The Government [Finally] Takes Advantage of the Collaborative Economy

In light of the recent pivotal controversy involving government interaction in the shared economy, a new ecosystem has arrived, specifically focused on sharing government resources. MuniRent is a platform that makes it very easy for local governments to lease heavy duty equipment to other governments. Based out of Ann Arbor Michigan, MunitRent is one of few peer-to-peer platforms among businesses.

MuniRent.co

The site gives municipalities access to hundreds of pieces of equipment available with photos, machine specifications, and locations.  "There are early adopters who are excited about the sharing economy coming to the government level," says CEO Alan Mond. "Our vision is to be the hub for collaborative government."

The potential for both parties is cost. MuniRent claims that renters can give equipment up to 70% cheaper than on the open market, and the renting municipality can use the cash to offset equipment upkeep. 

FastCoExist's Ben Schiller spoke with CEO Alan Mond who reckons that governments are more likely to share than businesses, because, aside from political differences, they don't compete. "If you have two construction companies, one of them may not want to rent a crane to the other one. Governments are all trying to do sewer maintenance on reduced budgets. They're not competing. They just happen to be in different jurisdictions," he says.

It's incredible to see the government get involved in the collaborative economy to save the taxpayer dollar. We'd be interested to see if they'll continue this onto other services as well, and if their involvement will cause them to alter current views on sharing economy policy.

Check out the full article on MuniRent in FastCoExist and let us know what you think. Where else could the government benefit from sharing economy platforms?

Lyft Continues it's Battle to Expand to NYC

Lyft has expanded to 60 US cities and had hoped make it 61 with the addition of New York City last Friday. However, NYC has declared Lyft an "unauthorized service" and threatened legal consequences if the ride-share app launched. Lyft held off as long as they could before announcing they would work with the Taxi and Limousine Commission:

"Today we agreed in New York State Supreme Court to put off the launch of Lyft's peer-to-peer model in New York City and we will not proceed with this model unless it complies with New York City Taxi and Limousine regulations. We will meet with the TLC beginning Monday to work on a new version of Lyft that is fully-licensed by the TLC, and we will launch immediately upon the TLC's approval."

Lyft assured the public that there was no TRO (temporary restraining order) or injunction, but that everyone agreed to meet Monday if Lyft held off on their launch. Wall Street Journal reports that the decision was less nonchalant than Lyft lets on. They state that familiar face, New York Attorney General Eric. T, Schneiderman (from the Airbnb's subpoena in NYC earlier this year) and plaintiff Benjamin Lawsky, filed court papers on Lyft's original launch date in order to stop the company from operating in the state. 

"Lyft's arguments are a disingenuous attempt to disguise old-fashioned lawbreaking that jeopardizes public safety," Messrs. Schneiderman and Lawsky said in a news release. Schneiderman is no new face to opposition of the shared economy and knows that NYC will set a standard for other cities worldwide. 

Lyft's competition Uber, managed to get licensed in NYC after initially launching without the TLC's approval. Some have speculated that this was because Uber had recently hired Ashwini Chhabra, the then TLC deputy commissioner for policy and planning. Many within the taxi industry find this to be very suspicious:

"About 4-5 weeks ago, [we] ... accused Ashwini of working for Uber presently and in the past," Evgeny Freidman, who owns one of the largest taxi fleets in New York, wrote to TLC Commissioner Meera Joshi shortly after Chhabra's hire, according to the New York Observer. "I would insist as a major stake holder in this industry ‎that the TLC open a [Department of Investigation] investigation into this matter."

However, several industry experts believe that Chhabra's hiring had nothing to do with Uber's licensing but rather that Uber agreed to play by the TLC's rules, which up until now, Lyft has refused to do. Uber has embraced regulations and operates only with city-licensed vehicles. TLC spokesman, Russell Murphy states:

"From our perspective, … Lyft is unique from Uber in a larger sense because they’re not following TLC regulations. Uber, at least from what the TLC says and what Uber says, is following all the regulations,"
 

So yet another legal battle to watch in the sharing economy. Let us know what you think, will NYC grant Lyft a license? Or use them to set an example for other "unauthorized services"? To read more check out the Business Insider article on Why NYC's Lyft Crackdown Probably Isn't Linked To Uber and Wall Street Journal's coverage of Friday's decision.

Taxi Protests Gridlock Downtown Washington DC

A caravan of angry taxi drivers gridlocked downtown Washington DC this Wednesday. The source of their anger? Ride-sharing services such as Lyft, Uber and Sidecar.

