December 4, 2013
San Francisco's Yellow Cab Cooperative Could Be Cashing Out
With revenues for taxi companies in San Francisco having dropped an estimated 30 percent over the past year thanks to "ridesharing" startups such at Lyft, Sidecar and UberX, and land values rebounding (thanks to startups such at Lyft, Sidecar and UberX), the largest cab company in the city, the Yellow Cab Cooperative, has quietly put its six-acre headquarters and parking lot at 1200 Mississippi Street on the market and is offering to deliver it vacant.
The parcel at the southern base of Potrero Hill between 25th Street and Cesar Chavez is currently zoned for Production, Distribution and Repair (PDR) which generally prohibits the building of housing, large office developments or large-scale retail but could support light industrial, small scale retail, office or entertainment uses. A tennis club with 31 courts had been proposed to be built upon the site back in 1974, well before the Yellow Cab Cooperative took control.
San Francisco's Yellow Cab Cooperative is seeking $16,000,000 for the six-acre site with Kidder Mathews handling the offering. No word on the Cooperative's next move.
First Published: December 4, 2013 1:00 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Wonder why the cab companies don't adapt and become providers for Uber, Lyft, etc.?
A fare is a fare ... who cares how you get it.
Posted by: Jimmy the House Flipper at December 4, 2013 1:37 PM
Jimmy - I'm guessing that the previous semi-monopoly was more profitable. Either that or the internet-only model doesn't support maintaining a fleet of purpose-built cars. Didn't SF limit the number of taxi licenses which forced a supply side shortage?
This parcel is an unusual one. Its in a pit of a former quarry and surrounded by freeways, housing projects, and light industrial buildings. It doesn't have much appeal for residential. But it could be a good location for office space.
With Yellow Cab moving out of this location life will get a little better on some Potrero streets. Currently cabs race up and down Carolina, Southern Heights, and Rhode Island to and from the dispatch yard.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at December 4, 2013 1:51 PM
Sure the old monopoly was more profitable ... but is this an indication they are 'taking their toys and going home'?
Or just downsizing. In any case, I'm curious. Not that I ever really take taxis anymore...
Posted by: Jimmy the House Flipper at December 4, 2013 1:55 PM
Didn't SF limit the number of taxi licenses which forced a supply side shortage?
Absolutely. The cab companies grew fat on the government-mandated monopoly profits, and now they simply don't have the cost structure to become a provide for Uber, Lyft, etc.
Plus, I doubt that Uber and Lyft want to deal with middlemen. Why give the cab companies a cut if they have to build infrastructure that deals directly with drivers anyway?
I really don't see a future for cab companies unless they can have some wins in court that keeps competition out (and I don't discount that possibility - they've been successful for 60+ years on the screw-the-consumer-and-employee-drivers method, I'd bet that they'll be able to continue with that business plan in many cities).
Posted by: anon at December 4, 2013 1:57 PM
Live/work -with accommodation for true workshops and light industry. Tallish building with access to the street just above where the projects are being redeveloped. Great location bridging industry, Potrero communities and ever-developing Third St. Seems to be a natural location for live work (meaning non screen stuff).
Posted by: invented at December 4, 2013 2:16 PM
Certainly traditional cab companies have a lot to learn about customer service, availability and politeness.
But the Uber/Lyft drivers are at the bottom pile of skills sets when it comes to driving on the public streets.
I see them constantly on their cell phones while driving, pulling up INTO a crosswalk when people are crossing, making right turns into a crosswalk while people are walking.
Plus that stupid pink mustache has got to go.
Posted by: Futurist at December 4, 2013 2:25 PM
I like Invented's idea, especially buildings tall enough to bridge to the top of the hill at 25th. If the city allows that, can anyone build it?
[Editor’s Note: The site is currently only zoned for buildings up to 65 feet in height.]
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at December 4, 2013 2:31 PM
You can already call a cab with Uber in SF, but why would you want to when you can get a nicer car and driver for the same price?
Posted by: Michael at December 4, 2013 2:50 PM
I use UberX all the time, they are cheaper then yellow cabs, 100x more professional, cleaner, more polite, and much more reliable and convenient then regular cab drivers. Hardly at the bottom of the pile.
