rideshare market, Lyft is not the Lyft of old. They are diluting the one thing that distinguishes them from Uber.

This isn’t my crackpot theory. A friend of mine who began using Lyft three months after the app was first released in San Francisco told me recently how disappointed she’s become with Lyft. She’s uncomfortable sitting up front next to former cabbies and even had one driver harass her a few weeks ago. She says she no longer feels safe using Lyft and has moved on to UberX, where she can at least sit in the back. I told her she could easily sit in back with Lyft but she doesn’t see the point of using Lyft if she isn’t participating in the culture of Lyft.

Sound familiar?

Other bloggers and plenty of drivers have said the same thing.

And I’m not the only one who thinks that Lyft will lose the rideshare wars. We all know, once the dust settles in the rideshare wars, Uber will dominate the market. And no, I don’t think that’s a good thing at all. But it’s inevitable. If Lyft wants to be like Uber, then Lyft should die and let Uber do Uber. They don’t need Lyft’s help.

Killing Lyft off now would be an act of mercy. Let’s put them out of their misery so we can focus on protesting Uber, creating a TNC union, figuring out the insurance question, getting regulated and trying to increase fares. There are many people doing all these things right now. And current lawsuits against Uber may potentially change the game and take them to task for mislabeling drivers as independent contractors. There is legal precedence that by determining our rates and how we maintain our vehicles as well as limiting our ability to accept tips, they are actually our employers. Uber is fighting this classification tooth and nail because they won’t be able to shirk responsibilities for the assaults, sexual harassment and death caused by drivers. They also know the day is coming when they will be forced to assume the role of a transportation company. This can’t happen soon enough.

There is only one way to ensure the ability for anybody to make money in a car: regulation.

Of course regulation means the death of ridesharing. Because it will no longer be about individuals using their personal cars as vehicles-for-hire to make a few extra bucks on the side. If drivers are required to have permits for themselves and their cars, how many current rideshare drivers would go through that process to continue driving? Very little, I imagine.

Ridesharing is barely in its infancy. And yet it’s already doomed. Why? Because only two companies dominate the field. If Uber and Lyft continue to be the primary players and keep fighting each other for the national market, ridesharing will not advance. The only way to make ridesharing work is to create smaller companies based in individual cites. The technology is there, somebody just needs to build the apps. I think smaller companies could easily gain wide-acceptance in cities by advertising themselves as a local rideshare. Create a cool logo that’s unique to that city, pass out referral cards for free rides at all the bars and clubs, slap a magnet sign onto the side doors, place an emblem in the window and get noticed. It’s not hard to get attention these days. Look at a company like Black Crown Car Service in Seattle. Yeah, I know they're a black car service, but they've proven that starting a car company at a local level can be accomplished. Just don’t expect to become valued at a billion dollars. Or take on Uber.

And yeah, I know SideCar is still a formidable player in the rideshare game. It seems like they’re poised to step into Lyft's shoes once Uber finally crushes them, or take over entirely if Uber and Lyft do each other in. Their recent deal with SFO shows they are being strategic rather than blatantly fighting regulation and trying to destroy traditional taxi service.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who wins the rideshare wars. If either one becomes victorious, we’ll be right back where we started. In their efforts to destroy “Big Taxi,” Uber or Lyft will eventually become the very thing they aimed to disrupt: taxis. But with a twist: less regulation. So why not open up the market and start more rideshare companies to keep the disruption going?

Lyft and Uber have turned ridesharing into a racket. We use our own cars and assume all the risks and responsibilities to make these companies rich, all the while making less and less each month. And when we fuck up, or when our cars give out, we are cast aside. Neither Lyft nor Uber have any loyalty to us drivers. We are part of a social experiment that will fail. And when it does, the bigwigs at these companies will just walk away with golden payouts and form other companies. Or invest in somebody else’s start-up.

And the drivers? Some will get their TCP permits and go pro. The rest will move onto another side gig. Maybe they’ll have positive memories of their rideshare experiences. But I’m sure plenty will look back with regret.

The ones I really feel sorry for are the Lyft faithful. It’s going to really hurt when they have nothing left from their rideshare experience except a beat-to-shit car, a faded pink mustache and the harsh realization that a corporation they worshiped had just used them up and spit them out.


(photo courtesy of Gabriel Zamora)

----

What's Gentrification Anyway?

From Behind the Wheel: A Lyft Driver's Log

After getting coffee at Philz, I go into driver mode. I cruise through the Mission waiting for a ride request. I’ve found that when I circle the neighborhood east of Van Ness, I’m more likely to get a passenger than if I were on Valencia, where the other drivers congregate with the taxis and towncars. I can see my fellow Lyfters in the app: little black avatars that disappear when they accept rides or go offline.

BULLET POINTS FROM THE CLASS STRUGGLE IN SAN FRANCISCO

A very condensed and generalized take on the current economic situation in the Bay Area by an outsider who spends too much time reading online news articles…

• There is a class war going on in San Francisco. 

• Hyper-gentrification caused by the recent Tech boom is pushing out the middle class. 

• There just aren’t enough apartments and houses in San Francisco to accommodate the influx of Tech workers, who make more than $100,000 a year on average, without displacing regular working class citizens like teachers, firemen and city workers, as well as senior citizens and the disabled. 

• The lack of housing, affordable or otherwise, is due to the San Francisco city council prohibiting new construction in the city over the past few decades. This created a static housing market. And now, with the latest tech boom, basic supply and demand has caused rents to skyrocket and led to widespread evictions. 