A taxi caravan of hundreds drove slowly and honked car horns as they held up traffic on Constitution Ave on Wednesday. Photo via Washington Post

Photo via Washington Post

Cab drivers all over the world have been protesting these new ride-sharing services claiming they have an unfair advantage over traditional taxi drivers. Cabbies must follow strict regulations and require special licensing to operate. Regulations on ride-sharing apps are still being decided and at best, a gray area. 

Wednesday's gridlock has been the newest form of protest from the taxi-industry and it wasn't just in DC. Drivers in London, Paris, Madrid and Berlin brought traffic to crawl earlier this month, honking their horns and waving signs denouncing the local transportation agency and taxi apps.

Wednesday's protest shows that cab drivers will not back down and raises concern as to just how far they will go. Considering that some of these protests have gotten violent, the question now is how (and how quickly) regulators will respond. Driver's voices have been heard in some areas including Virginia, who recently issued a cease and desist letter to Lyft. Where in other cities, such as Seattle, ride-sharing apps have been welcomed as competition to local taxi services. 

"Authorities said Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest opened in both directions around 1 p.m. The roadway had been closed from 15th to 9th streets Northwest because of the protest. The street closure caused other delays in the downtown area. Ironically, because of the protest, some people reported difficulty hailing cabs."

Check out the Washington Post article and let us know what you think. Are these protests getting out of hand or are they warranted? 

Seattle decides in favor of Uber, Lyft and Sidecar.

Back in March, Seattle city council voted to heavily regulate ride-sharing apps like Uber and Lyft by capping the number of active vehicles to 150 each. Considering Uber claims to have around 1,000 drivers in the city, this initiative would have severely limited each company's capacity to meet demand.  Yet by mid-April these regulations were suspended due to more than 36,000 signatures on a repeal petition (double the 16,510 required to force a public vote).

Now, after more than a year of debate, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announced an agreement between the taxi industry and ride-share apps. App-based transportation platforms such as Lyft, Uber and Sidecar can continue to operate without any limit of drivers. The key terms of the deal include:

• Transportation network companies and their drivers will be licensed and required to meet specific insurance requirements.
• The City will work with the industry to clarify or change state insurance law to account for recent changes in the industry, similar to recent actions in Colorado.
• There will be no cap on the number of transportation network company drivers.
• The City will provide 200 new taxi licenses over the next four years.
• Taxi and for-hire licenses will transition to a property right that is similar to a medallion in other cities.
• For-hire drivers will have hailing rights.
• An accessibility fund will be created through a $0.10 per ride surcharge for drivers and owners to offset higher trip and vehicle costs for riders who require accessibility services.

This is a huge change from the March decision not only because of the unlimited drivers, but also because you can now hail for-hire drivers, a right originally reserved for taxi's only. 

“I believe Seattle once again will lead the nation in showing how what appears to be conflicting interests can actually come together,” Murray said after announcing the agreement. “We have deregulated a highly regulated monopoly, allowing taxis and for-hires to become far more competitive than they are in the current situation. We are recognizing that a technology exists that is rapidly changing the marketplace.”

GreenCab Taxi General Manager Chris Van Dyk, talked with Geekwire about the decision:

“The experience in Seattle in years past, in San Francisco and in Ireland now, is that if you have unlimited entry, if you have no limit on the number of taxi and for-hire vehicles, operators simply cannot make a living wage, and the industry goes to hell in a handbasket, and in a relatively short time,” Van Dyk told GeekWire. “The economics of the industry are counter-intuitive, because of the low threshold of entry. Apps do not change this.”

We have yet to hear if the taxi industry will choose to fight the decision or not. 

Seattle joins a small handful of cities allowing ride-sharing apps including Chicago. It seems like every city has a different attitude when it comes to the sharing economy, Miami police are impounding Lyft drivers while Uber is banned in Brussels and in high court in London. We're curious to see if this decision holds in Seattle and if will influence other cities still in debate. Regardless, it's becoming more and more obvious that the sharing economy is here to stay.

Check out the complete article by Geekwire and let us know what you think.

European Commission VP Neelie Kroes on the Shared Economy

This week Dutch politician and European Commission vice-president Neelie Kroes gave us her perspective on the sharing economy and recent taxi protests. She believes that there is a 'valley' start-up culture in Europe and it needs greater support. On her blog she responds to widespread strikes and attempts to ban or limit taxi app services across Europe.

“The debate about taxi apps is really a debate about the wider sharing economy. That debate forces us to think about the disruptive effects of digital technology and the need for entrepreneurs in our society”

She recognizes that this is a fearful time for cab drivers stating "it is right that we feel sympathy for people who face big changes in their lives" but "we cannot run away from these debates either". 