This is a simple case of yellow cabs not willing to adapt to serve their market.
Posted by: wc1 at December 4, 2013 2:51 PM
The bridge idea is nice. The only problem is the site is at a dead corner right now. There is little reason for anyone to go up or down the hill. It will be more useful for the potential development of on 22nd and Texas St to build a bridge to connect to Missouri St. It is a corridor that scale a steep hill where many people use to connect to 22nd St Caltrain now.
Posted by: Wai Yip Tung at December 4, 2013 3:17 PM
Even when the existing public housing is demolished and new housing is built in its' place, will that stop the crime, drug use and break-ins from happening?
Not so sure about that.
This may not necessarily be a safe place to live, sadly.
Posted by: Futurist at December 4, 2013 3:23 PM
Whenever I need to go to airport I call the cab company and it will show up at my door in less than 10 minutes. I have no idea why anyone would complaint having trouble getting a cab to their home. Then I discovered the cab's parking lot is at located at the bottom of the hill below my Potrero Hill home. That explains my atypical experience LOL.
Posted by: Wai Yip Tung at December 4, 2013 3:25 PM
From the first time I saw that property, I thought it was perfect for a development that rises up above the cliff to meet the street above - 2 stories along 25th to match the neighborhood, but several more stories "below ground" - which all gets flooded with southern exposure sunlight.
Posted by: Sierrajeff at December 4, 2013 3:27 PM
Looking at the master plan of the new Potrero Hill project, I take back my claim about no purpose of connecting the site to the hill.
In fact this will allow them access to the central park and the future retails on 24th St. This should be a positive thing to do.
Posted by: Wai Yip Tung at December 4, 2013 3:34 PM
"This is a simple case of yellow cabs not willing to adapt to serve their market."
If I am not mistaken the trade off for a regulated and protected industry is cabs have to provide accommodation for the poor (in theory they can't refuse fares) and for the disabled.
In theory these other services can pick and choose who they serve
Posted by: zig at December 4, 2013 3:37 PM
It's actually the other way around. Cabs can take one look at you and not stop. With Uber you know the car is coming to get you and no one else.
Posted by: Michael at December 4, 2013 3:39 PM
and interesting thought is if Lyft is legal why not jitneys?
NYC looks the other way I believe.
SF used to have regular jitney routes on Mission St from Top of the Hill to downtown.
Posted by: zig at December 4, 2013 3:46 PM
No Michael you have it wrong in theory. Uber is not picking up people in locations they don't want to or the handicap. There is no pretense that they accommodate the public interest at all
At least with taxi cabs in theory:
"(e) Driver Duties During Shift. (1) A Driver shall not refuse, or direct or permit the refusal, of prospective passengers in any place within the City for transportation to any other place in the City, or to or from the San Francisco International Airport, or to the Oakland International Airport, or paratransit passengers within the Paratransit Program service area, at rates authorized by law, if the prospective passengers present themselves for transportation in a clean, coherent, safe and orderly manner and for a lawful purpose and the Driver has sufficient time before the end of his or her shift."
Posted by: zig at December 4, 2013 3:52 PM
Mixed residential & light industrial in that lot would be great, I like the bridge idea also. This would vastly improve that area.
Note that the south side of 26th St between Kansas and DeHaro which is pretty much right next door is marked as "M-1 Light Industrial" on the zoning map. Yet there is residential housing there. What's the story with that?
Posted by: ttt at December 4, 2013 3:59 PM
"Yet there is residential housing there. What's the story with that?"
I don't know for sure but if I had to guess:
"Live work" lofts
(Irish) Residential Builders Association
All come to my mind
Posted by: zig at December 4, 2013 4:38 PM
Zig, if you believe that "theory" translates into reality, I've got a wonderful bridge connecting SF and Marin I'd like to sell you.
Cab drivers in this town are nonexistent, sometimes rude, dangerous (I had someone crazy women driving a taxi telling me how her last fare made her want to drive into a wall - I got out early) and usually dirty.
Uber and UberX are a godsend. Polite, clean, and never more than ten or fifteen minutes away - I've even been picked up in the Sunset in only a few mutes! Compare that to the 45 - 60 minute wait for a taxi, wondering if the dispatcher has even contacted a ride for you.