• The median rent for a one-bedroom apartment in SF is $3500. Even finding a room for $1000 is increasingly difficult. These insane prices encourage landlords to take advantage of the Ellis Act, a state law that allows landlords who want to “get out of the rental market” to evict tenants. Of course, most landlords aren’t getting out of the market. They are selling their properties for outrageous prices to speculators who renovate and flip the properties to new owners who can charge whatever rents the market will bear. 

• In the past year, there has been a 115 percent increase in total evictions. 

• Ellis Act evictions have increased by 175 percent in 2013.

• From 1997 to 2013, there have been over 11,000 no-fault evictions. 

• The population of San Francisco in 2010 was 805,235. The population in 2013 was 837,442. That’s a 4 percent increase, higher than both Los Angeles and New York. 

• With the population increase, the income inequality in San Francisco is growing faster than in any other US city. 

• Due to the mass evictions, the influx of well-paid young tech workers, the income disparity and the loss of the general atmosphere of San Francisco, there is rampant animosity among those who are being displaced. Most of this anger is directed at real estate brokers and developers, who take advantage of the situation, the city government, which isn’t doing enough to resolve the crisis, and the tech companies who do very little for the city while their employees reap the benefits of living and playing San Francisco. 

• In reaction, people are protesting in the streets, marching on city hall and attacking “Google buses.” 

• Rather than helping improve public transportation (Muni), which would benefit all San Francisco residents, tech companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, etc. hire private shuttles that offer luxurious seating and free Wi-Fi to transport workers to and from Silicon Valley, using Muni stops to pick up and drop off their passengers, even if that means blocking the city buses. 

• While many tech companies use shuttles, the white Google buses have become the most visible symbol of this income disparity and the forced migration of San Franciscans out of their homes and neighborhoods. 

• Statistics show that evictions around the vicinity of these shuttle stops have increased. 

• Due to these protests, the city eventually forced the Tech companies to pay a measly $1 per stop. Though it’s just a pilot program and may not be permanent.

• The fare to ride the Muni is $2. 

• Many people wonder why these tech workers don’t live in Silicon Valley. There have been studies to show that these workers would most likely move closer to work or use their own cars if the Tech companies didn’t offer the shuttles as a job perk. But unfortunately, there isn’t even enough housing in Santa Clara County, home to many of the tech campuses. The city leaders there want the jobs be there so they can reap the tax benefits, but they don’t want these companies to build housing because they don’t want the crowds and they want to protect their environment. So the major burden of housing the tech workers lies on San Francisco.

• It’s obvious that city hall, at least under the direction of Mayor Lee, isn’t going to curb the tech companies. Instead the city is offering them tax breaks to move into the previously, and still very much, impoverished Mid-Market and SoMa neighborhoods. This is where most of the homeless people in SF sleep and spend their days (though there are numerous encampments under the raised freeways along the edges of the Mission, Potrero Hill and Mission Bay). Twitter, Airbnb, Yelp, and countless other startups are now located in these areas of the city. Former warehouses have been converted into live/work loft spaces. New high-end boutiques and restaurants, clubs and bars have sprung up to accommodate the burgeoning youth culture. 

• And yet the street people are still very much present, a constant reminder of the massive disparity between the haves and the have-nots. Very little is done to help the homeless. In fact, it seems more likely that those in powers would be more than happy to get rid of the SROs and other affordable housing that exists in SoMa and the Tenderloin. Fortunately, HUD funds many of these properties. And powerful special-interest groups with their own teams of lawyers preserve the rights of the impoverished. So it’s unlikely that the Tenderloin will change any time soon, no matter how many apartment listings refer to it as “Tender-Nob,” trying to affiliate with the affluent Nob Hill neighborhood that borders it. 

• People of color are increasingly forced out of the city. In 1970, African-Americans made up 13.4 percent of the population. Today, they make up only 6 percent. (The majority of the population is 48 percent white and 33 percent Asian.) The rich Latino culture of the Mission is being threatened almost daily, but the street protests and marches have done much to publicize their plight. 

• Of course, San Francisco has always been a relatively expensive place to live. The city is only 47 square miles, surrounded by the Pacific Ocean and the Bay. The density is mind-boggling. Even in the outer neighborhoods, such as the Richmond and Sunset districts to the west, and Ingleside and Sunnyside to the South, homes and apartment buildings are pushed up against each other, without even a strip of concrete between them to designate property lines. There is only one direction left to build, and that is up. And that’s what the previous city government had tried to prevent. Building apartment towers along the waterfront will forever alter the city’s skyline. It will bring even more people into what is already a congested city. But the real problem is that these units will cater mostly to the wealthy. The city always tries to include some affordable housing in these new developments, but there is never enough to satisfy the need. As with any business, the rich come first. 

• It’s not just the poor and the middle-class who are no longer welcome in San Francisco: artists, musicians, writers and other creative types are being pushed out as well. Soon, San Francisco will be a playground for the rich. Everybody else, the service workers, teachers, firemen, city employees and any other person who can’t afford to own property will have to live outside the city, relying on what’s left of the Muni system to get to their jobs catering to their tech overlords. 

• There doesn’t seem to be anyway to stop these changes. San Francisco is doomed. This recent tech boom is not going to burst anytime soon. And if it did, the results would be disastrous for not only the Bay Area’s economy but the nation’s as well. We are all dependent on tech. Tech has us by the balls. Yet, it’s still the responsibility of government to regulate tech’s development. Tech companies shouldn’t be allowed to run roughshod over the rights of everyday citizens. Regulate them like any other business. Just because they claim to mean no harm, and regardless of how much we may want the shiny gadgets they manufacture, tech companies are just like any other corporation. They exist to make money. Pure and simple. And right now, as everybody knows, tech is big business. It’s the wave of the future. But a reasonable government should protect its citizens from the machinations of capitalism run amok.