Uber Partners with San Francisco Landlord to Subsidize Car-Free Tenants | Hacker News Reader

Uber Partners with San Francisco Landlord to Subsidize Car-Free Tenants

planetizen.com

34 pointsjtsnow13 comments

Is there any fundamental difference between this and simply dropping rent by $100/month and charging $100/month for a parking space? Aside from the fact that carless tenants in that scenario could spend their $100/month on something other than transportation.

Two: 1. The leasing company/landlord doesn't get a bunch of free press. 2. Tenants don't think about the real value of the parking space. (Which is probably far in excess of $100/month.)

Interesting geofence idea - I wonder if that makes it worthwhile for neighbours to walk to their front door before ordering a ride? Or is this the kind of place where neighbours don't exist?

the community is the largest in the city and is at the far southwestern edge of the city, i think i heard there are over 3,500 units in parkmerced. The only real neighbors would be SFSU campus so mostly student and there is a muni stop directly next to campus. The funny thing is people live there specifically because they have a car and it a more suburban area where parking is actually available. The closer you get to downtown the more likely you will find people who dont own a car and this area is as far from downtown as you can get while still technically being part of the city

Your neighbors at Parkmerced would include: a large park with a lake, two golf courses, San Francisco State, and (if you cross two busy highways and a Muni line) a small neighborhood with a few ordinary homes, but up a hill - Ocean View or the like.

How about the landlord just pays tenants directly for not having a car in the area? Would the incentives come out wrong in such an arrangement?

Well, it's a double edged sword.

Because when everyone stops using parking spots, driving in the city would become better due to better parking options.

Not necessarily. You can reclaim those parking spots and use them for outdoor seating, green belts, and bike lanes. NYC has done this in spots. The effect is wonderful for pedestrians.

You know, I've wondered about this with regard to self-driving cars. On the face of it, they could reduce the need for parking drastically. But on the other hand, if driving is so much cheaper in terms of time and aggravation, will it cause people to drive much, much more, making the traffic situation even worse than before?

After all, people will be able to tolerate even worse traffic than they can now

Eventually governments are going to have to confront the need for a lot more tolling.

I guess I have to consider their subsidies program when contrasted with their claims that submitting to municipal finger-printng regulations for their drivers here in Austin are "too expensive."

The key problem with the finger print background searches is that they often take >30 days. Uber & Lyft have significant driver churn (due to it being temporary employment for many people) and the delay discourages drivers to sign up.

the corporations are our friends!

>According to Hawkins, "[the] money can be used for public transit, taxis, and car-sharing, as long as at least $30 is put toward Uber."

oh wait maybe not

I don't see the problem with that. If someone offered me $70 of transit/taxi money and $30 of uber gift certificates, I'd take it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com