The taxi companies in SF can bite it. For too long they've offered a sub-standard service, content to rest on their monopoly.
Posted by: Fishchum at December 4, 2013 4:40 PM
I don't disagree that they are a godsend for you Fishchum and I haven't used them but will try it
Regular old taxis have to provide wheelchair accessible cabs as an example by law and are regulated to pick up little old ladies in Silver Terrace. Maybe Uber would pick up in Silver Terrace too. I really don't know. I am a little skeptical
Posted by: Zig at December 4, 2013 5:19 PM
So glad to see the taxi cab companies suffer. I have personally been denied a taxi ride because I was not going to the airport or not far enough in the city. The taxi cab companies acted like a monopoly and did not provide the service they are licensed to perform. No one took away their piece of cake - they gave it away!
Posted by: Cody at December 4, 2013 5:36 PM
Why would I want a taxi or Uber when I can just drive myself?
I've never been a taxi kinda guy.
Posted by: Futurist at December 4, 2013 5:38 PM
Zig, there's a not entirely safe looking dark blue van that I see sometimes stopping on 4th near Townsend advertising cheap rides to and from the Mission. So I guess they still exist, but probably do not advertise due to their questionable legality.
Posted by: RobBob at December 4, 2013 6:42 PM
A girlfriend of mine once drove to fashion event at the W hotel. She valet-parked her car at the cost of about $30. We lived 6 or 7 blocks away so a cab ride would probably have been less than $10 each way and cabs are readily available in the area. She drank a lot of champagne at the event. She didn't get a DUI or anything, but it would certainly have been a possibility. Just an anecdote as to why driving your own car in downtown SF is not always the smartest thing to do.
Posted by: anonanon at December 4, 2013 6:48 PM
I own a car too, can I join your club?
I can think a lot of reasons why I might not want to drive and take an uber instead- parking a pain/expensive, wanting to drink and not drive, going to the airport to name a few.
Posted by: wc1 at December 4, 2013 7:09 PM
Futurist, we get it - you love your car and will drive it everywhere.
But unless you're a straight edge and not planning on drinking at all, going out for some dinner/drinks and then driving is about the most foolish thing you can do. It doesn't take much to impair your driving, and all it takes is one slip up to get into an accident that does damage, or god forbid, injures someone.
Sand Francisco is a city founded on a "morally casual attitude" when it comes to so many vices - I'm thrilled there's a service like Uber that will shuttle me safely to and from wherever I need to go.
In a city like San Francisco it may be one the most responsible things you can do.
Posted by: Fishchum at December 4, 2013 8:00 PM
OMG. some of you really get going on a wild card.
So, assuming UP FRONT that someone will go out and drink too much and get in an accident.
Wow. just wow.
Are you sure that Uber driver or taxi driver has not been downing a few cocktails?
Posted by: Futurist at December 4, 2013 8:12 PM
Futurist - No, you're the wild card, interjecting your irrelevant comment declaring your love of cars in a thread discussing taxi service vs. Uber/Lyft.
No, not everyone going out will drink. But given the nature of San Francisco, many people do - and using a service like Uber as opposed to drinking and driving is something that should be encouraged and commended.
Posted by: Fishchum at December 4, 2013 8:31 PM
The cab companies are getting just what they deserve. They are not in the taxi business, they are in the car rental business. They collect their gate up front and obviously do not care if the driver ever gets a fare or the passenger ever gets picked up.
I have a car in the garage, but many times it is easier, more convenient, cheaper to have someone else do the driving (and not have to "store" my car multiple expensive places during a day.)
Uber is a guaranteed ride, at a guaranteed time, in a clean, new, safe car, with a driver who knows you are going to rate him (as he is going to rate you.) And for a price that is less or equivalent to a cab, with no cash exchanging hands and no tip. It has made living in the city so much more pleasurable. Yea!
Posted by: Jim at December 4, 2013 9:08 PM
Actually there are strict limits on the amount of office use allowed in the PDR zoning district, too. This will probably be a light industrial project. The only recent PDR sites of similar size that have sold within the last year or so went for under $100/SF and they were in superior locations.
