From the Argus Leader:
A Sioux Falls Republican says he’ll bring a bill this session that would allow ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft to operate in South Dakota.
Rep. Mark Willadsen said he decided to bring the bill at the request of members of the Sioux Falls City Council. The council in November voted to establish a separate category to the city’s vehicle-for-hire ordinance and a unique licensing system for ride-hailing services like Uber that use cellphone apps to connect drivers with ride seekers.
Uber across the state? That’s not just cool. That’s “Uber-cool.” And what was that I was laying about it last August?
With attitudes like that at the city level, it also becomes incumbent upon legislators at the state level to provide a framework for modern notions of the taxi service, since local officials are still wondering where all the dinosaurs went.
In our society, one certainty is progress. In all aspects, we simply don’t do things as we have for the past hundred years. In business, “It’s the way we’ve always done things” is a recipe for failure and extinction.
If business finds better and more efficient way of doing things, such as a modern notion of the taxi, government should be there to facilitate.
So, legislators…. If the city of Sioux Falls is too bound by inertia and a desire to be trapped in the past, ignore those still looking for dinosaurs and standing around. Take the lead.
And if you recall the guest column that SF City Councilor Christine Erickson did for dakotawarcollege on the topic:
A free marketplace does not limit innovation and consumer choice to specific industries. The vehicle for hire reform measures embraces these free market principals, and challenges existing vehicle for hire businesses to innovate and compete for passengers. In South Dakota, we celebrate entrepreneurship and innovation. We recognize that government is not intended to protect outdated business models, but instead limit regulatory and tax obstacles that stifle a thriving free market.
“We recognize that government is not intended to protect outdated business models, but instead limit regulatory and tax obstacles that stifle a thriving free market.”
Amen.
I certainly hope we remove any government barriers to this industry. Our laws were not written with this new service in mind.
What will be interesting is where Uber is actually able to offer service. They need a critical mass of users to make it economical. I think Sioux Falls and Rapid City could make it work. Maybe Brookings with a large population of young people. I’ll be interested if anywhere else does.
“They need a critical mass of users to make it economical.”
Please explain. Businesses which have large fixed costs need critical mass. Businesses 100% variable need very small critical mass. At least on the surface, UBER appears highly variable.
1) Drivers use their personal car. They basically just have to download the app. Thus fixed costs are very low.
2) They only go on-line when they think they will be busy.
3) Nearly all of their costs are variable (their labor, gas, wear & tear on their vehicle, fee split with UBER).
What am I missing?
Auto insurance? Most companies are now excluding ride-sharing coverage except on a declared amendment..
“They need a critical mass of users to make it economical.”
Could it be rather that Anonymous 11:41 intended to state that a critical mass of users is needed to make a respectable living in the ride-sharing business ? I have established a corner on the ride-sharing business in Pukwana, but fear that it may not offer the financial reward which I need to live the life in Pukwana.
Isn’t that the beauty of Uber? That Pukwana has a ride-sharing service that it would not otherwise have through a burdensome regulation scheme that assumes “licensed” drivers can and should make a living?
The Guy,
It could be. That is why I asked what I did.
Wow after so long this guy finally puts a decent bill in.