An article caught my eye today making me wonder how far the ban on sharing is going to go http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/toronto-app-that-matches-drivers-with-parking-spots-violates-bylaws-city-says-1.2481180 Apparently it illegal to let someone use your parking spot when you are not around. I can appreciate that someone wouldn't want their neighbor letting 5 cars park on their lawn and that it might violate a by-law, but is it the fact that they are renting out the space the issue? or would it be just as much a problem if they happened to own 5 cars and parked them on their own lawn

 

I'm pro smaller government and feel that we live in a country that is far to regulated. I understand that some industries need regulation for safety, food service healthcare etc, but should taxis really be regulated? I hear a lot of safety concerns being touted about uber, but numerous taxi drivers have been convicted or accused of assaulting vulnerable female passengers. As an adult should I not be free to get into a car with whoever I want? By the same token, I could get mugged making a transaction on kijiji and a girl could be putting herself in a compromising meeting a stranger from tinder, should those apps be shut down in the name of safety? If uber is an unlicensed taxi service, is kijiji an unlicensed retail store? How far is it going to go, am I allowed to give my friend a ride to the airport? I'm I going to get pulled over and verify how long we've been friends for or disclose if he's going to be paying me for gas? I can see why taxi drivers are upset about uber, but I feel like typewriter manufactures were probably upset about personal computers. Is it the government's job to make sure the taxi industry exists and is profitable?

 

curious to know everyone's thoughts. 

It is an interesting article, and I’m with you, I prefer less government interference than more.

 

I think in the end, people who use these services in the way they are intended are fine, but there will always be those who push the boundaries from two people “sharing” to a commercial venture.

 

And if that starts happening too much, the government will definitely step in.  They will say it is because of safety and a level playing field, and that might be part of it but you would have to wonder if it is also about unclaimed taxable revenue.

Isnt "co-op" endeavours a form of sharing?  Like a downtown condo having a co-op car for residents to use?

 

The thing with Uber is, its good for the consumer but its the taxi lobby that is raising the stink.  Im no expert but just a casual observer and I see a lot of people praising Uber.  Since they operate in a competitive environment, ultimately service to the customer is what they rely on.

 

On the flip side, if the Taxi industry is regulated and Uber is essentially the same thing, shouldnt they fall under the regulation?  The issue for Taxi companies is wanting Uber to go away, not become another competitor.

 

In my own experience being involved in professional wrestling, Manitoba used to regulate our industry under the Boxing Commission (as many provinces and states did for many years).  One of the reasons WWE basically came out and said "wrestling is fake" was to get out from under the commissions, many of which were corrupt.  Manitoba was no difference.  if you werent a friend of the Commission, you were screwed.  You had to put up a bond for every show and if there was a single complaint, your bond could be help up while an investigation was conducted and in a competitive industry, there would always be a "complaint".  Plus, if it took three months for your bond to be returned and you had ten shows in that time, you were putting up ten bonds. 

 

I came in to it when there was no Commission.  And the benefit to the commission was only one or two people running shows because no one else could afford it and no one was else was allowed in without the old timers allowing it.  Wrestlers had to be licensed and sponsored into the business.  Without a COmmission, anyone could hold a show and the industry became "self regulated" which basically meant everyone tried to **** each other over and if one guy had a high standard, three others didnt.  But it was free market.

 

One of the local promotions had a show where a wrestler performed intoxicated and suffered a stinger.  The promoter, being a shameless shill, reported it to all the media for the PR...and it back fired as the government received complaints and launched a study into whether pro wrestling should be back under the commission.  Luckily, a guy who "got" the business won the bid to do the study as other people who applied to do it had old ties to the former Commission.  We managed to beat back the idea of bringing the commission back.  But it was a battle.

 

Look at New York which still wont allow UFC to hold events.  Ridiculous.

 

Regulation can be good.  But also bad.  Hard to say really.

 

But on the first analogy, my buddy bought a house that backs onto a major road.  Many of his neighbors have professional signage anchored to their back fences for advertising.  So my friend figured he'd do the same and make a few bucks.  His neighbor said that a lot of people in the community are upset about it and the Councillor is supposedly going to crack down as its not legal even though its their own property.

 

Remember a few years ago when a property owner erected a sign (I think it was South Pembina) on their property warning of a speed trap ahead?  The city went onto their property and tore the sign down.

 

I got a citation for long grass and when I inquired, the officer said my grass was fine but I had a "few weeds" in my backyard that were too high.  Fine.  I then reported Bridgewater for 4-5 foot high wild grass and weeds and was told during the build process it's the developer's responsibility to tend city land.  Fair enough, but they were ignoring the city by-laws..."not our problem" said the city.  three weeds in my yard = problem.  Entire neighborhood in disarray = talk to the developer.