from Hacker News

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

by jtsnow on 5/20/16, 6:50 PM with 13 comments

• by mikeash on 5/20/16, 8:54 PM

  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.

• by jacalata on 5/20/16, 7:49 PM

  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?

• by Bromskloss on 5/20/16, 8:51 PM

  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?

• by partycoder on 5/20/16, 9:56 PM

  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.

• by wavefunction on 5/20/16, 8:25 PM

  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."

• by grillvogel on 5/20/16, 7:46 PM

  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