This is the perfect time for an upstart to provide a service which does conform with city regulation and it or they will be able to swoop in when or if other cities institute similar requirements to the dismay of the incumbents.
sometimes it's good for there to be consequences
Why?
As egregiously capitalistic as it may sound, I like that companies have to bend and so do consumers instead of either the company's leverage being too large or the government/citizens' leverage being too large. In the ride sharing space, I believe that Uber and Lyft have bent more than municipalities.
Only this time they played chicken and lost the battle.
Everything else is a smoke screen over the issue of losing medallion sales.
What people forget during these discussions is that this is not free money for the city, it's money out of every rider's pocket for an overpriced service, some small percentage of which trickles down to the city.
As for the battle, Uber is busily serving people elsewhere while Austin is stuck with cabs. The people of Austin are the losers in this.
If you think paying taxes is anti-self, you haven't thought much about what would happen if nobody paid taxes.
If you think equality is anti-self, you haven't thought much about the future when you might very well become a minority.
And that's ignoring the piece of mind you get from knowing you're doing the right and just thing, instead of being selfish.
Usually people who want to avoid taxes the most are those who have to pay the most.
No, I think people who seek equality are people who are selfless and try to see beyond differences. Same for people willing to pay _more_ than their fair share of the tax burden.
It is a de facto monopoly within the confines of a metro area where competition is absolutely regulated and limited.
But your analogy doesn't make sense to me. There's not political or regulatory reason there exists one coffee shop.
And because of this fact, if they abuse their position as the sole coffee shop (raise prices, provide bad customer service, etc.) they will open themselves up to a challenge from another entrant into the (open and free) market.
This is exactly why taxis are a different beast. They are protected from competition. Explain to me how taxi cartels operate in a free market? Or conversely, if you agree that they don't, explain how coffee shops operate under the same conditions?
"Some cab drivers want the council to issue permits directly to drivers with at least five years of experience — what the drivers call "legacy permits"...
— bypassing Austin's three taxi franchise holders: Yellow Cab, Austin Cab and Lone Star. The change could cost cab companies control of the market — and the thousands of dollars they collect annually from each cabbie after paying the city just $400 for each permit."[0]
"STOA wants to limit the number of cabs on the street in order to increase market share for large operators; with less competition for passengers they would be able to cover their higher overhead costs, and presumably "can charge less per trip." By asking the city to regulate the number of cabs, STOA is asking the city to limit their competition."[1]
[0] http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/taxi-industry-pours...
[1] http://savannahnow.com/column/2009-10-23/toma-cab-owners-see...
Is this how coffee shops, restaurants, bars, etc. are setup in any city you're aware of?
Whereas the city has a monopoly on Taxi services and licenses out to a very limited pool of providers. (And usually a closed group that you couldn't get into even if you could afford a medallion.)
If you do find a way to comply, expect more rules to be created with your name on them.