Posted by: Schaetzer at December 4, 2013 10:14 PM
Native plants and bee garden. Open green space. A great big opportunity.
Posted by: Kathleen at December 5, 2013 5:30 AM
Kathleen - sounds like a great idea! Why don't you buy the lot for $16mm and then you can have a bee garden!!! Great big opportunity is right!!!
Posted by: [soccermom] at December 5, 2013 8:41 AM
The taxis had a monopoly because of a proposition voted in a few years back that created the medallion system.
Posted by: MOW at December 5, 2013 9:20 AM
As someone who flies all over the nation and world, takes local taxis, I can tell you SF cab drivers are worst/scariest/least professional in the nation. Like parts of Africa and SW Asia, really. The whole 'dash to the city and get back to the airport in less than 30 minutes' routine has got to go.
Posted by: scaredstiff at December 5, 2013 9:30 AM
Why would I want a taxi or Uber when I can just drive myself?
Because not everyone likes dealing with parking? Uber drops me off at my door, no walking to a crappy garage or street parking spot.
Posted by: anon at December 5, 2013 9:38 AM
Ironic that here in the most liberal city in America, everyone supports fake 'ridesharing' services owned by ultra-wealthy venture capitalists, and their business plan is to supplant cab drivers, most of which are low paid, third- world people of color.
Posted by: Shmedrick at December 5, 2013 9:40 AM
^Someone hasn't seen most Uber drivers, most of which are of similar background and race to cab drivers, only they're paid more than they would make with the cab companies.
Posted by: anon at December 5, 2013 9:53 AM
Last evening cycling to Grace Cathedral, I saw a cabby stop at a red light on Polk Street, get out and punch a cyclist. (Whaaat?). Not sure an Uber would do that, but I didn't see what precipitated the cab driver's ire. Related to the whole taxi/sharing thing maybe, my car is rented out by car sharing service to neighbors. Even our Airbnb guests use it. More share, fewer cars, Let's face it, the City is going to look very different in the near future especially as we begin to permanently close down (select) streets.
Posted by: Invented at December 5, 2013 10:02 AM
The Uber drivers I see on the streets are MOSTLY all young, white males.
Similar demographics for MOST bike riders in SF.
Posted by: Futurist at December 5, 2013 10:03 AM
Futurist - You are absolutely full of it.
Full. Of. It.
My wife and I have been using Uber and UBerX all over town since its inception. Not once have we ever had a "young, white male".
Your bike rider snark has been noted as well.
Posted by: Fishchum at December 5, 2013 10:05 AM
lol at Futurist's "young, white male" comment. Seriously? You've clearly never used the service if you think most drivers are young, white males.
Posted by: anon at December 5, 2013 10:07 AM
Don't be so testy. Just cause you don't see what others have seen.
But yes, most drivers fit the demo of what I said. Again, you don't have to agree with me, But I've seen them drive just as badly as taxi drivers.
Don't put the ride share drivers up on a pedestal just cause they're trendy.
Posted by: Futurist at December 5, 2013 10:12 AM
Wow, Futurist, you're so out of your depth right now it's laughable.
No one is putting Uber drivers on a pedestal. Just remarking on how much better a service they provide than taxi companies. For a guy who can't stop commenting on how much he loves driving his car everywhere, what are you doing using Uber?
And testy? You're the one interjecting irrelevant comments about your car and bike riders in a thread that has little or nothing to do with either.
Posted by: Fishchum at December 5, 2013 10:22 AM
How tall should someone build here?
Should there be parking?
This PDR zoning is confounding!
I really like parking, and bike lanes!
These new car services are great!
Are they ever going to clean up those projects nearby?
How about that new Potrero Hill plan?
This has been on loopnet for a while! They are going to try to build a new parking garage on site! They are just hoping that someone will buy them out instead!!!!
Posted by: [soccermom] at December 5, 2013 10:47 AM
@Futurist - seriously? You take a lot of crap from folks on SS from time to time. Some of it you deserve, some you don't. This time you definitely deserve it. Those are some rediculous things to say.
