Ride Sharing at Risk in Austin?

Are you voting "yes" or "no" to Proposition 1? This is a proposition clouded in conjecture and media bolstering, but the fact is that this proposition belongs to Uber and Lyft, two ridesharing companies that were affected by the city of Austin's December proposition that required ridesharing companies to have its drivers submit to fingerprint screening for background checks, begin wearing the semblance of a uniform, and start identify their vehicles with some uniform symbol like Lyft's mustache. So, in short you either vote "yes" for ridesharing companies, or "no" for the city of Austin.

Seems like a tough choice given that there are only two options but what people aren't hearing is that the ridesharing companies have agreed to come back to negotiations if their proposition fails. With that information it would be seemingly easier to vote "no", if you don't agree with either side or would like to see a few changes made in this new negotiation. The problems the people of Austin might want to consider is whether or not an agreement can be reached if prop. 1 fails, and what it means if Uber and Lyft leave the city.

Truthfully, the only part of this I care about at all is that if they leave the city, people are doing to be hurt or die unnecessarily. Yet other Texas cities, like Corpus Christi, Tx, have pushed ridesharing out by passing similar ordinances. According to KRISTV.com there was a letter Uber sent to Corpus Christi City Council on March 4, Sarfraz Maredia, the general manager for the South & East Texas region of Uber said, "The proposed ordinance would require drivers to complete unnecessary and duplicative steps that make it difficult for them to earn extra money and hurt our ability to ensure that riders have access to reliable and affordable transportation." I find it ironic that ridesharing companies would have to turn the new requirements into the Taxicab Inspectors Office personally, and pay for the inspection and application immediately, yet people don't believe this is about money.

I personally don't think that there has been enough evidence to warrant that ridesharing companies increase security, much less start dressing alike. If we were placing more strict ordinances on companies who's employees committed crimes then the NFL would no longer exist. I believe there are other influences at work here that are not being talked about or considered. I believe that we should be looking at the paperwork filed and money exchanged by Taxi lobbyists and Taxi owners for a start. They had the most to lose by allowing the ridesharing companies to stay, and no one in America, especially in Texas, likes to go out without a fight, even if it's held in a courtroom, or pushed through as a foolish proposition.

Then there is the idea that DWI's, reckless driving, speeding tickets, and the list goes on, have drastically decreased. Some estimates place the DWI decrease near 23%. That makes for a very large sum of money that the city is no longer receiving, so do we believe that those in power would just sit back and allow such a thing to happen without at least trying to stop it?  Will these claims prove to be true? Only time will tell, but Saturday, March 7th, is the day that the proposition vote takes place. Personally I believe ridesharing should be left alone to capitalize on a needed market until a real danger has presented itself, but either way I look forward to watching the rest of this interesting development unfold in the great city of Austin.