Endorsement watch: Against Prop 1

The Statesman urges a vote against the divisive referendum to repeal Austin’s ordinance regulating transit network companies like Uber and Lyft.

Voting against Prop. 1 is the best way to ensure that Lyft, Uber and other ride-hailing service drivers, undergo the most thorough criminal background checks endorsed by law enforcement: fingerprint checks. By contrast, Lyft and Uber are demanding name-based background checks. Prop. 1 would accomplish that by eliminating fingerprint checks. But you won’t see or hear mention of “fingerprint checks” in ads or fliers Uber and Lyft are floating.

You also won’t hear or see an equally important issue at stake in the May 7 election: Whether it should be corporations or Austin’s elected leaders that write the rules for doing business in the city. That power, in our view, should remain in the hands of the democratically elected officials who represent Austin residents — not private companies with deep pockets. Voting against Prop. 1, crafted by Lyft and Uber, keeps that authority with Austin’s elected City Council.

On those terms, the question on the ballot is relatively simple, but the issues are being cleverly camouflaged in the high-dollar ad campaign being waged by Lyft and Uber through the companies’ political action committee, Ridesharing Works for Austin. Lyft and Uber contributed $2.2 million to the group — an unprecedented amount for an Austin election. The primary group opposing Prop. 1, Our City, Our Safety, Our Choice, reported raising and spending less than $15,000.

[…]

Over the past months, Lyft and Uber have used various messaging to drive support for their Prop. 1. Initially, the companies threatened to bolt if the City Council required fingerprint checks. Then they said approving Prop. 1, which eliminates fingerprint checks, would keep the companies operating in the city.

Their step away from that message might signal that the public favors fingerprint-based background checks or is divided over that point. Either would be risky for Prop. 1.

Certainly a city like Austin needs as many transportation options as possible, so if Lyft and Uber left it would greatly diminish the ability of Austin residents to move around in an increasingly congested city. And no one denies that Lyft and Uber contribute to public safety in taking drunk drivers off the road. That is why we urged the City Council to compromise with Lyft and Uber through incentives or other voluntary measures to get drivers to undergo fingerprint checks — rather than requirements.

The council could modify its current ordinance to work toward that goal. But if voters approve Prop. 1, fingerprint checks will be eliminated and Lyft and Uber will have little — if any — incentive to compromise.

For all of those reasons, as well as the other safety requirements that would be eliminated by tossing out the current ordinance and replacing it with Prop. 1, Austin residents should reject Prop 1.

See here for some background. I basically agree with everything the Statesman editorial board says and would vote No if I were in Austin. I also continue to believe that if Prop 1 passes, it’s just a matter of time before Uber takes action to eliminate Houston’s fingerprint requirements. I would very much rather not see it come to that.

In his email newsletter, Ed Sills of the AFL-CIO echoes some of these concerns and provides a bit of on-the-ground reporting:

My family has come to cherish and dread (“dreadish”?) the half-dozen calls from “Research Center” each day over the last few weeks. My wife made it clear to the Uber folks that we are unalterably AGAINST the ordinance, but evidently they noticed there are four voters in our household, so we seem to be getting four times the calls. My personal technique in answering these calls is to count to two during the delay and hang up at the moment a live voice comes on. I figure the more time they spend trying to contact a household where they are about to go 0-4, the less time they can spend talking to people who are gullible enough to believe the lies spewed in this Rich Uncle Pennybags campaign.

I have never done a block-walk as overwhelmingly locked in as the one my daughter and I went on Saturday in the Highland neighborhood in Austin, and I have walked some great progressive neighborhoods in contested elections. Nor have I ever previously experienced multiple situations in which folks were staring daggers at us until they realized we were in agreement – and then greeted us as old friends and took signs. (At one point, I told my daughter to go talk to a 78-year-old woman – her first solo encounter on a block-walk – while I knocked the house across the street. “You can probably outrun her if you have to,” I explained. When I stole a glance, the woman was practically giving Graciela a hug.)

I have never before done a block-walk in which all I had to say to get a commitment was, “Don’t you hate those ads on television?” And people still held forth on the merits about why they can’t stand what Uber and Lyft are doing.

Thank goodness I didn’t have to explain every nuance of the ordinance approved by the Austin City Council, which sets standards for fingerprint checks, fees to be collected from ride-share companies, etc. People understand the proposed ordinance written by Uber and Lyft relaxes the background check standard and lowers the fees the companies have to pay. But this is one of those rare political situations in which while the details may matter, all you absolutely have to know is that the proposal at hand is, well, Horse Feathers. (Trust me, Groucho Marx lovers, you want to click on this link.)

A large majority of voters we spoke to get that a fundamental principle is in play. If Uber and Lyft can spend millions to write their own ordinance in Austin, they will be trying the same thing next in Houston, which adopted strong fingerprinting requirements for drivers. And regardless of how that goes, Uber and Lyft will be at the forefront of the right-wing move in the Texas Legislature to take away the ability of local governments to make progress not just on ride-share regulation, but on wages, discrimination and work rules. A success by Uber and Lyft would launch a parade of corporations that would weigh options and budget millions more to overturn local laws that offend them.

The try-anything attitude among supporters of Prop 1 has continued. The Austin Chronicle reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned Austin may jeopardize its “Smart City” initiative if voters turn down the Uber/Lyft ordinance rewrite. Apparently the bald-faced lie in the pro-Prop 1 ads that Austin taxpayers would suddenly be on the hook for fingerprint checks if they vote “no” wasn’t working.

This election is about a larger issue – the ability of local voters to control their local destiny.

Sills notes that this is no prediction of victory, and that turnout in an oddball special election is paramount. It’s all about who shows up. I for one would rather live in a world where this sort of thing fails. I hope I have enough company in that regard.

Related Posts:

• Austin rideshare referendum goes down
• Austin Uber referendum update
• Lots of money being spent on the Austin Uber/Lyft ordinance referendum