@Schmedrick Pretty sure being liberal doesn't require you to hate successful business owners just because they're successful. I just think it means that you consider the impact of the business on the environment and society. In this case, drivers are being replaced by drivers. No one is being replaced with robots (yet!) and I don't think the Uber drivers are getting rich either. What barriers are there to a cab driver becoming an Uber driver? And there's no more environmental impact from an Uber car than a taxi and it still makes it easier for people not to own a car if they don't want to so why wouldn't a liberal support the business. It's an improvement on a model that was stuck in the past. I'm not sure I recognize the irony you speak of but I might be missing something.
My bad cab experience (besides the regular freaky drivers and their agressive driving) was trying to get my family from Bernal to Nob Hill for dinner on Friday early evening. I called ahead and scheduled the pick up. Then my family was lagging so I called to push the scheduled pick up back. The dispatcher told me that I should just leave the pick up time unchanged because I'd be lucky to actually get a cab on time and might not get one at all. Granted, busy weekend with a Giants game, Outside Lands, and something else. But at least on Uber I was able to get a ride and see them as they drove to get us. I paid premium for it because of high volume, but I got service for my money. Not sure what business can be successful when they tell you that you probably won't get the thing you're willing to pay for which also happens to be the only thing they sell.
Posted by: Boo at December 5, 2013 11:23 AM
And now back to the listing of 1200 Mississippi, the implications, and the opportunity...
Posted by: SocketSite at December 5, 2013 11:26 AM
such a wonderful location to build a basketball stadium:
- easy access to two hwys and caltrain
- plentiful parking nearby
- opportunity to revitalize an underutilized neighborhood
Posted by: Jake at December 5, 2013 11:34 AM
That is actually a pretty horrible area but I am sure that it will find a buyer since companies are being displaced in other neighborhoods that are now highly desirable ,
That said , its amazing how things are changing with TAXIS since UBER , LIFT and SIDECAR came on the scene ,
Posted by: Joseph A at December 5, 2013 11:44 AM
Yellow Cab Cooperative of San Francisco is alive and well. Because we have grown from 300 cabs to almost 600 cabs and growing, we are looking for a larger facility or we will build a parking garage at 1200 Mississippi Street. For that reason, we put out a feeler to see if there is interest in purchasing our existing property.
We are embracing all the new technology with new Apps and a growing fleet to better respond to our high demand. We are aligning ourselves to be not only bigger but better in 2014!
Jim Gillespie - President/General Manager
Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc.
Posted by: Jim Gillespie at December 5, 2013 11:52 AM
To end this very long thread on a positive UBER note. I want to thank UBER for adding a few years to my life by not having to deal with the very stressful/crazy taxi monopoly in San Francisco. UBER may be the best technological advance that has positively impacted my life in the past few years. There are still a few kinks with UBER but I no longer have to do business with someone who is constantly yelling and cursing at me.
I own property very close to this site and would love for that land to be used for soemthing else that benefits the local nabe.
Unfortunately as many people have stated, the location is quite challenging given the projects up the street with no real plans/funding for redevelopment (yes you still hear gunshots coming from the projects). There are definitely smarter and more creative people than I, so I am confident (hopeful) that this land is sold to a developer that can further improve this nabe.
Posted by: PotreroResident at December 5, 2013 2:39 PM
Anyone who calls the cab business a monopoly doesn't know the meaning of the word. There are 30+ cab companies (color schemes) in SF, and medallions are only issued to individuals who either go independent or affiliate with one of those companies. Some monopoly. Compare that to Uber, a well-financed multinational behemoth that openly wants to crush all competition.
Posted by: Shmendrick at December 5, 2013 4:26 PM
Yes, just like PG&E isn't a monopoly because there are other power companies out there.
Until medallions are eliminated (or at least changed so that anyone can get one after they meet some requirements - a fix on the number of medallions is absurd) and prices are allowed to go up and down through market demand, it's an effective monopoly for consumers. A government-created monopoly that protects incumbents at the (gigantic) expense of consumers. Different colors on the side of a car mean little when there's no danger that the other colored car can put you out of business.
Posted by: anon at December 5, 2013 4:35 PM
"Compare that to Uber, a well-financed multinational behemoth that openly wants to crush all competition."