“We cannot address these challenges by ignoring them, by going on strike, or by trying to ban these innovations out of existence. That is why a strike won’t work: rather than “downing tools” what we need is a real dialogue where we talk about these disruptions caused by technology.”

Kroes believes that Europe needs more entrepreneurs to create jobs and growth. These entrepreneurs understand that services can no longer be designed around the producers, but need to empower the consumers. She is concerned that if Europe does not embrace entrepreneurship Europe will be know as "the place that used to be the future, but instead has become the world's tourism playground and nursing home". Kroes states that the disruptive force of technology is a good thing. "It eliminates some jobs and it changes others. But it improves most jobs and creates new ones as well".

She also warns that sharing entrepreneurs need to follow the rules and pay taxes but also sheds some interesting light on the role of regulators:

“The job of the law is not to lie to you and tell you that everything will always be comfortable or that tomorrow will be the same as today. It won’t. Not only that, it will be worse for you and your children if we pretend we don’t have to change. If we don’t think together about how to benefit from these changes and these new technologies, we will all suffer.”

She concludes with a plea for Europeans to stop running away and face facts: "digital innovations like taxi apps are here to stay. We need to work with them not against them."

Check out the rest of her blog post on her website and let us know what you think. It's certainly one of the more in favor responses to the sharing economy by a regulator thus far. Is she right? Are regulators running from digital technology instead of embracing it's potential? Is there a way for both apps and taxi companies to live in harmony?

Airbnb's Agreement in New York

This week New York State's attorney general Eric T. Schneiderman, succeeded in obtaining a subpoena for anonymized data on New York Airbnb hosts. Schneiderman recently targeted the housing-rental site stating that some hosts are "large, commercial enterprises with dozens of apartments - truly illegal hotels". This was Schneiderman's second attempt to get Airbnb records as the first deemed over-broad by a New York Supreme Court Justice. Schneiderman narrowed his focus and submitted a new subpoena the next day which was approved Wednesday. 

The attorney will have a year to sort through the data and identify those in violation of local laws. Scheiderman has stated that he only plans to pursue anyone who's running illegal hotels. If his office finds something suspicious, Airbnb must identify the host. Airbnb's head of global public policy, David Hantman, called it "a strong agreement that best protects our community's data and sets us on a positive path forward." 

So far, it looks like both parties are claiming this ruling a victory. We have yet to hear how NY hosts feel about the agreement. For many, inviting a stranger to stay in their home is much more comfortable than opening it up to regulators.

Schneiderman is one of many regulators keeping their eye on the digital economy. He announced his intentions for sites like Airbnb and Uber in a press release last month:

Regulators should not be deterred and, as a practical matter, they can’t and won’t be — we are now living in an online world, one that offers great promise but is also becoming one of the primary crime scenes of the 21st century. Major service providers cannot be allowed to treat it as a digital Wild West. The only question is how long it will take for these cybercowboys to realize that working with the sheriffs is both good business and the right thing to do.

 Schneiderman claims that the deal was "a template for other places in the country where the issue has been raised."

Perhaps it will become a worldwide template as Airbnb was also in international news this week as one host ran into legal problems in France. A young man was found guilty of breaking his lease after subletting out his room in Paris for €450 ($613) a week. The man was ordered to pay € 2,842 ($3,872.79) in damages to his landlord. 

The judgment – a first involving Airbnb in France – coincides with a wider crackdown by the French government and the Paris town hall on the flourishing market for letting rooms or whole apartments to tourists. It also coincides with the settlement of a legal battle between Airbnb and New York State, which could lead to the prosecution of thousands of people who have defied state laws and let rooms or flats to tourists.

We are curious to see how this plays out. What do you think? Is this an example of over regulation or did Airbnb have this coming? Check out Airbnb's Blog Post on the deal and let us know what you think.

Seattle Suspends ride sharing regulations one month after passage

Just one month ago, Seattle City Council enacted new regulations on rideshare companies like Uber and Airbnb. Yesterday, Uber, Lyft and Sidecar submitted more than 36,000 signatures on a repeal petition forcing a public vote. An ordinance so challenged is suspended until the public vote.

The suspension — whatever happens in the future — is a major victory for companies offering an alternative to Seattle’s much-criticized taxicab service.

In a wider sense, it is a win for the city’s technology economy, which took to heart the cause of ride sharing, arguing that Seattle must be a 21st century city open to innovation and new ways of providing services.

This is huge news for not only Seattle ridesharing companies, but for the technology driven collaborative economy in general. A public voice this strong is an obvious indicator of the popularity of sharing economy services.

Check out the entire article on the Seattle Pi's Blog and let us know what you think. Is Seattle's response to city regulation only the beginning?