Quote:
Originally Posted by longsuffering
The facts don't support your assertion. While City Hall can draft regulations, they can't impose a solution to the insurance problems or GST and other tax issues.
It seems to me that City Hall is scrambling like mad to find a compromise solution that will work.
|
See again, there's a city bylaw that prevents the operation of Uber period. It's plainly written, without a taxi licence you can not operate a for-hire vehicle. I've linked to it in previous posts.
There was absolutely nothing stopping them from proposing a bylaw to allow Uber, and other vehicle for-hire and ride-sharing companies, entry into the market under the circumstances that City Hall wanted. Why do I say this?
BECAUSE EDMONTON DID SO. Edmonton is also in the province of Alberta.
City Hall could have shown they were working to allow Uber to enter the market. They didn't do anything except make it known that Uber was illegal and set up an undercover sting targeting the drivers. Scrambling for a solution? They've had 4 years to come to one. Come on. Uber has forced them to do something, and now they are doing it. They didn't do anything two years ago when Uber first ended their test run, why do you think they would have done something now if not for Uber?
If Calgary was proposing a similar bylaw that Edmonton was, and Uber wanted to cry about the $1000 city vehicle licence like they are with Edmonton's proposal, I can guarantee you that we would be seeing a lot less support for Uber. If people didn't want to get the commercial insurance, or it was simply unavailable to them, then we would be seeing it as an issue with the province. But it doesn't matter, you can have the best commercial insurance and it's still illegal to operate in Calgary because it's illegal under any circumstance. That's entirely on the City, it's asinine to believe otherwise.