Maybe wanting to compete is not such a bad thing for consumers. The cab industry is heavily regulated by the City (number of medallions, fare structure, etc) and that puts a dampener on competition. Uber, being a limousine company regulated by the State of California, wants to compete and that competition may help improve cab companies in SF in areas such the use of technology and having less smelly drivers.
Posted by: anonanon at December 5, 2013 4:58 PM
All these complaints about cab drivers, I have not had the same experience. Can't remember a smelly or rude cabbie. Of course I rarely takes cabs unless I'm taking one home from the airport. I can't ever find a cab anywhere else as it seems 99% of SF's cabs are sitting at the airport waiting to pick up fares there.
Posted by: Rillion at December 6, 2013 11:08 AM
The article starts off with an assertion that cab companies are in distress. I'm surprised that supposedly savvy real estate people would accept that without question.
Posted by: Charles Rathbone at December 9, 2013 10:45 AM
Is Uber really a limousince company as anonanon and others assert?
My understanding is that their app merely creates a marketplace connecting service providers (drivers) with customers and handles payments.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe they employ and drivers, nor do they own any cars.
Posted by: Jimmy (not a Real San Franciscan (TM)) at December 9, 2013 12:01 PM
My point about Uber being a limousine company wasn't about owning vehicles. It was about the fact limousine companies are regulated by the California PUC rather than the City. And the PUC certainly feels it has the right to regulate Uber's operation.
Posted by: anonanon at December 9, 2013 12:30 PM
Wow, this is very interesting considering Yellow spent a big chunk of change installing CNG pumps into this location. This site also has regular gas pumps as well as a garage/mechanic installation which will make things quite slow due to the environmental issues in building something new.
Regarding all the anti-taxicab pro nappy fur & that co belonging to Mr. TK (a self serving, ayn rand, it's ok to be a douche bag, entitled, elitist)... I am a member/driver/admin for SF Green Cab, LLC - a carbon neutral, driver owned - true co-op. When we started in 2007 with our Prius cabs and unique business model we did help change things at least as far as the carbon footprint for cab companies in SF. Unfortunately, this does not rate highly to many of you if you're truly supporting the unlimited number of town cars & escalades flooding the streets via the "U". We do, and 75% of the city cabs also do, have an app based system installed, Flywheel, which has been in use for over 4.5 years!!
Green has been a clear hybrid in our industry, cutting out the bribery & corruption in addition to interviewing & background checking our drivers, etc. Unfortunately, due to these unregulated, uninsured vehicles it is likely the small companies like Green who will not be able to survive. Mainly because we cannot find enough drivers - especially the quality of personnel we always seek - leaving the big co's with crappy unaccountable drivers. You know the ones who won't take you anywhere in the avenues, if you have groceries, if your disabled etc. By the way, all of the drivers we have fired due to bad behavior are now driving for U.
The blame for the issues in SF Taxi industry lies on the MTA, and the large companies who have flat out refused to make needed changes or to grow with technology. Most of us who are aware, informed, socially conscience individuals will not drive for that jerk who started U. sorry, having money does not erase who you are to those of us who do not pray to the money god. Make no mistake, it is NOT the cab company fat cats who are being hurt by these issues, it is the honest, decent, drivers and small companies. The big co's & crappy, morally bankrupt, personality deprived drivers will remain and get more mean.
Posted by: Carol O at December 9, 2013 1:06 PM
"The Uber drivers I see on the streets are MOSTLY all young, white males. Similar demographics for MOST bike riders in SF."
Posted by: Futurist at December 5, 2013 10:03 AM
My eight Uber drivers (I don't use it much):
Niraj, Dmitry, Carl, Abdul, Skender, Jaipal, Moe, and Thiago
Not exactly "MOSTLY all young, white males". In fact, the only white one was Dmitry, who was a middle aged Russian immigrant.
Posted by: R at December 9, 2013 2:30 PM
I've used Uber hundreds of times and just glanced at the list of driver names. While there are some that are easily compatible with the theory that the driver is a young white American male, such as John, Jonathan, Michael, Richard, and Steve, they tend to be dwarfed by the likes of Todkhuu, Sultan, Rabii, Houssemeddine, Khos-Od, and Kamel. Names in the latter category suggest to me that the driver may have had some different ethnical background than a stereotypical young white male.
