Opinons
Thursday, February 18, 2016
The Marquette Tribune
11
Uber and Lyft to be Mitchell Park Domes in danger banned from airport of being forgotten due to funds Jack Hannan From the original horse drawn carriages to the modern yellow cab, taxis have been helping people get where they need to go for over 400 years, according to Business Insider. But the time-tested taxi industry is now facing the most serious threat it has ever encountered: ridesharing services. But Uber’s system has created value both for part-time drivers and for those who use transportation. Despite its launch only a handful of years ago, rideshare companies have already become the go-to transportation service for people around the world. Uber and Lyft are the giants of this young industry. Both companies have been extraordinarily well-received by the general public, as they are cheaper, quicker and more convenient than traditional taxis. However, not everyone is hopping on the bandwagon. The taxi companies and drivers largely being replaced are, not surprisingly, the least welcoming to the new business model. They have been resisting Uber and Lyft since the two companies entered the market via protests, strikes and attempts to block the company with new legislation. For the most part, rideshare companies have been relatively unscathed and continue to dominate over taxis. Recently, new opposition arose. Airports are leading the most recent efforts to regulate Uber. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee’s own Mitchell International Airport is among those developing restrictions on Uber and Lyft for dropping off and picking up passengers on airport premises. Mitchell International Airport spokeswoman Pat Rowe explained that ridesharing services offer clear customer service benefits that the airport doesn’t want to eliminate, but that they should also share in the financial responsibility since they are profiting. Mitchell International Airport is taking cues from other airports across the country. While the individual policies differ slightly, they all involve charging transportation networks per trip and with monthly licensing fees. Similar fees already apply to most taxi services, so they are clearly warranted. While this may help leveling the playing field, Uber and Lyft still have some serious competitive advantages. Some of which have been seen as legally questionable. The success of Uber’s business
model depends largely on its drivers’ status as independent contractors. Since they aren’t salaried employees, the company isn’t required to offer them the accompanying benefits. Additionally employees are responsible for their own business expenses which for Uber drivers include car maintenance and gas. This dramatically reduces the company’s overhead and allows them to charge lower prices than taxis. This has raised some ethical dilemmas. First, taxi drivers are worried about being displaced. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statics there over 250,000 taxi drivers in the U.S. which represents a sizeable group of people whose jobs are being threatened by the rise of ridesharing. While this would surely cause financial hardship for many Americans who depend on their taxi driving jobs to support themselves, I think it is an unavoidable byproduct created by the advancing transportation industry. This wouldn’t be the first time that technological innovations negatively impact labor forces in specific industries, and it won’t be the last. Many jobs that we view as secure today will inevitably become obsolete in the future. It is an unfortunate side effect of progress, but we cannot resist the change. Rather, we must embrace it and adapt. Uber may be eliminating jobs but it is also creating them. However, the new rideshare driving jobs created are notably different than traditional taxi driving jobs. Therein lies the basis of the other major ethical concern. Uber and Lyft employees believe that the company’s classification of their employees as independent contractors is unlawful. Because they receive fewer benefits and are responsible for their own expenses, Uber employees often make significantly less money than taxi drivers, according to the Huffington Post, and this is seen as unfair. However, I believe this perceived unfairness is due to a failure to see the difference in the business models. The whole basis of Uber is to provide consumers with cheaper rides while creating flexible parttime jobs for people who want a second source of income. The company never intended to have fulltime employees. To me, the real unethical decision would be destroying this value to preserve the existing outdated value of taxi services. Jack Hannan is a senior studying Marketing and Finance. He is reachable by email at jack.hannan@marquette.edu
Photo via youtube.com
Uber provides its customers transportation that is cheaper than taxis.
Photo by Maryam Tunio/maryam.tunio@marquette.edu
Mitchell Park Domes have been a Milwaukee landmark for many years, their presence is now in jeopardy.
Caroline Comstock Last week I was forced to cross an item off my Milwaukee bucket list, although I never quite made it there. Although I was able to snag an apple cinnamon empanada from the Saturday farmer’s market, which was very much worth the trip, I never got around to wandering through the three iconic Mitchell Park Domes that are now closed to the public indefinitely. Without seeing them for myself, I cannot begin to understand what this loss means to long-time Milwaukee residents, but I’m not surprised to hear the resulting outrage. Those who just skimmed over the headlines talking about chunks of concrete falling from the ceiling might question why some Milwaukee residents are so aggravated with the Milwaukee County administration, and it seems reasonable that they aren’t interested in a potential lawsuit. However, many are well aware that the structural problems with the Domes have been put on the backburner for the past twenty or so years, while small “patchwork” jobs have taken the place of comprehensive repairs in the meantime. The Domes are susceptible to temperature changes and resulting structural wear. The previous greenhouse structure built in 1889 had to eventually be torn down for similar issues. In 1967, the current Domes opened, which cost roughly $4.5 million. A structural audit of the Domes in 1994 called for 1.4 million in repairs, so the Domes have certainly not been cheap to maintain. Each subsequent year has brought additional costs. But even these totals are small in comparison to the estimated $75 million needed to fully repair or rebuild the Domes given their current status. It doesn’t help that the Domes run at a deficit of about $900,000 a year. Those arguing that the Domes are a revenue source to the city would have a hard time backing that up. But for a city so proud of its park system, you would think there would be more interest. County Executive Chris Abele’s questioned whether “this was what we wanted to do going forward: Replicate the
Domes again,” and doesn’t seem incredibly vested in the cause. Not surprisingly, his reaction has given ammunition to his challenger, Chris Larson. The two will fight for the seat of County Executive in April. Like anything else these days, the issue has been politicized, and rightfully so. Chris Larson argues that under Abele’s leadership, the Milwaukee County Park System (which oversees the domes) has deteriorated due to vested favor in business interests. Whether or not his accusation is sound would require a more thorough analysis of the county budget. But recent developments certainly haven’t helped Abele’s case, like the new Milwaukee Bucks Stadium. The news Bucks stadium will cost Wisconsin taxpayers an estimated $250 million (but a lot more than that with interest). It is to be built on the city’s Park East Corridor and the land was purchased by the Bucks for a steep $1. Yes, $1. Why? That is not entirely clear. Justifications have mentioned job creation and local business interests, but one would think that the Bucks could afford to pay a little bit more. Evidently, the county could use some money. That’s not the only questionable
aspect of Abele’s approach to land development and the park system. As Larson has been sure to point out in his campaign, last year a law was passed giving Abele the ability to privatize and sell land that isn’t technically zoned as park land. Under the new provision, such decisions would not require a public hearing. Instead, only one other official would have to sign off on the agreement for it to go through. Forty three Milwaukee parks are technically unzoned, including the Milwaukee County Zoo, Cathedral Square Park and the General Mitchell International Airport. Could privatization be a good thing for the Domes? It’s hard to say whether or not it would garner the necessary funds, but the issue certainly calls the county’s priorities into question. In the meantime, GoFundMe pages have popped up, working to save the Domes. $75 million won’t be easy to raise. There has never been a better time to start paying attention to local politics. The future of the Domes may very well depend on it. Caroline Comstock is a senior studying Marketing. She is reachable by email at caroline.comstock@marquette.edu
THE BALCONY APARTMENTS 1504 W. KILBOURN AVENUE
GREAT LOCATION! VERY SPACIOUS HEAT APPLIANCES PRIVATE BALCONY
2 BEDROOM- $940 3 BEDROOM- $1545-1650 AVAILABLE JUNE 1 OR JULY 1, 2016 SHOVERS REALTY LLC (414)962-8000