Posted by: anonanon at December 9, 2013 3:44 PM
As a commercial real estate agent and taxi industry insider I can with authority say the following:
1: Taxis are not and never have been a "monopoly"
2: Taxi drivers are required to maintain an active business license with the city in conjunction with their taxi license making the taxi industry 7000+ small businesses, this is definitely NOT a "monopoly".
3: Cab companies customers are not the riders, their customers are the drivers.
4: This property has been on the market for nearly a year with no bites because it is overpriced as it would be delivered vacant, even if Yellow cab leased the property back its still priced above what the market will bear. Land value alone puts it in the $10m range.
5: They are selling the property because they have outgrown it and are looking at sites elsewhere in the city that can fit the larger number of taxis and driver's cars that need to be parked when the cab is out on the streets.
6: Lyft, Sidecar and Uber are all acting as de-facto taxis flooding the market with substandard questionably insured drivers and vehicles which are in violation of San Francisco Transportation Code 1105a(1) that states a vehicle operating for hire must have a permit (medallion) to do so.
7: Uber and Lyft are the transportation world's equivalent of Walmart. Pushing out the small businesses so they can have a near monopoly, reducing already barely there workers rights to nothing, providing a substandard unregulated product all while avoiding the responsibilities taxi driver and companies are required by law to comply with.
KNOW YOUR FACTS
Posted by: Trevor at December 10, 2013 12:42 PM
"7: Uber and Lyft are the transportation world's equivalent of Walmart. Pushing out the small businesses so they can have a near monopoly, reducing already barely there workers rights to nothing, providing a substandard unregulated product all while avoiding the responsibilities taxi driver and companies are required by law to comply with."
As a very frequent consumer of cab services, I don't consider Uber to be a substandard product. I've never used Lyft or any other Uber service than Black (although sometimes they send me an SUV for the same price), but my experience with Uber has been 100 percent excellent. I rarely have any reason to complain about regular cabs, either, but you definitely get the feeling that Uber Black is a step up from a regular cab. It's more expensive, of course, but you get what you pay for.
Posted by: anonanon at December 10, 2013 1:23 PM
Trevor, if you think number 7 is true, then I don't think you understand how Uber works. Essentially, Uber is simply a much more efficient Yellow Cab Cooperative.
Posted by: R at December 10, 2013 1:59 PM
@Trevor - there are absolute barriers to entry and 100% regulated prices, which completely negate any potential for competition. If taxis had allowed more entrants to keep prices down and a decent number of cabs on the street (instead of waiting for hours on busy nights), their industry never would have needed disruption.
Comcast offers better service than taxis, which is quite sad.
Posted by: anon at December 10, 2013 2:12 PM
Another thing regarding the comparison between Walmart and Uber. Walmart is successful for a reason, presumably because consumers find that low prices save them money. Nobody has ever accused Uber of having low prices, so the popularity of its service must be due to other factors. Maybe the old-school cab companies should step up their game given the new competition rather than whine.
Posted by: anonanon at December 10, 2013 2:27 PM
Maybe the CPUC should not deregulate a regulated industry without considering the consequences to a City's infrastructure.
Of course the Mayor is not worried about it because he wants to be re-elected and who better to help than Silicon Valley?
He has extracted $50 million from the medallion sales to pay for bus drivers retirement, Dental Care etc so now throw cabs to the wind.
Until today virtually none of that money has gone back to modernizing the Taxi industry. Taxi fees even pay for their own administration
Posted by: Richard Hybels at December 25, 2013 5:08 PM
Maybe the CPUC should not deregulate a regulated industry without considering the consequences to a City's infrastructure.
Exactly which regulation of taxi cabs helps with a "city's infrastructure"?
People make bad investment decisions all the time. We shouldn't use past horrendous policies like medallion sales to keep things crappy. A medallion is simply a bribe to the city in exchange for no competition. It's time for blatant and legal corruption like this to stop.
Posted by: anon at December 26, 2013 10:25 AM